[Ranmit]

Not a serious question - more for fun.

So, at a table, declarer is left with top trumps (♥), 10♣, Kx♠. Dummy has A10X♠. LHS is strongly believed to have the J♣ (only club honor outstanding) and QJ♠, based on the bidding and the lead. Declarer claims "I run the trumps, if the J♣ does not fall on the last trump, I will play the KA ♠ and take the 10♠ if the QJ fall." Since the squeeze was working, claim was readily accepted and the next board played.

I just wonder how rigid does the exact wording of the claim has to be? If I was defending here and playing with good friends, I would be tempted to say "I discard J♣ immediately. Since now the J♣ 'does not fall on the last trump' - as clearly specified in the claim, you have to play the spades and give me the last trick."

If this were a serious tournament, would you buy this argument?

[pescetom]

No, I would not buy this argument, Taliban though I may be, nor would I force her to play on the spades if the ♣J does fall (she did not state that she would cash the ♣T).

Sure she could have worded the claim even more precisely, but it is already exemplary compared to the vague things one often hears: she mentions all the relevant outstanding cards and states a clear line of play.

[barmar]

I'm with pescetom. Declarer is clearly aware that the [CJ] is outstanding, and can be expected to notice if it were discarded, making their 10 good and the rest of the details moot.

That said, the following happened to me a couple of nights ago.

In my hand I had all the trumps except one high outstanding, with LHO known to hold it. I held ♠Axx opposite KTx, with RHO known to have length from the auction.

I could have conceded 2 tricks at this point, for down 1, but I decided to play it out (maybe RHO bid on junk and LHO has ♠QJ). I cashed the ♠A (no honor appearing), then led towards the K. LHO ruffed, but I called for dummy's king too soon! I should be good enough to notice that he'd compressed my 2 losers into one, but I blew it.

But when we adjudicate claims, we're generally pretty liberal in allowing for unexpected actions, as long as the claim is generally complete. But sloppy claims like "my hand is good" get less benefit of the doubt.

[mycroft]

The claim is equivalent to "run the trumps, looking only for the ♣J. If it doesn't fall, pitch the ♣T on the last trump and play ♠KAT. Does it work?"

The fact that claimer said "on the last trump" - I can't imagine anyone believing they wouldn't see it on a previous trick, BarMar's experience aside.

It is a cute objection, though, and I'd be smiling as I gave the ruling.