Yet another claim without a statement

[blackshoe]

NT contract, West is declaring, North is on lead with two tricks remaining. As North is about to lead her good ♥J, West lays the ♣A and the ♦A on the table, not saying a word. North calls the director. North's 13th card is the 13th club. Who gets the last trick?

[ddrankin]

North.

[ahydra]

Needs more info. Has North previously shown out of diamonds, or does declarer know there are no outstanding diamonds, etc? If not, were the cards laid down together, or deliberately in one particular order (as if to indicate "I'm playing this card to this trick, and the other card to the next trick")?

 

If we can't save declarer by anything like this, then we rule that declarer discards the wrong Ace (L70D1, L70E1) and North gets both tricks.

 

ahydra

[sanst]

Declarer thinks that N has to lead either a diamond or a club and obviously has forgotten about the jack of hearts. So, there is no reason to assume that W knows what other card N still has, even if she had previously shown out of diamonds. And the order in which the cards are laid down doesn't carry much weight with me, not without a statement. Both tricks to N.

Why, o why find so many players it too difficult to claim properly?

[Zelandakh]

Declarer thinks that N has to lead either a diamond or a club and obviously has forgotten about the jack of hearts. So, There is no reason to assume that W knows what other card N still has, even if she had previously shown out of diamonds.

There may very well be grounds to think Declarer thought North held 2 clubs rather than a heart and a club. I assume that had Declarer held ♣A + ♦2 and made the same claim (thinking the diamond good) you would award 1 trick rather then enforcing the discard of the ♣A on the heart.

[blackshoe]

If we can't save declarer by anything like this, then we rule that declarer discards the wrong Ace (L70D1, L70E1) and North gets both tricks.

It's not our job to save declarer, it's our job to rule as equitably as possible to both sides, giving the benefit of the doubt to, in this case, the defense.

 

It is unclear what declarer may have known about the the other suits. Declarer did lay both aces down simultaneously.

[aguahombre]

Going with ahydra here. Equity, with doubt going to the NOS, is what the TD is supposed to apply. If the guy with the heart Jack cannot have a Diamond, I won't impose an irrational Club pitch upon Declarer. If North might have a Diamond, then he gets both tricks.

 

BTW: If Declarer did put the Club Ace on the table before the Diamond Ace, it might be evidence that he thought North had two clubs.

[nige1]

Needs more info. Has North previously shown out of diamonds, or does declarer know there are no outstanding diamonds, etc? If not, were the cards laid down together, or deliberately in one particular order (as if to indicate "I'm playing this card to this trick, and the other card to the next trick")?If we can't save declarer by anything like this, then we rule that declarer discards the wrong Ace (L70D1, L70E1) and North gets both tricks.

It's worrying that different directors so often rule differently in such simple cases with undisputed facts. If Ahydra is right in law, then the director should ask declarer what he knew about LHO's hand. If West claims he knew North's last card, then the director must assess the evidence and decide whether to believe him. Whereas a declarer who admits he didn't know, is automatically disadvantaged. Again, such rulings allow rationalisers to be "saved" and rewarded. They frustrate and deter honest players.

 

IMO, laws that unnecessarily rely on mind-reading should be simplified.

[billw55]

Since declarer has already forgotten that north can cash a winner, I will need a pretty compelling reason to convince me he knows for certain what north's other card is. I would need to know what this alleged reason is in order to judge it. With no reason offered, two tricks to north.

[ahydra]

It's not our job to save declarer, it's our job to rule as equitably as possible to both sides, giving the benefit of the doubt to, in this case, the defense.

 

Poor choice of words on my part I guess, sorry. What I mean is, I would ask declarer and/or review the play so far in an attempt to resolve any doubt about which Ace declarer would keep. If declarer can demonstrate that she knew North was out of diamonds, then she gets one trick, otherwise not. (Of course, if so, declarer could make my life easier by stating this in her claim statement, and I would remind her of this fact.)

 

It is unclear what declarer may have known about the the other suits. Declarer did lay both aces down simultaneously.

 

Then North gets both tricks.

 

ahydra

[aguahombre]

It is unclear what declarer may have known about the the other suits.

It is only unclear in the OP. The TD can find out via the play of the hand up to this point. Only if it remains unclear should North get both tricks per the "benefit of the doubt" clause.

[blackshoe]

It is only unclear in the OP. The TD can find out via the play of the hand up to this point. Only if it remains unclear should North get both tricks per the "benefit of the doubt" clause.

I have never seen a director go through the entire play of the hand in a claim case, much less decide, after he has done so, that he knows what declarer knew at the time of the claim.

 

In law, if declarer knows that her LHO has a club to lead, her line of play statement should reflect that knowledge. In this case, there was no such reflection.

 

The table director gave declarer the club trick. Incorrectly, IMO.

[ggwhiz]

Any resolving of the issue of what declarer knew about the remaining card smacks of allowing a modification of the claim after the fact with at blind 50% chance of guessing right and time to come out of their coma.

 

2 tricks to north and maybe declarer will come around to proper claiming procedure.... eventually but I would always rule so in this case. If they are too good a player to get the discard wrong, how can they not know this basic requirement to state a line of play?

[Trinidad]

I have never seen a director go through the entire play of the hand in a claim case, much less decide, after he has done so, that he knows what declarer knew at the time of the claim.

I am very sorry, but sometimes (many times actually) a TD simply has to go through the play to rule on a claim.

 

When I saw your opening post, I expected that it would be a trick question since clearly there is too little information. I expected a follow up coming, something like: "But what if I told you that, previously in the play, declarer had run off 6 diamonds with everyone discarding?" or "But what if I told you that North had previously discarded on the play of the hearts (i.e revoked)?". To me it is rather obvious that the TD decision on many claims depends on the play to the previous tricks.

 

I am undecided on what I think of the idea that an experienced TD claims that he has never seen a TD go through the play in a claim case: I am torn between Hitchcock and Monty Python.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I just asked the OP to my wife (who also is a TD). She needed 10 words only:

 

I: "How many tricks does declarer get?"

She: "Probably none"

I: "Why can't you be certain?"

She: "Because I don't know how the play went."

 

I think she summed it up pretty well.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I reported what I was told after the event. As for the how the play went business, think whatever you want.

[axman]

Any resolving of the issue of what declarer knew about the remaining card smacks of allowing a modification of the claim after the fact with at blind 50% chance of guessing right and time to come out of their coma.

 

2 tricks to north and maybe declarer will come around to proper claiming procedure.... eventually but I would always rule so in this case. If they are too good a player to get the discard wrong, how can they not know this basic requirement to state a line of play?

 

I am inclined to believe that considering previous play [beyond what was clarified] to be inappropriate. It may make us feel good. But it may contain irregularities like revokes which make previous play possibly 'unreliable'**; and since possibly can disrupt sometimes, it must disrupt every time. And that is sufficient to not consider unclaimed previous play.

 

**just imagine a 'proven finesse' after a player revokes.

[barmar]

It's rare that you need to go through the entire play to adjudicate a claim. But the claim law says that the clarification can't include playing one opponent for a card unless his partner has shown out in the suit, so you need to find out enough about the preceding play to knkow if this happened. Usually it's sufficient for the claimant to explain something like "West showed out in clubs 2 tricks ago, so of course I'll finesse East for the ♣Q."

[pran]

It's rare that you need to go through the entire play to adjudicate a claim. But the claim law says that the clarification can't include playing one opponent for a card unless his partner has shown out in the suit, so you need to find out enough about the preceding play to knkow if this happened. Usually it's sufficient for the claimant to explain something like "West showed out in clubs 2 tricks ago, so of course I'll finesse East for the ♣Q."

Correct.

TD should never need to inspect the entire play other than for the purpose of verifying the claimer's statement in case of a dispute.

Unless the claimer states (or implies) with the claim that (s)he "knows", the claim shall be adjudicated on an assumption that (s)he doesn't.

[aguahombre]

Interesting. I should establish the facts, but not too much.

[pran]

Interesting. I should establish the facts, but not too much.

It is none of the Director's business to (re-)play the board for the benefit of the claimer. His duty is to try the claim on the statement (if any) given and the cards remaining to be played at the time of the claim.

 

Any essential information from past play must be included with the statement or considered "forgotten".

[Trinidad]

Any essential information from past play must be included with the statement or considered "forgotten".

This is often the case, but certainly not always.

 

To show an example where this is not true. Say that in this case declarer starts with a solid diamond suit that he runs first, with everyone discarding. He crosses to dummy in trick 10 and his last 3 cards are:

 

♦A

♣AQ

 

*Thinking* (wrongly) that LHO doesn't have any cards left in the majors, he leads a club from dummy and finesses the queen, losing to LHO's king. He now shows his remaining ♦A♣A and claims. Much to his surprise LHO leads the ♥J.

 

In this case declarer didn't make any claim statement. But whatever claim statement declarer could possibly make, it will never include: "You are out of diamonds.", because it is irrelevant information in a claim statement based on the idea that LHO is out of hearts and spades.

 

The fact that declarer doesn't mention the discards on the diamond suit doesn't mean that he has "forgotten". It means that he (correctly) thought it was irrelevant information for the claim that he did make.

 

It's a TD's job to gather evidence and weight it. In the example that I gave, a TD would consider it unlikely that declarer would ever hold on to his ♦A. In other cases, it would be entirely possible that he would.

 

Together with the statements by the players, the previous play is an obvious source of evidence.

 

Rik

[pran]

It is none of the Director's business to (re-)play the board for the benefit of the claimer. His duty is to try the claim on the statement (if any) given and the cards remaining to be played at the time of the claim.

 

Any essential information from past play must be included with the statement or considered "forgotten".

 

 

This is often the case, but certainly not always.

 

To show an example where this is not true. Say that in this case declarer starts with a solid diamond suit that he runs first, with everyone discarding. He crosses to dummy in trick 10 and his last 3 cards are:

 

♦A

♣AQ

 

*Thinking* (wrongly) that LHO doesn't have any cards left in the majors, he leads a club from dummy and finesses the queen, losing to LHO's king. He now shows his remaining ♦A♣A and claims. Much to his surprise LHO leads the ♥J.

 

In this case declarer didn't make any claim statement. But whatever claim statement declarer could possibly make, it will never include: "You are out of diamonds.", because it is irrelevant information in a claim statement based on the idea that LHO is out of hearts and spades.

 

The fact that declarer doesn't mention the discards on the diamond suit doesn't mean that he has "forgotten". It means that he (correctly) thought it was irrelevant information for the claim that he did make.

 

It's a TD's job to gather evidence and weight it. In the example that I gave, a TD would consider it unlikely that declarer would ever hold on to his ♦A. In other cases, it would be entirely possible that he would.

 

Together with the statements by the players, the previous play is an obvious source of evidence.

 

Rik

 

I intentionally wrote with the statement, not in the statement.

 

Given the situation I would accept the addition of his knowledge that his ♦A was the only remaining Diamond to the claim.

 

But I would certainly wonder why in his process of running the solid Diamond suit he did not also cash his ♦A before crossing to dummy in trick 11?

[Trinidad]

I intentionally wrote with the statement, not in the statement.

 

Given the situation I would accept the addition of his knowledge that his ♦A was the only remaining Diamond to the claim.

But, in principle, once the claim has been made and turned out to be incorrect, declarer cannot add: "He is out of diamonds." to his claim statement. So, many claimers will acknowledge that the claim is incorrect and leave the rest to the TD. They say nothing more, unless they are asked, and wait for the verdict from the TD. These are the TD's "nice customers".

 

The TD has to do the sorting out and gathering of the evidence. He needs to ask the questions and he needs to investigate. The players are supposed to be quiet.

 

I don't see why the loud mouth claimer who yells a couple of things, most of them nonsense, but one of them: "He doesn't have diamonds" would be awarded an advantage over the player who trusts that the TD will do his job.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

it is worse than that Rik because knowing that the TD will accept such an addition, only the "nice" defenders will give them the chance. The others will show both of their cards and now Declarer has no way of showing that they knew what the second card was. So now being "nice" is a disadvantage for both pairs. This is precisely the thing that Nige is often complaining about and it would indeed be nice if the laws provided the same advantages for "nice" players as for those that push for every small edge that the rules allow (and sometimes a little bit more).