All mine yet again

[pescetom]

A contested claim recently discussed in Italy, for your opinions and insights.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdkt9ct6&w=s9hda852c&n=sh965dck9&e=sjhtdj6c7]399|300[/hv]

 

North lays down his hand and claims "I cash the king of trumps (clubs) and then they are all mine".

East calls the Director and argues that his ♥T is a winner, after which he can cash ♠J and♦A.

The Director asks North to repeat his claim word for word, which he does.

 

How would you proceed as Director?

Would it make a difference if North was an expert rather than just a decent club player?

Would it make a difference if there was ♣KT in North and ♣96 in South?

[FelicityR]

North should have stated the line of play (as we all know). In my eyes, it is wrong to distinguish between an expert player and a decent club player here as the play to make all the tricks is reasonably straightforward.

 

However, as North has not stated the line of play on the claim, I would - as a non-tournament director but with some idea of the rules governing TD's decisions - rule that East is right.

 

Hope you weren't North...

[pescetom]

Hope you weren't North...

 

Luckily for me, I'm not involved directly as a player or Director :rolleyes:

[ahydra]

My ruling is 3 tricks to the defence.

 

It seems to me North thinks the hearts are good - but hasn't mentioned that he is playing hearts specifically, so under the rule about "not allowing a line of play not embraced in the original statement" he doesn't get to ruff a heart nor unblock the C10, and is deemed to play both trumps first.

 

If he had said "cash CK and the hearts are high" I'd give him all the tricks since the normal line is surely to ruff the heart when he sees they are not in fact high, then ruff a diamond back.

 

If the hearts were in fact high but he still claimed the same way, he still loses 3 tricks (gets stuck on the table after 2 rounds of trump).

 

It makes no difference what N skill level is. The only way the altered club position would make a difference is if the hearts were actually good, in which case the claim statement is in fact entirely true. With the hearts as they are it is still 3 tricks to the defence.

 

ahydra

[axman]

A contested claim recently discussed in Italy, for your opinions and insights.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdkt9ct6&w=s9hda852c&n=sh965dck9&e=sjhtdj6c7]399|300[/hv]

 

North lays down his hand and claims "I cash the king of trumps (clubs) and then they are all mine".

East calls the Director and argues that his ♥T is a winner, after which he can cash ♠J and♦A.

The Director asks North to repeat his claim word for word, which he does.

 

How would you proceed as Director?

Would it make a difference if North was an expert rather than just a decent club player?

Would it make a difference if there was ♣KT in North and ♣96 in South?

A declarer with good sense would trump a heart with the T, lead a trump to his hand, then close his eyes and ask an opponent to pick a card to lead next.

 

A defender with good sense would like the idea of declarer first playing two rounds of trump.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=shdkt9ct6&w=s9hda852c&n=sh965dck9&e=sjhtdj6c7]200|200|

pescetom 'A contested claim recently discussed in Italy, for your opinions and insights. North lays down his hand and claims "I cash the king of trumps (clubs) and then they are all mine". East calls the Director and argues that his ♥T is a winner, after which he can cash ♠J and♦A. The Director asks North to repeat his claim word for word, which he does. How would you proceed as Director? Would it make a difference if North was an expert rather than just a decent club player?Would it make a difference if there was ♣KT in North and ♣96 in South?'

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IMO...

- If North's ♣s were ♣KT then the director might rule that a declarer who thought ♥s were good might cash ♣KT before vainly attempting to run ♥s.

- With dummy's actual ♣ holding, declarer might fail to unblock ♣T on ♣K. Then he has little option but to lead a ♥ next, ruffing East's ♥T, to make the contract.

- Nevertheless, a cruel director, would deem that declarer, thinking dummy is high, might as well unblock ♣T under ♣K and cash ♣9 before leading a ♥.

- The director should be cruel, giving the benefit of the doubt to defenders. 3 down.

- The quality of the declarer should be irrelevant.

- Unfortunately, as the law stands, much of this would be a matter of judgement (aka needless controversy).[/hv]

[sfi]

North lays down his hand and claims "I cash the king of trumps (clubs) and then they are all mine".

East calls the Director and argues that his ♥T is a winner, after which he can cash ♠J and♦A.

The Director asks North to repeat his claim word for word, which he does.

 

How would you proceed as Director?

Would it make a difference if North was an expert rather than just a decent club player?

Would it make a difference if there was ♣KT in North and ♣96 in South?

Following the claim statement, it's clear he is drawing the last trump and that he knows it's the last trump. IMO it would be irrational to then play another trump whether or not he unblocks the 10. The only thing left is to play the H9, which he would then see the 10 and ruff. I'm presuming he would know the diamonds are not good, so he will win the last three tricks in hand. The claim may be poorly worded and it may be incomplete, but I would award the rest of the tricks to declarer no matter their experience and ability.

[nige1]

Following the claim statement, it's clear he is drawing the last trump and that he knows it's the last trump. IMO it would be irrational to then play another trump whether or not he unblocks the 10. The only thing left is to play the H9, which he would then see the 10 and ruff. I'm presuming he would know the diamonds are not good, so he will win the last three tricks in hand. The claim may be poorly worded and it may be incomplete, but I would award the rest of the tricks to declarer no matter their experience and ability.

Obviously, declarer has lost the place in this ending.

• SFI thinks declarer has counted trumps but forgotten about East's master ♥T. In which case, he might take out insurance against the latter mistake by ruffing a ♥.
• Suppose, however, that declarer is sure ♥s are good but fears he might have miscounted trumps. If a defender had 2 ♣s, then careful play would be to draw 2 rounds of trumps (unblocking) before cashing ♥s.
• IMO the director shouldn't make the assumption most favourable to declarer. Ostensibly, declarer is cashing cards, all of which, he believes to be winners. When the order of play might be relevant, declarer should specify it in his claim statement.

[blackshoe]

"any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer."

 

Are there doubtful points here? Yes? Then we must resolve them against the claimer.

[sfi]

Obviously, declarer has lost the place in this ending.

• SFI thinks declarer has counted trumps but forgotten about East's master ♥T. In which case, he might take out insurance against the latter mistake by ruffing a ♥.
• Suppose, however, that declarer is sure dummy's ♥s are good but fears he might have miscounted trumps. If a defender had 2 ♣s, then careful play would be to draw 2 rounds of trumps (unblocking) before cashing dummy's ♥s.

I don't buy that. Declarer specifically stated he was playing the top trump, which shows me that he thinks there is exactly one trump outstanding.

[nige1]

I don't buy that. Declarer specifically stated he was playing the top trump, which shows me that he thinks there is exactly one trump outstanding.

Declarer's claim implies that

• There's only one outstanding trump and
• ♥s are good.

One of these assumptions turns out to be false. Arguably, normal play might cater for either misapprehension.

[RMB1]

It doesn't matter whether North is expert, his claim makes it clear he not going to play as an expert on this hand.

[jhenrikj]

Does no one read law 70A before dealing with a contested claim?

 

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.

 

Everyone is trying to construct the most absurd possibilities where the defender will win the maximum amount of tricks even if that play would never ever take place in real play. That is very far from adjucating the result as equitable as possible for both sides.

[lamford]

Does no one read law 70A before dealing with a contested claim?

 

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.

I agree with Henrik. It is worse than careless to cross to the ten of clubs, and "normal" is to play a heart first. There is no evidence that North was unaware that there was a heart out, and his claim was valid; he did have the rest on any layout of the opposing cards. The remainder to declarer. Regardless of standard; a beginner might well not realise that there was a heart out, but he would still ruff when East played the ten. If West had the missing heart, a beginner might go off ...

[lamford]

If he had said "cash CK and the hearts are high" I'd give him all the tricks since the normal line is surely to ruff the heart when he sees they are not in fact high, then ruff a diamond back.

ahydra

If he had said that, then I would NOT give him all the tricks. It is a "normal" line, for someone who thinks the hearts are high, to unblock the ten of clubs, to cash the other club (looking for lurkers), and then cash the winning hearts. I might even do this for show if I was certain that the ten of hearts was the eight of hearts.

 

In the OP he made no statement about the hearts, implied or otherwise. He correctly stated that the rest were his.

[barmar]

One issue here is that everyone is interpreting "The rest are mine" to mean that he thinks they're all high. I can easily imagine someone saying that when there's an obvious cross-ruff for all the remaining tricks, although it would be preferable that they actually say "then I cross-ruff the rest". Abbreviated claims like this are common when the claimer thinks the line is clear.

 

But the statement was ambiguous, and we're supposed to rule doubtful points against declarer.

 

OTOH, I'm with Henrik in being uncomfortable about ruling that declarer draws an unnecessary round of trumps before discovering that hearts weren't high.

 

I do applaud declarer for being truthful when asked to restate his claim statement, and not inserting a self-serving "and of course I ruff a heart". Unfortunately, there's no way to know for sure if that was in his mind when he made the initial claim.

[pescetom]

I do applaud declarer for being truthful when asked to restate his claim statement, and not inserting a self-serving "and of course I ruff a heart". Unfortunately, there's no way to know for sure if that was in his mind when he made the initial claim.

I confess that this exact repetition of the statement is an embellishment of mine, inserted merely to prevent discussion side-tracking onto the issue of restatement rather than getting down to the heart of the matter. The original statement was as quoted here and while we do not know exactly what the Director asked about it or was told, there is no reason to think declarer modified it in any way.

[pescetom]

The Director ruled that declarer made all tricks. We don't know his reasoning, but we do have the comments of a senior Director who approved that decision. He argues that had the clubs been KT in North and 96 in South, then playing off both trumps before the "winning" hearts might constitute an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful: but the fact that the clubs are K9 and T6 and declarer has only diamonds in South makes playing the second trump undesirable. Then after playing the K and a first heart he will see the ten in East and ruff, then a diamond ruff, thus making the contract. He does however concede that a more 'taliban' director might still oblige declarer to unblock the clubs and then "cash" the hearts, a decision which would be very rigid but not mistaken in principle.

[pran]

Frankly, I do not understand this discussion.

I believe we all agree that declarer cashes the ♣K (as he stated) and then continues with a heart from Dummy.

 

Whether or not he at this time believed that all his hearts were high is directly immaterial, RHO will have to follow suit with his ten, and it would be directly irrational for Declarer not to ruff this with his own last trump.

 

Then Declarer must play one of hihs Diamonds. With LHO covering this it would again be directly irrational for Declarer not to ruff with the last trump in Dummy.

 

So where is the "normal" line of play that can possibly give any trick to the defenders?

[pescetom]

Frankly, I do not understand this discussion.

I believe we all agree that declarer cashes the ♣K (as he stated) and then continues with a heart from Dummy.

It would seem not, otherwise there is no discussion as you and many others say.

 

So where is the "normal" line of play that can possibly give any trick to the defenders?

Continuing in clubs before cashing the hearts, if you consider that as merely careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

[nige1]

Frankly, I do not understand this discussion.

Yes

I believe we all agree that declarer cashes the ♣K (as he stated) and then continues with a heart from Dummy.

No

Whether or not he at this time believed that all his hearts were high is directly immaterial, RHO will have to follow suit with his ten, and it would be directly irrational for Declarer not to ruff this with his own last trump. Then Declarer must play one of hihs Diamonds. With LHO covering this it would again be directly irrational for Declarer not to ruff with the last trump in Dummy.So where is the "normal" line of play that can possibly give any trick to the defenders?

Other plausible interpretations have been described in previous replies. As pescetom says, the director should consider lines, consistent with the claim, even if he deems them careless/inferior. IMO, unfortunately, the director's ruling is a matter of fine judgement :( and could go either way :)

[ahydra]

For those talking about leading hearts from "dummy": North is declarer.

 

I had failed to appreciate the nuances of declarer stating he cashes the CK implying he knows that will draw the last trump. Nonetheless, my understanding is that when one claims "the rest are mine", the order of the remaining cards should be irrelevant or obvious. Here it is neither since the hearts aren't good and, even if they were, clubs require an unblock or the hearts must be played first. (I recall an infamous ruling made after the hand where an expert declarer was denied a grand slam for failing to mention an unblock.)

 

North has made a claim which is careless in multiple respects and I simply think it is too much, given the laws about "normal lines including careless lines" and "doubtful points are resolved against the claimer" to allow him to luck his way out of his mistake(s) in this case.

 

Lamford makes a valid point re. declarer might well have known there's a heart left - but we are given no evidence to suggest as much. Hence my suggestion that if declarer had even hinted he was playing hearts specifically, I would award him the rest.

 

ahydra

[lamford]

The Director ruled that declarer made all tricks. We don't know his reasoning, but we do have the comments of a senior Director who approved that decision.

Enough said. Those who argue otherwise are wrong.

[nige1]

The Director ruled that declarer made all tricks. We don't know his reasoning, but we do have the comments of a senior Director who approved that decision. He argues that had the clubs been KT in North and 96 in South, then playing off both trumps before the "winning" hearts might constitute an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful: but the fact that the clubs are K9 and T6 and declarer has only diamonds in South makes playing the second trump undesirable. Then after playing the K and a first heart he will see the ten in East and ruff, then a diamond ruff, thus making the contract.

Enough said. Those who argue otherwise are wrong.

He does however concede that a more 'taliban' director might still oblige declarer to unblock the clubs and then "cash" the hearts, a decision which would be very rigid but not mistaken in principle.

:)

[sanst]

Is it probable that declarer would play an extra round of trumps? I don’t think so. In my experience most half decent players keep count of the trumps, whereas they might sometimes miscount the other suits. Only less than half decent players play unnecessarily trumps because they loose count, but these don’t claim and quite often react angrily if you claim. So, I think the level of the player involved should be taken into consideration. I’ve watched and directed matches at a quite high level in Holland and noticed that these players claim by simply putting the cards on the table, saying something like “the rest” or “one trick to you” and nobody making a fuss because they know what the line of play will be. Problems may arise with those who are somewhere between half decent and more than decent, but I don’t like to treat them as nitwits.