[dan_ehh]

---

South is playing 3NT, I don't have the complete auction and play, but here goes:

On the last two tricks, declarer holds 2♠ 2♥ and leads the ♥2. West holds ♥Q ♣7.
Dummy has ♣98 and east holds ♠J ♣Q.
West tables his cards and claims both tricks before dummy and east play to trick 12.

NS object because east might keep the wrong card for trick 13, and dummy's club will win it.

How do you rule?


Some facts about the play:
West has showed out of spades 5 tricks prior to the claim. But two tricks before he claimed, he threw the jack of clubs under dummy's king for no reason.

[campboy]

We should rule that declarer gets a trick if we feel that East keeping the spade would be a "normal" play (Law 70D2). The footnote says plays which are merely careless or inferior should still be considered normal. I suppose it will depend on the class of player involved, but not being able to remember which suits partner has shown out of sounds careless rather than irrational to me.

[mjj29]

campboy, on Apr 1 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

We should rule that declarer gets a trick if we feel that East keeping the spade would be a "normal" play (Law 70D2). The footnote says plays which are merely careless or inferior should still be considered normal. I suppose it will depend on the class of player involved, but not being able to remember which suits partner has shown out of sounds careless rather than irrational to me.

I thought in other parts of the claim law we allowed plays based on someone showing out - for example taking unstated finesses where one defender has shown out. Why does that principle not apply here?

I note also that west should now have count on the spades and know that if partner can lead one then declarer can't beat it. I would be happy saying that a miscount is careless, but once partner has shown out...

[blackshoe]

How do you know West had no reason to pitch the ♣J? Did he say so?

[bluejak]

When a player plays Axxxx opposite KJxxx, cashes the ace, RHO showing out, and he is not a beginner, I do not know of a case where he does not finesse.

Where a player has to discard late in the hand, and the solution is known because his partner has shown out several tricks earlier, I have often known a player go wrong. In fact I myself Zxcd frgtupos e wft grdt. [I think the cat walked on the keyboard].

They do not feel the same to me: not finessing on the first case feels irrational, discarding wrong feels careless.

[dan_ehh]

blackshoe, on Apr 1 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

How do you know West had no reason to pitch the ♣J? Did he say so?

He didn't pitch the jack. Declarer had a singleton ♣ ace, which was cashed, and when in dummy the ♣king was cashed. Declarer had already shown out of ♣s when it was west's turn to follow suit, so he knew the whole layout and there was no need for the play of the jack.

[PeterE]

mjj29, on Apr 1 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

I thought in other parts of the claim law we allowed plays based on someone showing out - for example taking unstated  finesses where one defender has shown out. Why does that principle not apply here?

Minute of the WBFLC, on Paris 2001, said:

The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see.

The WBFLC decided that future "showing out" will be recognized and may lead to a different - unstated - line. It does not refer to past plays. And - furthermore - it referred to a declarer's claim and not to a defender's.

So, 1 trick all, Law 70 D2.

[campboy]

Eh? Law 70E1 (which, as you say, applies only to claims by declarer, since it talks about playing one opponent rather than the other for a particular card) does include the case where the show-out happened before the claim.

[MFA]

It depends on the level of the players. My starting point would be to give the defenders both tricks, since for tournament players I don't find it normal to make such a great error as to keep a card at T13 in a suit that partner has already positively shown out of (when partner is on lead).

[dan_ehh]

Thanks to all who answered

[Pict]

You might choose to discuss whether the concept of a deuce as a winner is irrational within the rules of Bridge.

Oddly noone seemed interested in picking that up.

Maybe irrationality is a judgement call? (an odd idea though).