[Antrax]

S, a defender, on lead. Hearts are trump.

---

Declarer faces his hand. S asks for clarification. Declarer states "I ruff your return and everything is high". Director.
How many tricks does the defense get?

[Vampyr]

Declarer is clearly expecting a club return (it is the only one he can ruff. His plan to do so indicates that he has no more idea about this suit than about any others, since the diamonds are not high and the spades are not coming in). It is normal then for declarer to ruff the club, maybe cash the other trump, and play AK and a spade. It is difficult to see how the defenders get anything more than the pointed suit queens. Even a diamond and then a club through does not look as if it leads to more tricks. If South plays a diamond, and declarer, upon regaining the lead with the other diamond, plays the two trumps and then AK and another spade, I think that he will then in desperation put up the ♣K just in case it is good.

Perhaps my post is as hasty as the claim though, and there is a convincing argument why NS should get a trick in each plain suit.

[gnasher]

Before ruling I'd ask declarer which winners he thought he had when he claimed. I'm not quite sure of the legality of this, but I think that the possible lines of play depend on what was in his mind at the time he claimed.

[GreenMan]

I suppose if W thinks that literally all his cards are high, it's barely conceivable that he'd ruff the club from South, cash his other trump discarding the ♣K, then play a diamond. Defenders get 4 tricks.

But even with the given claim statement I'd be hard-pressed to consider that "careless or inferior but not irrational". So I don't see how the defense gets more than 2 tricks.

[Antrax]

Okay, thanks. There's no trick - I was just wondering if there's no penalty for making a claim that's basically incorrect. At the table I thought declarer thinks he's in a spade contract, as otherwise he can't "ruff any return", so I thought he might try to "ruff" a round of diamonds.

[bluejak]

As a general approach we do not tend to punish unless other people are disadvantaged or unless the player has a habit of such irregularities that suggest a penalty might make him take more care. Bad claims do not directly affect any players apart from opponents, and they are not disadvantaged since doubt is resolved in their favour. So, unless this player is making a nonsense of the game by continuous bad claims, there seems no reason to penalise,

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2013-February-14, 01:53, said:

Before ruling I'd ask declarer which winners he thought he had when he claimed. I'm not quite sure of the legality of this, but I think that the possible lines of play depend on what was in his mind at the time he claimed.

This is important, my best guess is he thought the diamonds were good (the claim makes little sense otherwise as even if the spades were good, if the diamonds weren't the defence had one to cash) and the third spade went on the K♣. If he says this, defence may only be entitled to one trick. The defence is only going to make Q♦ on any normal order of play if this is what declarer thought.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-February-14, 04:41, said:

my best guess is he thought the diamonds were good (the claim makes little sense otherwise as even if the spades were good, if the diamonds weren't the defence had one to cash) and the third spade went on the K♣.

This seems like too much of an elaboration on the original statement.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-14, 05:12, said:

This seems like too much of an elaboration on the original statement.

The TD can try to figure out what declarer was thinking at the time of the claim. In this case, it makes a big difference in what way declarer was thinking wrong.

If the TD can reliably establish what declarer's thoughts were and how he went wrong then he should use that information in determining what plays are "normal" for this declarer, making this error. I admit that it is not always possible to establish reliably what declarer was thinking, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give it a try.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-14, 06:13, said:

The TD can try to figure out what declarer was thinking at the time of the claim. In this case, it makes a big difference in what way declarer was thinking wrong.

If the TD can reliably establish what declarer's thoughts were and how he went wrong then he should use that information in determining what plays are "normal" for this declarer, making this error. I admit that it is not always possible to establish reliably what declarer was thinking, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give it a try.

Rik

Yes, but obviously the objection to the claim causes declarer to rethink, even if not quite intentionally.

[gnasher]

If we ask him what was in his mind when he claimed, he should do his best to tell us that, not what is in his mind now. He may not be able to tell us, and if he does we don't have to believe him, but I can't see any harm in asking.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-14, 06:37, said:

Yes, but obviously the objection to the claim causes declarer to rethink, even if not quite intentionally.

Sure.

But, precisely in a case like this, declarer could say: "Oh %$#^. I thought the diamonds were high." or "I forgot that I still had to give up a spade trick." or whatever. Many declarers will answer honestly and of the remaining part many will not be able to reason what the TD will do with the information and oversee the consequences of what they say.

And if we see a declarer who is actively rethinking, we can still dismiss his answer.

In a case like this, a TD should ask and listen. The mistake that many TDs (including me) make in these cases is that they start talking too much, too early. That disturbs all the fact finding. It empties the brain of the player and deletes his original plan, because his brain is needed to counter the arguments by the TD (and the opponents. As long as the TD and the opponents don't talk too much, the player will know his original plan and will usually be able to tell what it was.

Rik

[lalldonn]

It helps to know how the play went but in general I doubt he really thought the diamonds were high or spades were just running. More likely "everything is high" was a careless way to say "I have a high card for every remaining trick", possibly thinking south was out of diamonds. So the defenders get their diamond. I mean are we supposed to say he thought the spades were running when there hasn't been a spade played yet?

[billw55]

lalldonn, on 2013-February-14, 11:14, said:

It helps to know how the play went but in general I doubt he really thought the diamonds were high or spades were just running. More likely "everything is high" was a careless way to say "I have a high card for every remaining trick", possibly thinking south was out of diamonds. So the defenders get their diamond. I mean are we supposed to say he thought the spades were running when there hasn't been a spade played yet?

The problem is what Vampyr pointed out in the first reply: declarer's statement "everything is high" seems in contradiction with his announced intention to ruff the expected club lead (which suggests he doesn't know the king is good). If sufficiently confused, perhaps he would try to run the spades.

[lalldonn]

billw55, on 2013-February-14, 14:06, said:

The problem is what Vampyr pointed out in the first reply: declarer's statement "everything is high" seems in contradiction with his announced intention to ruff the expected club lead (which suggests he doesn't know the king is good). If sufficiently confused, perhaps he would try to run the spades.

I don't see how ruffing a club makes us think he believed the spades were good. He only needs one spade discard on the club whether or not the diamonds are good (assuming he didn't realize there's a chance to lose no spade tricks). But I don't think he really meant to ruff a club anyway. I see it's all he can ruff but it seems a lot more likely to me that he was carelessly saying there is nothing you can play to hurt me.

I mean idunno, these things are hard if we weren't there and we don't know the line of play or the player. It's hard to take these statements very literally without hearing them from the player's mouth, any comments prior to them, etc. After all, if you took it quite literally, he would think the 3 of spades was high, he did say EVERYTHING.

[Fluffy]

Cyberyeti's explanation is the most plausuible in my opinion, it is almost impossible that someone missing QJxxx in a suit that was never palyed thinks it is high.

I don't see any way in wich declarer can make less than 5 tricks. If he cashes ♣K he has no way back to hand for playing a diamond except destroying north's club comunication or cashing his ♠K wich is the 5th trick. And if he plays a diamond early he obviousl realice they are not high.