[blackshoe]

I don't think it matters where this occurred, since the laws concerned are the same everywhere, but if it does matter, it was New Zealand.

North's holding is irrelevant and unknown, but the forum software is insistent. :-(

---

East is on lead. Before the lead, South claims the last two tricks. It develops that South was unaware there was a trump out. However, as soon as South claims, East says "I'm leading a heart".

Law 70D3 said:

In accordance with Law 68D, play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim, this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. the director may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim.

Granted East's statement is not strictly a play, but it does indicate his intention. If you feel the fact it is not strictly a play makes a difference, then suppose he actually leads a heart, either after or simultaneously with the claim. What now?

[axman]

blackshoe, on Oct 14 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

I don't think it matters where this occurred, since the laws concerned are the same everywhere, but if it does matter, it was New Zealand.

North's holding is irrelevant and unknown, but the forum software is insistent. :-(

---

East is on lead. Before the lead, South claims the last two tricks. It develops that South was unaware there was a trump out. However, as soon as South claims, East says "I'm leading a heart".

Law 70D3 said:

In accordance with Law 68D, play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim, this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. the director may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim.

Granted East's statement is not strictly a play, but it does indicate his intention. If you feel the fact it is not strictly a play makes a difference, then suppose he actually leads a heart, either after or simultaneously with the claim. What now?

the players agree on the score and proceed to the next board

[blackshoe]

Didn't happen. They called the director. Do your job.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Oct 15 2009, 12:42 AM, said:

Granted East's statement is not strictly a play, but it does indicate his intention. If you feel the fact it is not strictly a play makes a difference, then suppose he actually leads a heart, either after or simultaneously with the claim. What now?

I don't think it matters at all whether East plays a heart or just says so. If he leads it after the claim it is cancelled anyway.

Anyway, it seems to me that the declarer gets away with it. While it is not irrational to ruff with the Ace, it is a strange play that most people will not do. So I would rule that he makes the contract, but am ready to be convinced that this is wrong.

[Blue Uriah]

Doesn't the law quoted apply only to the claiming side? The fact that East was about to play a heart wouldn't have entered into the claim, so in my view the claim couldn't be "clarified" to include it. Only plays by the claimer should be taken into account because they might give a clue as to what the claim was.

Lose one trick.

[jdonn]

East said he is leading a heart, so he gets the honor of leading a heart. What am I missing? Did east say "I'm leading a heart, but since this statement is occuring after a claim it is irrelevant and I was just exercising my vocal chords, director please!"?

[RMB1]

If East leads a heart then ruffing with the ace is a normal line for a player who thinks there is no trumps out. Ruling: 1 trick.

If Law 70 D 3 tells us anything about defensive plays, it tells us that East leading a heart should be considered a normal line. It does not tell us whether East leading a club is or is not a normal line. I think East leading a club is a normal line and gives West a trump trick. Ruling: 1 trick.

Robin

[axman]

blackshoe, on Oct 15 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

Didn't happen. They called the director. Do your job.

Good day. How may I help?

[jdonn]

RMB1, on Oct 15 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

If East leads a heart then ruffing with the ace is a normal line for a player who thinks there is no trumps out.  Ruling: 1 trick.

I've been on a mission regarding this and I'll stay on it. No one EVER does that in real life when they think the trumps are out. Not one time in a thousand. When trumps are out and are all in one hand, every bridge player in the universe plays the remaining ones from the bottom up, always (maybe slight exception for experts trying to hide a card, but certainly for any player less than that). So if ruffing low would cost and ruffing high is right then he can be made to lose the trick, but you can't force a ruff with the ace that no one would ever make imo.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Oct 15 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

I don't think it matters at all whether East plays a heart or just says so. If he leads it after the claim it is cancelled anyway.

Law 70D3 makes it part of the TD's considerations.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Oct 15 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Oct 15 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

I don't think it matters at all whether East plays a heart or just says so. If he leads it after the claim it is cancelled anyway.

Law 70D3 makes it part of the TD's considerations.

Yes; what I meant was that I think that East's saying he would lead a heart is enough. But I have been thinking since about whether self-damaging statements like this should be admissable.

[nigel_k]

I agree with jdonn. It is not normal to ruff with the higher trump when you think the opponents have none. So by law 70C3 declarer cannot lose a trick by any normal play.

The fact that 'normal' includes careless or inferior plays isn't relevant here. It is careless and inferior to miscount trumps, but ruffing with the ace would be abnormal regardless of what trumps are out.

[blackshoe]

Blue Uriah, on Oct 15 2009, 11:14 AM, said:

Doesn't the law quoted apply only to the claiming side? The fact that East was about to play a heart wouldn't have entered into the claim, so in my view the claim couldn't be "clarified" to include it. Only plays by the claimer should be taken into account because they might give a clue as to what the claim was.

Lose one trick.

No, it's not just the claimer's side, since it refers to the "players'" (plural) actions.

[Sadie3]

I would tell East privately, later, that it is always in his best interest to not talk at all once a claim has been made other than to call a TD. That being said, it is my understanding that when there is a reasonable line of play that may be construed wherein the non-claiming side may take a trick that trick is awarded to the non-claiming side. The declarer can state how he will play the hand 1000 different ways and it makes no difference once the claim has been made and those late reiterations are to be ignored by the TD. Without East's statement saying he would lead a heart, it was reasonable that East play the club and therefore West would score his trump. However, East's premature statement saying he was going to lead a heart "trumps" the law and the reasonable play from the declarer would be to play his low trump, not the high one, I would rule that the claim was good. IMO East gave up his rights when he blurted out his intended play.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Oct 15 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

But I have been thinking since about whether self-damaging statements like this should be admissable.

The principle that TDs and AC members are taught is to discover as much evidence as possible and make a judgement. This sort of statement is evidence.

[Mbodell]

RMB1, on Oct 15 2009, 07:30 AM, said:

If East leads a heart then ruffing with the ace is a normal line for a player who thinks there is no trumps out.  Ruling: 1 trick.

I'm totally with jdonn that in the general case a player plays trump low up and you should expect that in the general case. But in this specific case it is absolutely crazy to play the A regardless of if you think there is a trump out or not! So of course south plays the 6!

If there are no trumps out it doesn't matter which is played.
If there is one trump out and it is smaller than the 6 it doesn't matter which is played.
If there is one trump out and it is higher than the 6 then playing the A means that N/S will only take 1 trick. Playing the 6 before the A will win N/S 2 tricks if the trump is with east or if the trump is with west but west also has a heart. Therefore the 6 is the better play than the A.
If there are two trump out and they are both smaller it doesn't matter which is played S will win 2 tricks.
If there are two trump out and one is bigger than the 6 then playing the A locks up only 1 trick when playing the 6 might win 2.
If there are two trump out and both are bigger than the 6 then playing the A locks up only 1 trick while playing the 6 might win 2 if both players have a spade and a heart.

The bottom line is there is not one single line where playing the A is better than the 6. It is irrational to play the A. Therefore, if it is ruled that East is leading a heart then N/S get both remaining tricks.

[iviehoff]

Would this East normally announce verbally what card he was playing? Seems odd to me. I would suggest there exists the possibility that E was not actually committing himself to leading a heart, but rather "thinking aloud" about what possibilities might exist in view of a claim having been made.

[bluejak]

Players often make thoughtless comments, and if done quickly they are often not in their own best interests. Nevertheless, it gives an indication of their first reaction.

The trouble, Mbodell, is that while logic suggests that the ace cannot be right, that is not relevant: a player who has lost track of a hand often makes a play without working the logic out.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on Oct 15 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 15 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Oct 15 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

I don't think it matters at all whether East plays a heart or just says so. If he leads it after the claim it is cancelled anyway.

Law 70D3 makes it part of the TD's considerations.

Yes; what I meant was that I think that East's saying he would lead a heart is enough. But I have been thinking since about whether self-damaging statements like this should be admissable.

It seems to me that Law 70D3 does NOT come into effect. That contains "<snip> but if any play has occurred after the claim <snip>" (the emphasis is mine)

Play is defined in the definitions (the relevant one of four):
1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead.

It is true that a card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card that he proposes to play, under 45C4a, but it seems to me that, at the time of the director call, no PLAY had occurred after the claim. Therefore a trick can be lost by the trump promotion. For the avoidance of doubt, if East had only hearts, I would regard the play of the ace of trumps as irrational. Just as I would regard leading the six as irrational in a two card ending if South were on lead.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on Oct 16 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

For the avoidance of doubt, if East had only hearts, I would regard the play of the ace of trumps as irrational. Just as I would regard it leading the six as irrational in a two card ending if South were on lead.

I think that the plays you mention are odd-looking and rarely done; however, I do not think that it can ever be "irrational" to choose between equal cards.