[bluejak]

A German correspondent writes:

---

---

West took the Spade lead with Spade Ace, cashed Heart King, played Heart to the ace and claimed for down one. (West is a fairly good player in the German 2nd division, who was having a bad session).

In my opinion with Spades 8-1 AND Clubs 3-3 there seems to be no normal play to lose the slam.

What should be the TD decision, if

• dummy points to this fact directly after play of this board?
  
• the declaring side points to this fact after seeing the hand diagram but within the correction period of half an hour after the session?
  
• also, is there any obligation of the defenders not to accept the setting trick?

[wank]

declarer didn't appreciate the possibility of clubs breaking 3-3 when he claimed, so there's no reason to think he'd be paying enough attention to see the club was a winner even if he played the cards out.

anyway, it doesn't matter. he thinks he's -1 whaever he does so we can inflict on him playing spades himself straight away.

[iviehoff]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-06, 18:24, said:

In my opinion with Spades 8-1 AND Clubs 3-3 there seems to be no normal play to lose the slam.

Not with the meaning of "normal" in the laws.

The most plausible "normal" play to go down is to discard dummy's fourth club on the run of the trumps (after conceding one). You might even do that because you messed up the execution of an attempted minor suit squeeze, and thought it was the diamond you needed to keep.

[Jeremy69A]

One down for me. Careless to get it wrong but not irrational.

[phil_20686]

 iviehoff, on 2012-February-07, 03:37, said:

Not with the meaning of "normal" in the laws.

The most plausible "normal" play to go down is to discard dummy's fourth club on the run of the trumps (after conceding one). You might even do that because you messed up the execution of an attempted minor suit squeeze, and thought it was the diamond you needed to keep.

That is not a "normal" line for a good player. On norths return, you would win draw the last trump and play top diamonds and ruff a diamond too isolate the menace. Then you would have complete count. since north would have returned a spade for -1 if he had one.

Then running the trumps he is 100% to bring in the minors when the diamonds do not all go away.

[phil_20686]

 wank, on 2012-February-06, 18:27, said:

declarer didn't appreciate the possibility of clubs breaking 3-3 when he claimed, so there's no reason to think he'd be paying enough attention to see the club was a winner even if he played the cards out.

anyway, it doesn't matter. he thinks he's -1 whaever he does so we can inflict on him playing spades himself straight away.

No, declarer thought the spades were 7-2. He thought he was going off immediately on a spade return. When he did not do so, it would be normal to reconsider.

I would not envisage the spades being 8-1 on this auction either.

[AlexJonson]

If I noticed declarer,s misconception I'd call the director rather than accept a trick I can't make. The outcome would depend who was TD.

[phil_20686]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-06, 18:24, said:

A German correspondent writes:

• also, is there any obligation of the defenders not to accept the setting trick?

I think N/S have an obligation to point out that they cannot make another trick to the director, who will sort it out. Views on a normal line depend a lot on who is directing, and what he thinks of the skill level of those playing.

[c_corgi]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-07, 05:13, said:

No, declarer thought the spades were 7-2. He thought he was going off immediately on a spade return. When he did not do so, it would be normal to reconsider.

But dummy is on lead, so North does not have the opportunity to return a spade even if he had one. Surely the only rational line at this point is to play four rounds of clubs, hoping for 3-3 and discarding a spade. Clearly declarer has not spotted this, so how can we judge what he might have done at the point he conceded?

[iviehoff]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-07, 05:12, said:

That is not a "normal" line for a good player. On norths return, you would win draw the last trump and play top diamonds and ruff a diamond too isolate the menace. Then you would have complete count. since north would have returned a spade for -1 if he had one.

That's precisely the line of play I had it in mind he might miscount.

A good player would have run the HJ through north in the first place, as that is surely the best overall chance on this hand. In fact you shouldn't even cash the HK because a 4-0 break is more likely than a Q singleton with S, assuming a spade break of at least 6-3 (assuming some positive probability of it being worse than 6-3).

[phil_20686]

 iviehoff, on 2012-February-07, 08:52, said:

That's precisely the line of play I had it in mind he might miscount.

A good player would have run the HJ through north in the first place, as that is surely the best overall chance on this hand. In fact you shouldn't even cash the HK because a 4-0 break is more likely than a Q singleton with S, assuming a spade break of at least 6-3 (assuming some positive probability of it being worse than 6-3).

Yes, running the heart J seems quite normal. But two top hearts and cashing the clubs is not a terrible line. Avoids the loss to Qx heart when rho is 6223 or 6313 or 7213, which are not impossible layouts. I find souths bidding with 8113 incredible.

[iviehoff]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-07, 05:50, said:

I think N/S have an obligation to point out that they cannot make another trick to the director, who will sort it out. Views on a normal line depend a lot on who is directing, and what he thinks of the skill level of those playing.

I think you have in mind L79A2 which says
"A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose."
I would not describe this as a trick the opponents "could not lose".

[phil_20686]

 iviehoff, on 2012-February-07, 10:29, said:

I think you have in mind L79A2 which says
"A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose."
I would not describe this as a trick the opponents "could not lose".

I was thinking of the rule about if there is "doubt about the claim the director must be summoned". If you think the opposition should have made more tricks than they claimed on the only conceivable line, that is doubt no?

I once had a hand when I was learning, where declarer had counted their tricks wrong, when the declarer claimed "thats 11 tricks", when cashing their 4 winners was actually 12 tricks. I and my partner just pointed it out and they got their 12 tricks, but they could have lost extra tricks by playing their loser first so as to make 11 tricks. I am pretty sure my obligation is to call the director, but in reality I always just point out this kind of mistake and let declarer look at their tricks again. My somewhat rambling point being that surely doubt extends to declarer might make extra tricks, as well as might make fewer.

[lamford]

Given that he has chosen a poor line in trumps, I would not give him his claim. He will know the spades are 8-1, and he can virtually claim if he tests the diamonds, ruffing one in hand, when he has a double squeeze with clubs as the pivot suit. But he is not allowed that, and must be assumed to mess up in some way.

[richlp]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-06, 18:24, said:

A German correspondent writes:

---

---

West took the Spade lead with Spade Ace, cashed Heart King, played Heart to the ace and claimed for down one. (West is a fairly good player in the German 2nd division, who was having a bad session).

In my opinion with Spades 8-1 AND Clubs 3-3 there seems to be no normal play to lose the slam.

What should be the TD decision, if

• dummy points to this fact directly after play of this board?
  
• the declaring side points to this fact after seeing the hand diagram but within the correction period of half an hour after the session?
  
• also, is there any obligation of the defenders not to accept the setting trick?

I can't imagine anything other than down 1. A declarer who doesn't notice the possibility of the club break is just as likely to play the spade from hand saying "Here, you get a spade and a trump" than he is to actually play out the hand. It's certainly normal in my world.

[iviehoff]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-07, 12:02, said:

I was thinking of the rule about if there is "doubt about the claim the director must be summoned". If you think the opposition should have made more tricks than they claimed on the only conceivable line, that is doubt no?

If someone concedes to me a trick that they can possibly lose, I have no doubt about that claim/concession and no reason to call the Director. I think it is clear from L79 that there is no ethical qualm about accepting the concession of a trick that they can possibly lose. Whether they "should have" lost it, normatively, because it is pretty stupid to lose it, is another matter. Most disputed claims surround tricks that it is pretty stupid to lose, and the ruling is usually that they should be lost.

[FrancesHinden]

 iviehoff, on 2012-February-08, 03:35, said:

If someone concedes to me a trick that they can possibly lose, I have no doubt about that claim/concession and no reason to call the Director. I think it is clear from L79 that there is no ethical qualm about accepting the concession of a trick that they can possibly lose. Whether they "should have" lost it, normatively, because it is pretty stupid to lose it, is another matter. Most disputed claims surround tricks that it is pretty stupid to lose, and the ruling is usually that they should be lost.

I agree with this. When declarer concedes down one in a slam to me, and I can see two possible losers, I accept. I don't think it's my problem to work out how declarer might have made it if he had thought about it for longer. The other week I was defending a hand when declarer got to a 4-card end position with 4 winners. Instead of either claiming or cashing them, he took a finesse instead (he hadn't realised dummy's jack of hearts was a winner). If instead he'd claimed saying "I'll take the diamond finesse" am I supposed to point out he doesn't need to?

There's a law that says I shouldn't accept a trick that declarer cannot lose. That is a very strict condition, and applies to positions such as when declarer has miscounted trumps and thinks there is a trump outstanding when they have all gone.

[mgoetze]

 wank, on 2012-February-06, 18:27, said:

declarer didn't appreciate the possibility of clubs breaking 3-3 when he claimed, so there's no reason to think he'd be paying enough attention to see the club was a winner even if he played the cards out.

Pray tell me, where in the law book does it say that, when a TD is called to rule on a claim, he should at all take into account what he thinks might have happened if there had not been a claim?

[RMB1]

 mgoetze, on 2012-February-08, 18:08, said:

Pray tell me, where in the law book does it say that, when a TD is called to rule on a claim, he should at all take into account what he thinks might have happened if there had not been a claim?

Law 70: "as equitably as possible to both sides". In the laws, equity relates to the outcome of the hand if the current issue had not arisen, so in the case of a claim, the outcome if the hand had been played out.

[iviehoff]

 mgoetze, on 2012-February-08, 18:08, said:

Pray tell me, where in the law book does it say that, when a TD is called to rule on a claim, he should at all take into account what he thinks might have happened if there had not been a claim?

In addition to what Robin said, see also Law 70D3
"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."
This refers specifically to the situation of play having carried on after the claim. But the fact that it refers to "evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim" tends to suggest that such evidence is relevant in adjudicating a claim.