Claim in a league match

[VixTD]

In a county league match scored by IMPs converted to VPs, this happened on Wednesday:

[hv=pc=n&s=saq9876hd8652ckqt&w=sk43hak72dq94cj97&n=st5hqjt864dk3ca64&e=sj2h953dajt7c8532&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sp2hp2sp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

East led ♦A and another. North led ♥Q to West's king and ruffed the diamond return. After ♥J to the ace, West led a club which North won with the ace. North cashed ♥10 and then led ♠10, J, Q, K. With West on lead, North claimed the rest of the tricks, saying that dummy's two clubs and two spades were winners.

 

West then said he had another trump. How do you rule?

[ahydra]

In a county league match scored by IMPs converted to VPs, this happened on Wednesday:

[hv=pc=n&s=saq9876hd8652ckqt&w=sk43hak72dq94cj97&n=st5hqjt864dk3ca64&e=sj2h953dajt7c8532&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sp2hp2sp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

East led ♦A and another. North led ♥Q to West's king and ruffed the diamond return. After ♥J to the ace, West led a club which North won with the ace. North cashed ♥10 and then led ♠10, J, Q, K. With West on lead, North claimed the rest of the tricks, saying that dummy's two clubs and two spades were winners.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9hd8ckq&w=s43h7dcj9&n=s5h86dc64&e=s2hdjc853&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sp2hp2sp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

(West on lead. Declarer needs all the remaining tricks.)

 

West then said he had another trump. How do you rule?

 

Wow, editing hv= lines to record the play is painful :). But I hope I got it right above.

 

My ruling is: no tricks to the defence. Declarer gets away with it as there's no normal line of play where the H7 scores. For example, if West leads a black suit, North takes the 4 winners as per the claim statement (ruffing the last one perforce with the six), then ends up leading the H8 felling the seven on the last trick. I think it would be unreasonable to expect declarer to ruff his own winner high. But I would warn him that he should claim more carefully - had West had, say, another diamond and only one club, he would have lost another trick as he didn't mention the outstanding trump.

 

I had a similar ruling myself the other day and again ruled that because the defender had to follow suit there was no normal (as per the footnote to L70C3) line where the trump scored.

 

ahydra

[lamford]

I think it would be unreasonable to expect declarer to ruff his own winner high.

It is clear that the two-card ending will be reached. One argument goes: If North thinks that there is no trump outstanding, then it does not matter which he ruffs with, and so either card is "normal" and the defence gets a trick. The other argument is that it can never gain to ruff high and that do so is not normal. I would expect to get different rulings from different TDs here. I think the latter is correct to rule on the claim as equitably as possible.

[barmar]

It is clear that the two-card ending will be reached. One argument goes: If North thinks that there is no trump outstanding, then it does not matter which he ruffs with, and so either card is "normal" and the defence gets a trick. The other argument is that it can never gain to ruff high and that do so is not normal. I would expect to get different rulings from different TDs here. I think the latter is correct to rule on the claim as equitably as possible.

I'll bet SB would argue that it's careless to ruff high, but not irrational, if he were East/West.

[lamford]

I'll bet SB would argue that it's careless to ruff high, but not irrational, if he were East/West.

I asked him and, if he was a defender, he would have claimed two tricks for the defence, cashing one high club, then playing the ace of spades and ruffing a spade high, and exiting with a small trump, jettisoning the other high club, so that West could win the last trick with the jack of clubs. He thought that was normal but just extremely careless.

[gordontd]

It is clear that the two-card ending will be reached. One argument goes: If North thinks that there is no trump outstanding, then it does not matter which he ruffs with, and so either card is "normal" and the defence gets a trick. The other argument is that it can never gain to ruff high and that do so is not normal. I would expect to get different rulings from different TDs here. I think the latter is correct to rule on the claim as equitably as possible.

I think this is an interesting discussion. When I was first asked about this ruling I initially mistakenly thought North was in hand, or could get to hand, and with 8 6 of trumps I thought it was probably no worse than careless for him to lead the 6 before the 8. However, when I realised that the lead was always going to come from the other hand I thought it would be worse than careless for him to ruff high first with that holding.

 

I know this distinction is not logical, but it's the way I observe players acting: with two or more small trumps that a player "knows" are good, they do quite often play the low one first. On the other hand, I think it would be quite unusual ("not normal") to ruff high first.

 

I'd be interested to hear if others' observations differ from mine.

[blackshoe]

I'd be interested to hear if others' observations differ from mine.

Nope. B-)

[weejonnie]

My reading of law 70C is

 

3. A trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play (including careless or inferior)

 

Well the action by North (ruffing with the 8 instead of the 6 is (to North) neither careless nor inferior as, to North, both cards are equal) - an abnormal play would be to ruff the second boss spade with a trump, if there was a loser.

[VixTD]

Sorry, I had meant to include the claim position; I didn't mean to leave that work to someone else.

 

My only concern was the one that Gordon has mentioned. The White Book guidance is that a player cashing a suit with only small cards might not play them from the top down, and if that is so, I cannot see how a player ruffing a loser with only small trumps (when they think there are none outstanding) might not ruff high.

 

It may be that players just don't do that in practice, but I would be happier if we had consistent guidelines on this.

[Cyberyeti]

I think this is an interesting discussion. When I was first asked about this ruling I initially mistakenly thought North was in hand, or could get to hand, and with 8 6 of trumps I thought it was probably no worse than careless for him to lead the 6 before the 8. However, when I realised that the lead was always going to come from the other hand I thought it would be worse than careless for him to ruff high first with that holding.

 

I know this distinction is not logical, but it's the way I observe players acting: with two or more small trumps that a player "knows" are good, they do quite often play the low one first. On the other hand, I think it would be quite unusual ("not normal") to ruff high first.

 

I'd be interested to hear if others' observations differ from mine.

 

Yes, everybody I know with 86 of trumps left leads the 8 first, only playing the lowest when all cards are in sequence

[Vampyr]

I know this distinction is not logical, but it's the way I observe players acting: with two or more small trumps that a player "knows" are good, they do quite often play the low one first. On the other hand, I think it would be quite unusual ("not normal") to ruff high first.

 

I'd be interested to hear if others' observations differ from mine.

 

Mine do. I do not believe I have ever played the low trump first; also these claim threads have caused me to carefully cultivate the habit of always playing suits from the top, hoping that partners can testify that I do this unfailingly! However, though I think that my opponents will play the high card first I will observe them.

[billw55]

Mine do. I do not believe I have ever played the low trump first; also these claim threads have caused me to carefully cultivate the habit of always playing suits from the top, hoping that partners can testify that I do this unfailingly! However, though I think that my opponents will play the high card first I will observe them.

OK, but this isn't exactly about playing from the top. It is about ruffing from the top, or bottom (in the two card ending per lamford). There is written guidance that suits are assumed played from the top; is there similar written guidance that assumes ruffing from the bottom? Or is that an unwritten assumption, or not assumed at all?

[VixTD]

OK, but this isn't exactly about playing from the top. It is about ruffing from the top, or bottom (in the two card ending per lamford). There is written guidance that suits are assumed played from the top; is there similar written guidance that assumes ruffing from the bottom? Or is that an unwritten assumption, or not assumed at all?

But the advice we have in England does not say that suits are assumed to be played from the top.

[WB8.70.5] Top down?

A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.

Example: Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six.

I would much prefer it if the rules stated that suits are always cashed from the top down, and tricks always ruffed from the bottom, or that they are played in the least favourable order for the claimer. Under the current advice the TD is told that at some suit-length, or some value of highest card, or some size of the gap between the cards, bottom-up ceases to be irrational. No-one knows where to draw the lines, and each TD will draw them in different places.

 

Mine do. I do not believe I have ever played the low trump first; also these claim threads have caused me to carefully cultivate the habit of always playing suits from the top, hoping that partners can testify that I do this unfailingly! However, though I think that my opponents will play the high card first I will observe them.

This won't help you, because the TD will base their judgement on what "players" do, not on what you would do.

[billw55]

I would much prefer it if the rules stated that suits are always cashed from the top down, and tricks always ruffed from the bottom, or that they are played in the least favourable order for the claimer.

That would be my preference. Without the "u", anyway http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

 

Also agree that any consistent guidance would probably be better than case by case judgment.

 

 

[Trinidad]

There is an NBB guideline for Dutch TDs: When a claim is disputed, cards are cashed from the top and discarded from the bottom. (And a ruff is a discard.)

 

Rik

[jallerton]

I think this is an interesting discussion. When I was first asked about this ruling I initially mistakenly thought North was in hand, or could get to hand, and with 8 6 of trumps I thought it was probably no worse than careless for him to lead the 6 before the 8. However, when I realised that the lead was always going to come from the other hand I thought it would be worse than careless for him to ruff high first with that holding.

 

I know this distinction is not logical, but it's the way I observe players acting: with two or more small trumps that a player "knows" are good, they do quite often play the low one first. On the other hand, I think it would be quite unusual ("not normal") to ruff high first.

 

I'd be interested to hear if others' observations differ from mine.

 

My observations are different than this. Players fall into two categories which I shall call "safe players" and "flashy players".

 

"Safe players" will play their highest card when leading and their lowest card when ruffing or discarding.

 

"Flashy players", if they believe that two cards are equals, will often choose to show off by leading the lower card or discarding/ruffing with the higher card. The flashy player is equally likely to take each of these actions, as both have the same element of showing off.

 

There are a lot more "safe players" than "flashy players" around. The NBB must consider the difference sufficiently high that it is abnormal to behave like a "flashy player".

[gordontd]

My observations are different than this. Players fall into two categories which I shall call "safe players" and "flashy players".

 

"Safe players" will play their highest card when leading and their lowest card when ruffing or discarding.

 

"Flashy players", if they believe that two cards are equals, will often choose to show off by leading the lower card or discarding/ruffing with the higher card. The flashy player is equally likely to take each of these actions, as both have the same element of showing off.

 

There are a lot more "safe players" than "flashy players" around. The NBB must consider the difference sufficiently high that it is abnormal to behave like a "flashy player".

This does strike a chord to me, but how do you think it should translate in practice when making rulings? Do we determine whether a player is "flashy" or "safe"? If so, on what basis? Or do we consider that it's always a doubtful point whether they are "flashy" or "safe" and always rule on the basis that they might be "flashy"?

[jallerton]

This does strike a chord to me, but how do you think it should translate in practice when making rulings? Do we determine whether a player is "flashy" or "safe"? If so, on what basis? Or do we consider that it's always a doubtful point whether they are "flashy" or "safe" and always rule on the basis that they might be "flashy"?

 

The footnote to Laws 70/71 refers to the class of player involved. So in theory if the TD knew the player well enough, he would be able to categorise the player as "flashy" or "safe". In practice, the TD will rarely have enough information to make such a determination. Therefore I think that it would be eminently sensible for the RA to provide guidance one way or the other (e.g. there could be a statement on this matter in the EBU White Book.). In my opinion, it would be reasonable to advise that this is a doubtful point, but it would be equally reasonable to advise (as the NBB has done)that the "safe" play is the only normal one.