They are all mine - drawing trump

[Phil]

Declarer is in 7S with a trump suit of

 

AJT74

 

K632

 

The opening lead is made (non trump) and won in hand. There are no other possible losers.

 

In a moment of excitement declarer faces her hand and claims 13 "after drawing trump".

 

Are there any layouts of the trump suit where you would allow this claim?

 

ACBL land

[Stephen Tu]

I'm inclined to allow the claim if there is singleton Q.

[barmar]

I've moved this thread to the Laws & Rulings forum. There's nothing about it that's specific to offline (versus online) bridge, and it's a question about rulings (I also considered "Simple Rulings").

 

I would allow it if the queen is singleton or doubleton. Since declarer hasn't stated that he's taking any finesses, it suggest that he's playing trumps from the top and expects the queen to drop.

 

I'll bet someone will say that his claim suggests that he doesn't even realize he's missing the queen, so that playing a middle honor on the first trump trick would be "careless, but not irrational". I'm not going to go that far.

[gszes]

sigh I WISH it was always a moment of excitement I have seen some really good players purposely fail to follow suit (as declarer) to find where missing cards are etc. The ONLY time I would allow this claim would be if the Queen is singleton no matter what level the player is since the claim might have been made solely for the purpose of eliciting a reaction from the queen holding opp. I can see where others might consider this opinion a bit draconian.

[sfi]

I would allow it if the queen is singleton or doubleton. Since declarer hasn't stated that he's taking any finesses, it suggest that he's playing trumps from the top and expects the queen to drop.

 

I'll bet someone will say that his claim suggests that he doesn't even realize he's missing the queen, so that playing a middle honor on the first trump trick would be "careless, but not irrational". I'm not going to go that far.

 

The issue with allowing the claim if the queen is doubleton is not that declarer does not realise the queen is missing, but that declarer does realise it.

 

Assume that declarer "knows" trumps are breaking. Declarer plays a top honour and leads to the other one. At the point where the defence has played three trumps, but hasn't played the queen, declarer has a big clue that something has gone wrong. Now what will happen?

 

This is why I agree with Stephen and would not allow the claim when trumps break 2-2. You might argue that playing the ace first is not logical (and I agree), but declarer clearly is not going to cater for four trumps in West given the statement. So there is no indication which honour will be cashed first.

[pran]

I don't think that I would allow the claim if the Queen is doubleton.

 

He may first play the Ace or King that sits after the Queen, and then he will suddenly discover that he has a choice when the Queen doesn't show up immediately in the next trick.

I shall rule that he makes the unfortunate choice.

[Cyberyeti]

I've moved this thread to the Laws & Rulings forum. There's nothing about it that's specific to offline (versus online) bridge, and it's a question about rulings (I also considered "Simple Rulings").

 

I would allow it if the queen is singleton or doubleton. Since declarer hasn't stated that he's taking any finesses, it suggest that he's playing trumps from the top and expects the queen to drop.

 

I'll bet someone will say that his claim suggests that he doesn't even realize he's missing the queen, so that playing a middle honor on the first trump trick would be "careless, but not irrational". I'm not going to go that far.

 

I'm not sure I'd even give him a doubleton Q the way the laws are, it surely could be careless but not irrational to finesse either way on the second round and no line of play has been stated other than "drawing trumps".

[barmar]

So you're all saying that we rule as if he takes the anti-percentage finesse, because it's not irrational ("9 never" is just a guideline, not a law of the universe)? Even though he never mentioned anything about finessing.

[axman]

I'm not sure I'd even give him a doubleton Q the way the laws are, it surely could be careless but not irrational to finesse either way on the second round and no line of play has been stated other than "drawing trumps".

Given the clarification perhaps the issue concerns a case where claimer could not help to not lose to a singleton Q (3-1 break). It seems to me that such a case would arise if the lead was in a particular hand with no entry to the other hand outside of the suit of concern, ANd the stiff Q is underneath such holding.

[pran]

So you're all saying that we rule as if he takes the anti-percentage finesse, because it's not irrational ("9 never" is just a guideline, not a law of the universe)? Even though he never mentioned anything about finessing.

Mathematically the law "9 never" is relevant only if the player must choose before leading to the first trick in the suit.

 

In the normal case he will have seen three of the outstanding 4 cards at the time he must make his choice, and absent other information the advantage for the drop is now typically 52% against 48%. This difference is too small to be significant.

 

(What is often forgotten is that probabilities change during the play as more and more alternatives are eliminated from the calculation.)

[blackshoe]

Law 70D1: The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal²¹ line of play that would be less successful.

 

Law 70E: 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal²¹ line of play.

2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).

 

21 For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

I would hear declarer's "line of play" statement. Should I ask her how she proposes to draw trump, before she sees the defenders' hands? If I do that, should I treat what she says as an unstated line of play and not accept it? If I'm going to do the latter, and I should, the former is a waste of time. So I would require all four hands to be faced. Now ...

 

Law 70A: In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows.

If there is no doubt in my mind that declarer would not lose a trump trick, I would rule the claim valid. If there is any doubt at all I would rule the claim invalid, and they will score it as down one.

 

I have some doubt even if the queen is singleton. Might declarer lead low from hand and finesse the jack at trick two? Or go to dummy in another suit and finesse the other way? Why not? It would be inferior, it would be careless, but those possibilities are covered in the law.

 

Bottom line: follow

Law 68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defense 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.

Declarer did not state "the order in which the cards will be played". Not going to give her a PP in MPs or IMPs or whatever, but I will suggest that she follow this law in future.

[steve2005]

I don't think that I would allow the claim if the Queen is doubleton.

 

He may first play the Ace or King that sits after the Queen, and then he will suddenly discover that he has a choice when the Queen doesn't show up immediately in the next trick.

I shall rule that he makes the unfortunate choice.

What choice your are not allowed to finesse if not stated in claim? They are loosing Q in the case Qxx.

According to original poster all their other cards are good, so -1 if Qxx. Q or Qx make.

[Cyberyeti]

So you're all saying that we rule as if he takes the anti-percentage finesse, because it's not irrational ("9 never" is just a guideline, not a law of the universe)? Even though he never mentioned anything about finessing.

 

We don't know what was in his mind, he may have thought he had 10 (or 11) spades between the two hands, at which point he sees more low cards than he expected and has a decision to make he didn't think he had when he claimed. He might think he had the Q, if he did, I would still allow a singleton Q as people normally play to/from the top first time.

[pran]

What choice your are not allowed to finesse if not stated in claim? They are loosing Q in the case Qxx.

According to original poster all their other cards are good, so -1 if Qxx. Q or Qx make.

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal21 line of play.

This includes ruling that the claimer takes a finesse when this is unsuccessful and does no take the finesse when that would be succdessful.

[pran]

I would hear declarer's "line of play" statement. Should I ask her how she proposes to draw trump, before she sees the defenders' hands? If I do that, should I treat what she says as an unstated line of play and not accept it? If I'm going to do the latter, and I should, the former is a waste of time. So I would require all four hands to be faced. [...]

The claimer should not be given the opportunity to elaborate the claim after (effectively) being alerted that the original claim statement was insufficient. Any such addition to the original statement is part of an unstated line of play.

[blackshoe]

The claimer should not be given the opportunity to elaborate the claim after (effectively) being alerted that the original claim statement was insufficient. Any such addition to the original statement is part of an unstated line of play.

Which is why I said one shouldn't accept it, even if one asked for it. And why, logically, one shouldn't ask for it in the first place.

[FelicityR]

Singleton Q only. Declarer has got given any further information how she is going to draw trumps. There are two possible ways to finesse together with a 2-2 drop. Any director worth his salt should disallow the claim if the Q isn't singleton. Missing an honour with four cards outstanding is not claimable territory as far as I'm concerned. Other commentators may see differently.

[blackshoe]

I think the director should disallow the claim even if the Q is singleton. After all, declarer didn't rule out the possibility she might finesse the wrong way.

[Phil]

I think the director should disallow the claim even if the Q is singleton. After all, declarer didn't rule out the possibility she might finesse the wrong way.

 

This, to me, is where we get into carelessness by declarer, although it seems more careless to finesse into LHO instead of East without cashing the Ace, because of the spots and the ability to pick up 4-0.

[Phil]

By the way, this was a ruling I had 8 years ago. Trumps were 22.

 

I ruled -1.

[dsLawsd]

I agree with Phil down 1. This might make a great situation to send

to Ruling the Game at the ACBL Bulletin. A tough lesson to learn.

[weejonnie]

I am inclined to allow the claim if trumps are 2-2 or Q opposite XXX, under the argument that "Drawing Trumps" does mean playing trumps from the top. Otherwise, if trumps are 3-1 or 4-0 I rule that declarer first cashes the top trump over the Queen.

[FelicityR]

By the way, this was a ruling I had 8 years ago. Trumps were 22.

 

I ruled -1.

 

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

[sfi]

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

 

My small sample of good players who aren't directors arrived at the unanimous conclusion that they would have been unhappy at themselves for the poor claim rather than at the ruling.

[Tramticket]

The EBU gives guidance (written by Gordon Rainsford), in the L&E Publications section of their website, on adjudicating claims: http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/adjudicating-claims.pdf. Pages 2&3 seem to deal with this situation.

 

I would take this to mean that the EBUs guidance is that a claim will fail if a defender holds QX. I think that it would be normal to cash one honour first before finessing or playing for the drop, so a claim would succeed if a defender holds a singleton Q.