[whereagles]

Hi all,

Here's a situation that came up the other day. I can't remember the cards exactly, but it was something like this

Scoring: IMP

South claims all tricks.

---

South claims saying "They're all mine".

East, who apparently forgot the spade jack had been played a couple rounds before, says "What about the spade jack?".

South, who had also forgotten about the jack, replies "Ok, then you get one spade trick".

Now dummy steps in and says "The spade jack is long gone. They're all ours".

The question is, can dummy do what he did? And what how many tricks does South legally take, assuming both he and E/W had totally forgotten about the spade jack, and that neither East or West look at each other's cards to find out there is no spade jack after all?

Hope I made myself clear Thx in advance.

[pran]

whereagles, on Apr 13 2010, 09:08 AM, said:

Hi all,

Here's a situation that came up the other day. I can't remember the cards exactly, but it was something like this

Dealer: West Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ T ♥   ♦ 98 ♣   ♠   ♥   ♦ xx ♣ x ♠ xxx ♥   ♦   ♣   ♠ x ♥   ♦   ♣ AQ

South claims all tricks.

South claims saying "They're all mine".

East, who apparently forgot the spade jack had been played a couple rounds before, says "What about the spade jack?".

South, who had also forgotten about the jack, replies "Ok, then you get one spade trick".

Now dummy steps in and says "The spade jack is long gone. They're all ours".

The question is, can dummy do what he did? And what how many tricks does South legally take, assuming both he and E/W had totally forgotten about the spade jack, and that neither East or West look at each other's cards to find out there is no spade jack after all?

Hope I made myself clear Thx in advance.

One effect of South's claim is that play ends and that (former) Dummy receives his full rights as a player again. He is certainly allowed to point out the fact that the spade jack is long gone, but it is up to the Director to rule whether this remark is an unacceptable assistance to Declarer with the claim. I don't see how the remark could have any effect here other than to immediately clear up the claim as good.

[pgrice]

First things first: Dummy is allowed to object to a claim or concession:

Quote

L68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

The Director now needs to decide how many tricks to award ... if claimer really hadn't forgotten about ♠J then he might just discard ♠T in an attempt to induce an unfortunate discard from a defender and win trick 13. OTH, no real line was mentioned in the claim statement. I suppose we award all the tricks to claimer as he does have enough top tricks by any order of play other than discarding what he seemed to think was a winner at the time he made the claim.

[helene_t]

Agree with pgrice, I think most likely declarer thought ♠T was high but trusted E's memory better than his own (or assumed the E had ♠J).

[gwnn]

it is irrational to discard ♠T from dummy. all tricks to declarer

[Fluffy]

thx guys I couldn't even see the posibility where declarer didn't made all the tricks, now I see it. Seems totally bizarre to me, but I am always biased towards declarer on claims.

[whereagles]

Thanks all. Seems that dummy can object, but cannot suggest a line of play.

[richlp]

pgrice, on Apr 13 2010, 03:40 AM, said:

First things first: Dummy is allowed to object to a claim or concession:

Quote

L68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

The Director now needs to decide how many tricks to award ... if claimer really hadn't forgotten about ♠J then he might just discard ♠T in an attempt to induce an unfortunate discard from a defender and win trick 13. OTH, no real line was mentioned in the claim statement. I suppose we award all the tricks to claimer as he does have enough top tricks by any order of play other than discarding what he seemed to think was a winner at the time he made the claim.

You don't allow Declarer to change a line of play when a card he thinks is high turns out not to be.

Now your forcing him to change his line of play due to an incorrect objection from an opponent.

Doesn't sound right to me. Declarer needs to stand by his original claim statement which assumed the 10 of spades is high. Lucky for him, he was right.

[bluejak]

I do not understand some of these replies. Perhaps someone should correct me.

South claims.

East objects.

As usual, people fail to call the TD because they prefer to make life difficult for themselves, each other and the TD.

South says something of no relevance, North says something of no relevance.

Hopefully, someone calls the TD, who ignores everything except the first claim and rules on it [we hope ].

[pran]

bluejak, on Apr 14 2010, 02:19 AM, said:

I do not understand some of these replies. Perhaps someone should correct me.

South claims.

East objects.

As usual, people fail to call the TD because they prefer to make life difficult for themselves, each other and the TD.

South says something of no relevance, North says something of no relevance.

Hopefully, someone calls the TD, who ignores everything except the first claim and rules on it [we hope ].

While this comment is generally true I am not so sure it is in this context:

East said something. Yes, that may be taken as an objection to the claim, but it may equally wel be taken just as a clarifying question.

However I cannot see how North's remark lacks relevance; he is stating a correct and very relevant fact. I should expect East to assent to the claim immediately once he realized that "the spade jack was long gone".

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Apr 14 2010, 02:19 AM, said:

South says something of no relevance, North says something of no relevance.

Agree but it takes some reasoning to appreciate that North's comment was of no relevance.

Assuming (yes, this is a wrong assumption, but nevertheless assume for the sake of this argument) that South thought that ♠J was still out. Suppose now that S had not claimed but just played the hand. Then he might discard ♠J in order to deceive one opp into discarding ♠J. Then North's comment becomes relevant because it tells South that ♠T is good so he will not discard it.

The problem with this is (other than the wrong assumption) that when claiming, S has to state a line. Obviously he is not claiming on a deceptive play So his line will not be influenced by North's comment. Unless, maybe, if he thought that opps had no spades at all so it doesn't matter what he discards from dummy. That seems unlikely since there are three spades with the defenders.

[pgrice]

richlp, on Apr 13 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

pgrice, on Apr 13 2010, 03:40 AM, said:

First things first:  Dummy is allowed to object to a claim or concession:

Quote

L68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

The Director now needs to decide how many tricks to award ... if claimer really hadn't forgotten about ♠J then he might just discard ♠T in an attempt to induce an unfortunate discard from a defender and win trick 13. OTH, no real line was mentioned in the claim statement. I suppose we award all the tricks to claimer as he does have enough top tricks by any order of play other than discarding what he seemed to think was a winner at the time he made the claim.

You don't allow Declarer to change a line of play when a card he thinks is high turns out not to be.

Now your forcing him to change his line of play due to an incorrect objection from an opponent.

Doesn't sound right to me. Declarer needs to stand by his original claim statement which assumed the 10 of spades is high. Lucky for him, he was right.

I'm not trying to force claimer to change his line ... not that "They're all mine" is very specific in this regard. I don't think claimer has much choice about "standing by his original claim" It does tell us that claimer thought he had 3 top tricks when he claimed. On this basis alone we award 3 tricks to claimer since it would be irrational to discard 10♠. Later (albeit incorrect) comments seem to show that claimer was easily persuaded that J♠ was still out ... and might just have adopted a losing line to cater for this. I don't think this is at all probable - just point out that it is possible to lose a trick in this way.

[blackshoe]

East, probably innocently, has lead South down the garden path with this nonsense about the Jack of Spades. I'm going to ignore that whole byplay. South claimed three top tricks, South has three top tricks, South gets three top tricks. Next case!

[whereagles]

Thx all. I'm convinced South should get all 3 tricks.