Jim's diamond claim

[VixTD]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk3hkqj642dak74c6&w=sqt72h9dqjcaqjt74&n=sa964ha83dt95ck83&e=sj85ht75d8632c952]399|300[/hv]

This hand came up in a teams game at the club some weeks ago. I don't recall the auction, but Jim opened 1♥, I overcalled 2♣, North doubled and Jim ended up in 4♥ (without mentioning diamonds).

 

I led ♦Q, Jim won, drew trumps, led towards the ♣K (ace played), discarded a diamond on ♣K and claimed eleven tricks, saying "I'll give you a diamond at the end".

 

I refused the diamond trick, as even though there is a legal play that loses a trick, I thought it very unlikely that he would have lost it had he played it out. I wouldn't have expected a director to award me a trick if it came to a ruling.

 

Should I have done, and would it make any difference if Jim had omitted the phrase "at the end"?

[gordontd]

would it make any difference if Jim had omitted the phrase "at the end"?

I think that would make all the difference. His stated line ensures that you could not have won a diamond trick. Without that qualifier, it would be consistent with the claim for him to play a low one next. It's not even that rare for players to do that - give up a trick early that they think they have to lose.

[Cyberyeti]

I think that would make all the difference. His stated line ensures that you could not have won a diamond trick. Without that qualifier, it would be consistent with the claim for him to play a low one next. It's not even that rare for players to do that - give up a trick early that they think they have to lose.

 

While I think the law should support this, I don't think it does in this case. Giving up a diamond at the end implies he's cashing his trumps, it is careless but no more than that to pitch a diamond from dummy as he runs the trumps, so if he has ♦8 in his hand he definitely gets the extra one, but without it you could rule against him.

 

I don't like the claim laws as they currently are, I think they discourage claiming and slow down play. I think you shouldn't be required to say "at the end" here and I don't think there should be any question of ever leading a low one.

[barmar]

Would it even be careless? Is there a possible triple squeeze where he needs to hold on to the black cards in dummy, with the ♦7 in hand as the threat?

[axman]

While I think the law should support this, I don't think it does in this case. Giving up a diamond at the end implies he's cashing his trumps, it is careless but no more than that to pitch a diamond from dummy as he runs the trumps, so if he has ♦8 in his hand he definitely gets the extra one, but without it you could rule against him.

 

 

Paying attention to what was said: Is there a way to lose a D? ....at the end? yes- discard Ds on hearts. This necessarily is what was claimed.

 

To demonstrate the power of the words 'not discarding diamonds' consider the difficulty in losing a diamond by legal means.

 

I recollect a similar instance (that after reconsideration) I got wrong as a playing director. With half the tricks left I conceded two tricks from dummy's KJ<x> where x must be pitched. LHO piped up accepting only one of them since he held AQT. I ruled that I would consider his position. I fell into Gordon's entanglement and could not visualize any sane way to not play low under the ace nor not cover an honor; after an hour notified LHO his position was accepted. Some years later I realized that it had not occurred to me to investigate if there was a possibility of being locked in dummy at the end.

[blackshoe]

When you claim, state the order in which your cards will be played. That's the only way to be certain to avoid ambiguity in the claim.

[nige1]

The rules should stipulate that declarer claims by facing his hand, stating a number of tricks, and playing on. Defenders are free to play on until satisfied. Simple. Easy to understand. Fair. Encourages claims. Speeds up the game. Avoids communication problems. Results in fewer contentious rulings.:)

[blackshoe]

Interesting idea. Perhaps we'll see it in 2057. :D

[lamford]

I agree with gordontd that playing a low diamond next has been ruled out. But normal play is to cash the second diamond early and to then play the spade-diamond squeeze on West which needs him to have HHxxx or QJTx in spades. However, I suspect this particularly declarer would never think of that, and may well throw useless diamonds on the hearts (after all West is marked with QJx(x) from the lead is he not). One more trick "at the end" to a defender as it is quite easy to achieve this.

[ahydra]

I'm happy to award a trick to the ♦8 since declarer could throw dummy's diamond under a trump (he doesn't seem to care about the ♦10, and he's implied he's playing trumps first).

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

I'm happy to award a trick to the ♦8 since declarer could throw dummy's diamond under a trump (he doesn't seem to care about the ♦10, and he's implied he's playing trumps first).

 

ahydra

Good point and one that I had missed in my haste to respond.

[lamford]

I wouldn't have expected a director to award me a trick if it came to a ruling.

I would have expected a director, stopping to analyse, to award me a trick.

[pescetom]

I led ♦Q, Jim won, drew trumps, led towards the ♣K (ace played), discarded a diamond on ♣K and claimed eleven tricks, saying "I'll give you a diamond at the end".

 

Surely that statement of claim is not acceptable under the current laws?

 

Law 68C:

"A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played. The player making the claim or concession faces his hand."