[mrdct]

Scoring: MP

---

East, a fairly inexperienced players. was declaring 6NT on the lead of the ♦5.

Upon examining dummy for a few moments, East claimed stating "I've got the top 3 clubs, 5 diamonds, ace-king of hearts and the ace-king of spades for 12 tricks".

North-South quickly accept the claim, at which point dummy (a more experienced player) takes the opportunity to remind his partner that they are playing pairs not teams and he really should have tried for 13 by testing if clubs are 3-3 and then running the diamonds in case someone gets squeezed.

North now contributes to the discussion revealling that whilst he had 4 clubs, the ♠Q was coming down doubleton but it's too late to play for that now.

Dummy opined to north that you can't concede a trick that can't be lost through normal play and if East plays out his cards in the order stated in his claim a 13th trick will automatically emerge. North then called the director.

Who would you rule?

Has dummy over-stepped the mark?

[RMB1]

Declarer has conceded a trick that he can not lose on any normal line of play: he can only discard two spades on the clubs, so when he plays SAK and see Q drop it would be worse than careless/inferior not to cash SJ.

It is entirely proper for dummy to point out that declarer has conceded a trick he might not lose and ask TD to rule.

I think that North (when declarer claims two spades with Ax / KJxxx) should volunteer that the Queen is dropping and declarer might make a trick with SJ. North appears to be in breach of Law 79A2.

[Pict]

I'm not sure about criticising North. Does he have to wonder who has J♠?

[blackshoe]

When East, in claiming, shows his hand (assuming he does show his hand) North will know that since the Queen is falling, East cannot lose the Jack. Therefore, if East's line of play implies he will lose a spade, North must speak up. As the stated line does make that implication, North will be in violation of Law 79A2 if he accepts the thirteenth trick.

Or are we ruling that declarer has not stated the order in which he will play his top twelve tricks, and so must be deemed to play them in the order least advantageous to him? Even if we do that, how is East not going to get the ♠J?

[Cascade]

Its hard to imagine a normal play that involves discarding the ♠ J.

Therefore 13 tricks.

[Mbodell]

RMB1, on Mar 18 2010, 12:51 PM, said:

Declarer has conceded a trick that he can not lose on any normal line of play: he can only discard two spades on the clubs, so when he plays SAK and see Q drop it would be worse than careless/inferior not to cash SJ.

It is entirely proper for dummy to point out that declarer has conceded a trick he might not lose and ask TD to rule.

I think that North (when declarer claims two spades with Ax / KJxxx) should volunteer that the Queen is dropping and declarer might make a trick with SJ.  North appears to be in breach of Law 79A2.

I disagree. I'm not sure we hold him to the line he stated in order, especially since said line wouldn't be legal. He wins the ♦Q and cashes 3 clubs throwing 2 spades, now he says he runs the diamonds, but he needs to get to the hand with the diamonds, what if he plays a spade to the K now, runs diamonds pitching clubs, cashes the ♥K, ♥A, and the ♠A. Now he's trapped in his hand with a heart loser (or club loser if he pitched clubs instead of hearts).

So just because the Q is dropping on the second round doesn't mean the J will be good as it might be too late.

So I think 12 tricks might be fine.

[bluejak]

We have a lot of case Law that when a player merely names the number of tricks he is making in each suit that that does not mean an order of play.

For example, if declarer says four spades, three hearts, three diamonds and three clubs, and he has those 13 tricks, we never disallow the claim merely because after three rounds of diamonds he cannot cash three clubs because he is in the wrong hand.

So, in this case, we have no reason to presume he is playing them in the order stated, notably because the order stated does not work.

As for blaming North, many, many claims are accepted without the opposition really giving more than the merest look. Before you blame North for anything, I think you need to establish that he looked at the cards and realised he had ♠ Qx.

[aguahombre]

True, blue. And well put. So without worrying about blaming North, shouldn't declarer get the spade Jack? That seems to be the real question. Unless you make him pitch the spade jack instead of a low one, my guess is that he should.

[dburn]

This really is not a problem - it would be careless and inferior, hence "normal" by definition, to block the spades. Just because you or I would not do it, there is no reason to suppose that this particular East would not do it; from the evidence, he is a "fairly inexperienced player" who by the look of it was relieved to have twelve tricks and gave no thought at all to how he might make a thirteenth.

But even if in practice he would never block the spades, that does not mean that it would be other than "careless or inferior" to block the spades. He claimed twelve tricks, and that is the number he scores.

[Codo]

The 4 card end position had been something like:

♠Ax KJx
♥ A x
♣ 6

So: is it less then carelless to play King ace ace just in case the club is high?

I think 12 tricks is right.

[Pict]

Players don't always show their whole hand when they are claiming on top cards - and oppos don't always pay attention - hence my reluctance to jump to conclusions about North.

In real life if I saw declarer's hand and was paying attention I would give him the trick as North, because I would rather erase the claim rules from my brain altogether than try to wangle a trick in this sort of position.

[jeremy69]

I don't blame North. It is not his job to find ways of giving East a further trick. Therre are enough people on this forum who want to do this!
Why is it an automatic assumption that he is not careless and blocks a suit as DBurn suggests or plays for the Club to be high as Codo suggests? No-one asked him to claim. If he cashed SA SK then I agree he would get a 13th trick but this is not the only line and he shouldn't be given the benefit of chooisng to play this way when there are other lines that are not irrational.

[Pict]

jeremy69, on Mar 19 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

Why is it an automatic assumption that he is not careless and blocks a suit as DBurn suggests or plays for the Club to be high as Codo suggests? No-one asked him to claim.

Is it true, do you think, that no-one asks people to claim?

If it is, then I would accept the rest of your argument. If someone chooses to claim, they just better get it right.

But I believe there is pressure on people to claim, and if that is accompanied by quite extreme rulings against claims, it will inevitably be self-defeating.

I claim more than almost anyone in the competitions I play in. If I chose to play in some larger events, I would definitely reconsider that policy in the face of interpretations I've seen on this forum, and delay claiming until the claim was foolproof.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Is it true, do you think, that no-one asks people to claim?

Yes. I do. Players will claim because they think it saves time and if they do it against players of like or better ability they will often be right. When they do it against bad players they often confuse if there are more than a few cards left and it doesn't save time. When I claim in a club duplicate I often wait a few more tricks in order to make the end game simpler. Some people claim to show how clever they are and when they get it wrong it gives me a modicum of pleasure I must admit. Some also regard it as a total affront if you ask to look at their cards which I often do.
I feel no pressure to claim and I don't see why anyone else should either. It is true that some players like to put their cards away saying "minus 1" and put the pressure on you to check if it is minus 2. I don't mind asking to look though and nor should anyone else.

[bluejak]

I am afraid you are not really deserving of sympathy if you are making bad claims.

I also claim more than anyone else I know. I do wish others would claim more. I do not believe the rulings in this forum affect anything, since they affect maybe one claim in 10,000, and it is several years since anyone made a serious challenge to one of my claims, and on that occasion it was myself.

[Pict]

jeremy69, on Mar 19 2010, 11:36 AM, said:

I feel no pressure to claim and I don't see why anyone else should either.

Then peace reigns.

Of course I assume that comments about terrorising old ladies, showing off and making incorrect claims are not aimed at me, since you guys no nothing at all about me.

[jdonn]

If east were 4-3 in the majors then there was a chance he would take the clubs first and discard spades on them, but since that won't cost the trick here I believe east is entitled to 13 tricks. If I were north I wouldn't even call the director I would just say making 7. I won't go so far as to say it's dispicible not to do so, but just that that's not how I want to play.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Of course I assume that comments about terrorising old ladies, showing off and making incorrect claims are not aimed at me

No but at some players I have met! I learnt when very young to be suspicious of claims when a player briefly showed his last 6 cards with 3 trumps in each hand and 3 of the same plain suit and said "cross-ruffing"


How hard is to claim that "I have 3 clubs, 5 diamonds, 2 hearts and 2 spades with an extra trick in the SQ falls in one or two rounds?
If he had cashed 3 clubs and they broke and he then abandoned the suit and started cashing other things would we then give him the 13th trick if it were a long club?
The claimer didn't seem to allow for the fact that the clubs might break or that some pressure might be exerted on his opponents so his mind wasn't really on the game and he shouldn't have received his licence allowing him to claim. If he had played it out he might or might not have made 13 but here players want to give him 13 anyway in case he cashes in the right order.

If JDonn wants to accept 13 then fine but saying it's nearly but not quite despicable is a touch over the top.