[Barry]

Please could you look at the following claim and how should the Director rule

The contract if 4S by West.

West has ♠ J 9 3 ♥ A Q 7 2

North No trumps or hearts

East has ♠ 8 ♥J ♦9 7 5 ♣10 4

South has ♥ 10 8 5 4 ♦ 8 7 2

West (Declarer) is on lead and claims that all spade trumps and hearts are good and lays down his cards on the table. South says he has one heart trick.

Declarer can make all the tricks if he played a small heart to dummy's J then trumps a diamond. He then plays the A Q of hearts and trumps the last heart with the 8 of spades.

However, if he is required to play the J of spades first before running the hearts he will then lose one heart trick. Can the Director insist on that line of play. Is it one trick to South or not?

[gordontd]

No mention of ruffing a heart in the claim statement, so one heart trick to South.

[bluejak]

Perhaps we should explain the approach to claims. The TD does not insist on a line of play: what he does is to look at all the lines of play that are credible and picks the one least advantageous to the claimer.

Now, a player who claims all the tricks are his has normally forgotten that one of his cards is not a winner. It is not the only reason of course: sometimes he might just think that the line of play is too obvious to state it in detail. The TD has to make a decision, a judgement.

In this case if he really believes all the hearts are good then, as Gordon says, it is an easy ruling: when cashing winners he might easily lead one suit rather than another. For example, a player who thought all the hearts were good might play a heart to the jack, a spade to the jack, and ... That is one trick to the defence.

The alternative is to consider that the line of play - ruffing a heart in the dummy - is so obvious that declarer meant it but did not say it. In many cases, it is a decision that is based on exactly what declarer said. What did he say?

Quote

... all spade trumps and hearts are good ...

That is clear enough: he thought the hearts were good. One trick to the defence.

Is this fair? Certainly: if he thought the hearts were good, and had played it out, he might easily have played it the way I said and lost a trick. So we must give a trick to the non-claimer to be fair.

[Chris3875]

I think declarer shot himself in the foot when he said all trumps and hearts are good - but even if he didn't say that and gave no line of play when making the claim I would still give South the T of hearts.

[axman]

Barry, on Jan 14 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

Please could you look at the following claim and how should the Director rule

The contract if 4S by West.

West has ♠ J 9 3 ♥ A Q 7 2

North No trumps or hearts

East has ♠ 8 ♥J ♦9 7 5 ♣10 4

South has ♥ 10 8 5 4 ♦ 8 7 2

West (Declarer) is on lead and claims that all spade trumps and hearts are good and lays down his cards on the table. South says he has one heart trick.

Declarer can make all the tricks if he played a small heart to dummy's J then trumps a diamond. He then plays the A Q of hearts and trumps the last heart with the 8 of spades.

However, if he is required to play the J of spades first before running the hearts he will then lose one heart trick. Can the Director insist on that line of play. Is it one trick to South or not?

The law is rather unclear when a board has been played to completion [albeit, no result has been obtained as of yet] containing two beer cards other than to remove the superfluous one and figure out that the pack is correct. It would seem that such a board must be canceled but I am loathe to discover what passage of law so specifies.

On s different matter, it is notable that declarer claimed that all the spades and hearts were high. Regarding the heart suit this means he asserts that the HA and the H2 are equals. This condition is sufficient to rule that to play the HJ under the ace is a normal line of play.

[Chris3875]

I have no clue what Axman is talking about - it's like a foreign language.

[jvage]

Chris3875, on Jan 15 2010, 01:28 AM, said:

I have no clue what Axman is talking about - it's like a foreign language.

Axman made some funny remarks about what to do when the deck contains two cards of the same suit and rank, here the ♦7 (often referred to as the "beer card", since in some circles a player who scores the last trick with this card earns a beer from partner).

John

[jeremy69]

I think one trick to the defenders is obvious here. The claim statement is deficient.

[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Jan 15 2010, 04:31 AM, said:

I think one trick to the defenders is obvious here.

So do I. In fact, I think the real question is whether the defence gets 1 or 2 tricks. If declarer plays spades from the top and then hearts from the top (which arguably is the most plausible interpretation of his claim statement) then S gets 2 heart tricks.

[mjj29]

WellSpyder, on Jan 15 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

jeremy69, on Jan 15 2010, 04:31 AM, said:

I think one trick to the defenders is obvious here.

So do I. In fact, I think the real question is whether the defence gets 1 or 2 tricks. If declarer plays spades from the top and then hearts from the top (which arguably is the most plausible interpretation of his claim statement) then S gets 2 heart tricks.

I'd assume that throwing high hearts under other high hearts is irrational (unless, it's needed for the unblock and, indeed, in that case I'd generally require it to be mentioned in the claim statement)

[iviehoff]

axman, on Jan 15 2010, 06:19 AM, said:

On s different matter, it is notable that declarer claimed that all the spades and hearts were high. Regarding the heart suit this means he asserts that the HA and the H2 are equals. This condition is sufficient to rule that to play the HJ under the ace is a normal line of play.

Given that there is a significant number of hearts out, I think it is clear that declarer did not think that the ♥2 is already high. But unfortunately he did not make it clear whether he thought 2 or 3 rounds of hearts would be sufficient to make it high. Since in fact not even 3 rounds suffice, he has clearly some misperception, but we do not know exactly what his misperception is.

Since declarer hasn't mentioned that there are any entry issues to be dealt with, I don't see why he shouldn't run the spades first. Now he doesn't have the entries to take the J separately even if he wanted to.

So I think the defenders should get 2 tricks.

[bluejak]

When you rule on a claim, you assume commonsense. Now, posts that assume declarer is a total wally may be fun, but they are not based on reality.

Declarer does not need to mention entry problems when they are blindingly obvious. Declarer said the hearts and spades were good, and that is one trick short of correct.

Of course declarer could have played misere. But the claim Laws do not require it, and no competent TD or AC will rule on the basis he does so. No doubt some of the posters in this thread would only allow declarer two tricks with KJ opposite AQ2 if he gave no line apart from saying they are good, but that is nothing to do with ruling on claims.

When a player states that AQxx opposite J is a number of tricks, the king having gone, that means playing J on x first, and everyone knows that including th posters who say otherwise. So please keep that sort of argument for BLML or an English language newsgroup.

The only interest in this hand is whether declarer should be allowed to ruff a heart in dummy. In general, it is agreed not, though if he had worded his claim differently, we might have allowed it.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on Jan 15 2010, 08:24 AM, said:

The only interest in this hand is whether declarer should be allowed to ruff a heart in dummy. 

That may be your only interest, but I don't see why you should should try to impose that interest on everybody else. I consider it a completely uninteresting question since the answer is obvious.

I don't object to the ruling you are proposing, indeed I have already stated that I agree with it. But I consider it ridiculous to compare a suit of AQxx opposite J with one of AQx opposite KJ. If the suit had been AQxx opposite Jx then I would agree that it is unnecessary to consider the possibility of declarer blocking the suit, but with the actual suit given it certainly seems a more reasonable question than considering whether we should allow declarer the chance to ruff the last heart.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Jan 15 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

When a player states that AQxx opposite J is a number of tricks, the king having gone, that means playing J on x first, and everyone knows that including th posters who say otherwise.

I'm not sure if you were addressing me, but it immediately follows my post. But if so, your criticism is off the mark. I did not at any point suggest declarer would crash the HJ when it would have been advantageous for him to play a low heart to the J. I suggested he might cash out his trumps first, after which his best available play is to the crash the J. The player did mention the spades before the hearts in his (incomplete) statement, though I acknowledge that does not amount to a definite suggestion that he would play the spades off first. Playing off the entry you need to navigate a blocked suit seems to be in the category of careless.

[bluejak]

WellSpyder, on Jan 15 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 15 2010, 08:24 AM, said:

The only interest in this hand is whether declarer should be allowed to ruff a heart in dummy. 

That may be your only interest, but I don't see why you should should try to impose that interest on everybody else. I consider it a completely uninteresting question since the answer is obvious.

I don't object to the ruling you are proposing, indeed I have already stated that I agree with it. But I consider it ridiculous to compare a suit of AQxx opposite J with one of AQx opposite KJ. If the suit had been AQxx opposite Jx then I would agree that it is unnecessary to consider the possibility of declarer blocking the suit, but with the actual suit given it certainly seems a more reasonable question than considering whether we should allow declarer the chance to ruff the last heart.

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote, since you seem to be agreeing with me while saying you do not. The suggestions made in this thread include playing AQxx opposite J by cashing the ace or queen first. That is what I am objecting to. I still consider that cashing the ace or queen with that holding clearly analogous to playing KJ opposite AQ2 for two tricks.