[wank]

---

the play went as shown, reaching this 5 card ending (don't slag off my declarer play - yes i know there was a double squeeze after the non-cash of a 2nd heart trick - i was dummy).

you will note west should know the heart position, but for no sensible reason declined to cash his winner and east should know the diamond position.

declarer now calls for a spade from dummy. east plays the king of clubs, picks it up and substitutes his low club. north/south point out this isn't entirely cricket. east then says '1 club trick' and shows all his cards. north/south call the director. aside from another reference to club trick and a stream of polish nothing more can be extracted from east. the first director therefore summons a polish speaking director. the second [Chief] director comes and asks east what he's doing in polish, and he explains that he knew he was being show up squeezed and declarer would make all the tricks if he had aq of clubs, and that if declarer didn't have the queen there was a club loser. after the initial debacle and having to wait for 2 directors, you will appreciate a reasonable amount of time has elapsed and all the cards have been shown before we hear the full story from east.

you will note that east actually has to keep his diamond and perforce will never personally make a club trick, and what west has to keep is dependent on what declarer keeps (declarer is squeezed first) but west perforce has to keep an accurate count on south's remaining cards.

director ruled 1 trick to EW which was upheld on appeal, though I did get my get 20 euros back, yay.

[barmar]

If West is at all competent, he knows declarer's heart count, so shouldn't have any problem discarding.

[lamford]

It seems like there was a defensive claim, when East says "one club to us". I think it is careless, but not irrational, for West to misdefend and I would not have awarded a trick to EW, but barmar's view is reasonable too.

I see lots of pros claim as East playing with clients, and their partners get average defence which they might not have found.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-September-21, 14:15, said:

I see lots of pros claim as East playing with clients, and their partners get average defence which they might not have found.

Your experience playing against a pro-client partnership is a lot different from mine.

[wank]

barmar, on 2014-September-21, 14:01, said:

If West is at all competent, he knows declarer's heart count, so shouldn't have any problem discarding.

i would say anyone who is incapable of cashing the 2nd heart winner when he had the opportunity is perfectly capable of miscounting at least 1 of the 2 required suits later.

[nige1]

wank, on 2014-September-20, 20:39, said:

the play went as shown, reaching this 5 card ending (don't slag off my declarer play - yes i know there was a double squeeze after the non-cash of a 2nd heart trick - i was dummy). you will note west should know the heart position, but for no sensible reason declined to cash his winner and east should know the diamond position. declarer now calls for a spade from dummy. east plays the king of clubs, picks it up and substitutes his low club. north/south point out this isn't entirely cricket. east then says '1 club trick' and shows all his cards. north/south call the director. aside from another reference to club trick and a stream of polish nothing more can be extracted from east. the first director therefore summons a polish speaking director. the second [Chief] director comes and asks east what he's doing in polish, and he explains that he knew he was being show up squeezed and declarer would make all the tricks if he had aq of clubs, and that if declarer didn't have the queen there was a club loser. after the initial debacle and having to wait for 2 directors, you will appreciate a reasonable amount of time has elapsed and all the cards have been shown before we hear the full story from east. you will note that east actually has to keep his diamond and perforce will never personally make a club trick, and what west has to keep is dependent on what declarer keeps (declarer is squeezed first) but west perforce has to keep an accurate count on south's remaining cards. director ruled 1 trick to EW which was upheld on appeal, though I did get my get 20 euros back, yay.

---

IMO, the director shouldn't allow East to claim West's trick for him, especially after West demonstrated that he is capable of careless and inferior defence, earlier in the play. The director might also consider a PP -- if he suspects that East could have known that his pro-claim was the best chance of rescuing the defence. Unfortunately, however, he probably can't legally justify a PP on that basis.

[ahydra]

The thing here is that West is almost forced into the winning defence given he knows how many hearts are in South. Any time South discards a heart, West does the same; any time South discards a non-heart, West will make the natural play of his lowest remaining club. It would be irrational to discard the CQ instead of a smaller club.

I'm assuming this was a high-level tournament so I would expect West to remember the heart count correctly, his earlier misdefence notwithstanding. (The X of 3D is pretty poor and West might be forgiven for assuming partner has the D9.) Hence the defence get the one trick, though I would caution East that they got lucky here in that West is naturally going to get it right and in other situations trying to claim partner's trick(s) may end up backfiring if there is an alternative non-irrational line of play.

ahydra