[VixTD]

..........♠8
..........[+ six minor suit cards]
♠AKQ42......♦AK52
♦84.............♣Q109
..........♥10
..........[+ six non-spades]

West is declarer in a spade contract. South leads ♥10 and West faces his hand without comment. North calls the TD to say that he has a trump remaining which declarer has made no mention of.

How many of these tricks go to the defence?

[billw55]

I certainly wish that the laws were such that defenders get one trick. In reality though, I think none will be awarded, unless the defender with a trump has only one diamond.

[helene_t]

I dunno. Since he didn't mention the remaining trump I suppose it's possible that he will trump low but I think the most natural play in this situation is to trump high. Besides, he might be aware of the remaining trump.

I wish it were legal to give defenders half a trick. As it is, I lean towards zero.

[ahydra]

I think it's reasonable to say that North will get to overruff the heart - if declarer thinks his hand is good, a normal line of play would be to ruff low. One trick to the defence.

ahydra

[TylerE]

What class are the players involved, especially west?

[gordontd]

TylerE, on 2014-April-02, 08:29, said:

What class are the players involved, especially west?

I think for any player who has failed to mention an outstanding trump and has failed to say they would ruff high, it would be no more than careless to ruff low.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-April-02, 08:45, said:

I think for any player who has failed to mention an outstanding trump and has failed to say they would ruff high, it would be no more than careless to ruff low.

I would award the defence a trick if North had led the heart round to West and it was still possible to lose a trick to the trump. It is careless not to draw the remaining trump. If North has three diamonds and a heart then I would award the declarer the remainder, as it would be worse than careless to play anything other than a top trump after ruffing the third diamond low.

[pran]

If declarer is experienced then not specifying that he will use a high trump is a serious error. If he is not so experienced it is a "normal" error to "autmatically" use a small trump.

In either case: One trick to the defence. Law 70C is Clear.

[billw55]

Ah, as I sometimes do early in the morning, I misunderstood the situation. Looking again, I definitely think one trick to the defense is correct.

[blackshoe]

So do I.

[ggwhiz]

Expert declarers are allowed to have a bad day too and you just CAN'T rule differently letting them off the hook if you ever want to see their opponents again.

1 Trick to the defense.

[Trinidad]

In cases like this, you always need to look at how the play went. (Frankly I am disappointed that there are 9 answers already and no-one has mentioned this.)

If the play up to this trick makes it obvious that declarer is aware that North has a trump then the defense doesn't get anything. If not then they will get an over-ruff.

I obviously don't know how the play went, but given that declarer has all top trumps, it seems that he hasn't touched trumps yet. It could well be that the defense started with cross-ruffing the first couple of tricks (or declarer tried to ruff in dummy first, running into a bad break and a defensive cross-ruff). When South now leads hearts and West doesn't have them anymore, declarer tables his hand, as to say: "Your cross-ruffing feast is over.". In a case like that, no decent NS would dispute the claim (but that doesn't mean claims like that are never disputed) since it is blatantly obvious that declarer will ruff with the ace (not even with the queen).

But the play may have gone entirely different, and then the defenders get a trick. There is no one size fits all.

Rik

[Trinidad]

More generally speaking:

If a claimer doesn't give a claim statement, that usually means that he thinks that the play is blatantly obvious. He may be wrong about that, but he may also be right. As a TD you need to investigate. Sometimes you will find that the claimer messed up everything and at other times, the context shows that the play is blatantly obvious. Therefore, you often need a context to rule on a claim.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-02, 13:07, said:

In cases like this, you always need to look at how the play went. (Frankly I am disappointed that there are 9 answers already and no-one has mentioned this.)

If the play up to this trick makes it obvious that declarer is aware that North has a trump then the defense doesn't get anything. If not then they will get an over-ruff.

I obviously don't know how the play went, but given that declarer has all top trumps, it seems that he hasn't touched trumps yet. It could well be that the defense started with cross-ruffing the first couple of tricks (or declarer tried to ruff in dummy first, running into a bad break and a defensive cross-ruff). When South now leads hearts and West doesn't have them anymore, declarer tables his hand, as to say: "Your cross-ruffing feast is over.". In a case like that, no decent NS would dispute the claim (but that doesn't mean claims like that are never disputed) since it is blatantly obvious that declarer will ruff with the ace (not even with the queen).

But the play may have gone entirely different, and then the defenders get a trick. There is no one size fits all.

Rik

With South leading and one trump left in North there is no way the history so far on this board can justify a claim without a clear statement to the effect that declarer is aware of the outstanding trump, and that he will ruff high.

Consequently no matter how the play has gone till now the only sensible (an legal) ruling is one trick to the defence's last trump.

[FrancesHinden]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-02, 13:07, said:

In cases like this, you always need to look at how the play went. (Frankly I am disappointed that there are 9 answers already and no-one has mentioned this.)
Rik

I was thinking exactly the same.
It's likely the defence is going to get a trick, but I want to know how the play has gone.

[pran]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-April-02, 15:08, said:

I was thinking exactly the same.
It's likely the defence is going to get a trick, but I want to know how the play has gone.

I would have agreed if declarer (or Dummy) had been on the lead, but not when the last previous trick obviously was won by a defender while there still was an outstanding trump.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-April-02, 15:16, said:

I would have agreed if declarer (or Dummy) had been on the lead, but not when the last previous trick obviously was won by a defender while there still was an outstanding trump.

?!?
So, the defenders have been cross-ruffing, taking a couple of tricks in a row. Finally, you can stop the cross-ruffing, because you are out of the suit they led and you have trump power, and all tricks are yours...

Most people would show their cards. Some would state the obvious: "Ruffing high"... And everybody puts their cards back into the board. (Except when a defender has at some point heard something about claims and outstanding trumps without really understanding it.)

But you will first ruff high, wait what North is going to discard (which is irrelevant) and only then claim. North's discard might take a while since he will think that his play still matters.

I must say, I prefer to play against a claimer.

Rik

[barmar]

It's so easy to either say "ruffing high, drawing the last trump, ruffing the low diamonds", or do the first two steps and then show your hand because it's obvious. I have little sympathy for a declarer who just shows his hand in a situation like this.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-April-02, 18:45, said:

It's so easy to either say "ruffing high, drawing the last trump, ruffing the low diamonds", or do the first two steps and then show your hand because it's obvious. I have little sympathy for a declarer who just shows his hand in a situation like this.

That may be the case, but your sympathies are yours. The Law says that the TD is supposed to judge how many tricks the claimer gets. If it is obvious that he takes all of them, he gets all of them, also if he sh/could have said "ruffing high, drawing the last trump, ruffing the low diamonds".

And when it comes to sympathy: I see people "claim" by simply putting their cards back into the board and entering the score. I hate that, and I think it is arrogant and obnoxious. But then too, if it is obvious that claimer takes all the tricks, he gets all the tricks.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 00:41, said:

That may be the case, but your sympathies are yours. The Law says that the TD is supposed to judge how many tricks the claimer gets. If it is obvious that he takes all of them, he gets all of them, also if he sh/could have said "ruffing high, drawing the last trump, ruffing the low diamonds".

And when it comes to sympathy: I see people "claim" by simply putting their cards back into the board and entering the score. I hate that, and I think it is arrogant and obnoxious. But then too, if it is obvious that claimer takes all the tricks, he gets all the tricks.

Rik

Law 70C said:

When a trump remains in one of the opponents’ hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if:
1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and
2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and
3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play.

If the claimer is too careless to mention the outstanding trump it is quite likely that he is unaware of it and that ruffing with a low trump is quite "normal".

How play has proceeded up to this point is completely irrelevant, it is not obvious that he will take the remaining tricks, to me it is obvious that he will lose one.