Help
Declarer claims all of the tricks in a n-card ending, believing all the cards to be winners. One of the cards is not a winner. Clearly he loses one trick, but is he required to play his cards in the least favourable order or is there a "normal" line of play. Or should I post a specific example?
Page 1 of 1
False Claim One of Declarer's cards not a winner
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,478
- Joined: 2007-October-15
Posted 2025-November-28, 17:27
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,931
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2025-November-28, 20:45
lamford, on 2025-November-28, 17:27, said:
is he required to play his cards in the least favourable order or is there a "normal" line of play. Or should I post a specific example?
No. No. Yes.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 396
- Joined: 2020-June-26
Posted Yesterday, 01:50
lamford, on 2025-November-28, 17:27, said:
Declarer claims all of the tricks in a n-card ending, believing all the cards to be winners. One of the cards is not a winner. Clearly he loses one trick, but is he required to play his cards in the least favourable order or is there a "normal" line of play. Or should I post a specific example?
A matter of definition as described in the Bride Laws. Article 68 D: After any claim or concession, play is suspended.
There is no play following a claim, no normal play, no stupid play, no expert play, simply no play at all. The non-claiming or non-conceding side can (but is not mandated to) ask for play to resume and that ONLY happens when all FOUR players concur in which case play continues without any restrictions and the claim is voided, there is no claim anymore.
In all other cases a disputed claim is up to the director, not up to any of the players, to work out a score. The director will follow Article 70.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,478
- Joined: 2007-October-15
Posted Yesterday, 06:46
blackshoe, on 2025-November-28, 20:45, said:
No. No. Yes.
West is in Four Spades, and has lost two tricks. She is on lead and claims the remainder without stating a line, being unaware of the missing trump. The TD awards ten tricks.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,931
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted Yesterday, 10:12
Clearly the defense gets a trump trick (Law 70C). The question is whether they get a club trick (or two). I see several possible lines:
1. Lead her trump, losing to North. Win North's return, taking two top clubs and two top diamonds, in whatever order he likes.
2. Take two top clubs and two top diamonds, losing the second diamond to North's trump. Ruff the club return and take another diamond trick.
3. Play on diamonds, losing the second diamond. Win the club return, take another club, trump a club, take another diamond.
4. Assume the clubs are or will be good, and attempt to run them. South would take the third club, but West ruffs and takes a diamond. North ruffs the second diamond and gets a club. Down one.
5. Same line, but West ducks the third club, ruffs the fourth and later loses to North's trump. Down one.
6. Try to take three or four diamonds, North ruffs the second one and leads a club. West gets two clubs and eventually a trump trick. Making four.
Now Law 70A says In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.
It seems to me that 70A suggests a ruling of 4♠ making four.
1. Lead her trump, losing to North. Win North's return, taking two top clubs and two top diamonds, in whatever order he likes.
2. Take two top clubs and two top diamonds, losing the second diamond to North's trump. Ruff the club return and take another diamond trick.
3. Play on diamonds, losing the second diamond. Win the club return, take another club, trump a club, take another diamond.
4. Assume the clubs are or will be good, and attempt to run them. South would take the third club, but West ruffs and takes a diamond. North ruffs the second diamond and gets a club. Down one.
5. Same line, but West ducks the third club, ruffs the fourth and later loses to North's trump. Down one.
6. Try to take three or four diamonds, North ruffs the second one and leads a club. West gets two clubs and eventually a trump trick. Making four.
Now Law 70A says In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.
It seems to me that 70A suggests a ruling of 4♠ making four.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,478
- Joined: 2007-October-15
Posted Yesterday, 10:21
blackshoe, on 2025-November-29, 10:12, said:
Clearly the defense gets a trump trick (Law 70C). The question is whether they get a club trick (or two). I see several possible lines:
1. Lead her trump, losing to North. Win North's return, taking two top clubs and two top diamonds, in whatever order he likes.
2. Take two top clubs and two top diamonds, losing the second diamond to North's trump. Ruff the club return and take another diamond trick.
3. Play on diamonds, losing the second diamond. Win the club return, take another club, trump a club, take another diamond.
4. Assume the clubs are or will be good, and attempt to run them. South would take the third club, but West ruffs and takes a diamond. North ruffs the second diamond and gets a club. Down one.
5. Same line, but West ducks the third club, ruffs the fourth and later loses to North's trump. Down one.
6. Try to take three or four diamonds, North ruffs the second one and leads a club. West gets two clubs and eventually a trump trick. Making four.
Now Law 70A says In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.
It seems to me that 70A suggests a ruling of 4♠ making four.
1. Lead her trump, losing to North. Win North's return, taking two top clubs and two top diamonds, in whatever order he likes.
2. Take two top clubs and two top diamonds, losing the second diamond to North's trump. Ruff the club return and take another diamond trick.
3. Play on diamonds, losing the second diamond. Win the club return, take another club, trump a club, take another diamond.
4. Assume the clubs are or will be good, and attempt to run them. South would take the third club, but West ruffs and takes a diamond. North ruffs the second diamond and gets a club. Down one.
5. Same line, but West ducks the third club, ruffs the fourth and later loses to North's trump. Down one.
6. Try to take three or four diamonds, North ruffs the second one and leads a club. West gets two clubs and eventually a trump trick. Making four.
Now Law 70A says In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.
It seems to me that 70A suggests a ruling of 4♠ making four.
The TD ruled similarly to you. 4S=. I think a normal line would be ace of clubs, king of clubs, diamond. Now west needs to play three more rounds of diamonds, and any spade is fatal. Another failing line is diamond, diamond, spade. That is two down. These were regarded as "contrived". It all hinges on what is "normal" which seems to be the TD's judgement.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,078
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted Yesterday, 15:58
lamford, on 2025-November-29, 10:21, said:
The TD ruled similarly to you. 4S=. I think a normal line would be ace of clubs, king of clubs, diamond. Now west needs to play three more rounds of diamonds, and any spade is fatal. Another failing line is diamond, diamond, spade. That is two down. These were regarded as "contrived". It all hinges on what is "normal" which seems to be the TD's judgement.
I have sympathy with your argument.
The FIGB actually does better than most RAs here, as it gives public guidance that Declarer will never play the 9 of trumps if she gave no indication of being aware that there was an outstanding trump (think about the case where North has the 8), and also that each remaining suit shall be played in descending order. Alas it still slips through the planks by not specifying if/when/why the Director can decide to play one suit rather than another and by supplying non-public guidance that the level of Declarer should be taken into consideration and any reasonable line of play be considered automatic.
My feeling (as a Director, but also as a player and student of Law) is that nobody has a duty or right to claim without a statement of intended play in such an uncertain situation and they deserve everything coming to them if they do. Within the limits of L70 and our Regulations taken at the letter, as Director I would play the clubs top down here.
I would also be quite happy if a claim of all tricks without declaring a line of play was punished with a transfer of one trick even if all tricks are certain.
#8
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,144
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted Yesterday, 16:17
How this is to be resolved by the director is a matter of regulation; I would see if there's something in the White Book. My quick look doesn't make it clear.
In the ACBL, we follow the following guidelines. High cards and trumps not mentioned and "potentially forgotten about" do not exist for the purposes of using these:
Source: memory and TD experience, but also a set of training materials I got in 2024 that I think are the ones used for Certified Local Director training. Missed one (but it's encompassed in my #1): Declarer will not play trump to put pressure on a defender. i.e. "sure, the squeeze is automatic, but if you didn't say you were playing for it, you don't get to."
I like these rules, because they answer a lot of (frankly, frequently fanciful) objections (on both sides):
One thing I did notice: in the ACBL, declarer is deemed to be aware of the cards that are played; they will notice a 5-0 break before conceding a trick to the T (but not necessarily while keeping the entry if the squeeze executes after AKQJ). In the White Book, it is considered careless (and therefore normal*) to not notice the break and keep playing the suit. Interesting, that.
In the ACBL, we follow the following guidelines. High cards and trumps not mentioned and "potentially forgotten about" do not exist for the purposes of using these:
- Claimer will not play trump before other winners if there are no trumps out.
- Suits will be played from the top down.
- Ruffs will be taken from the bottom up.
- Winners in side suits will be taken in the unluckiest suit order (but not "She'll block herself from hand").
- Suits that run will not necessarily be tested before other winners are cashed (so here, yes "She'll cash her entry before going to the 'running' suit").
Source: memory and TD experience, but also a set of training materials I got in 2024 that I think are the ones used for Certified Local Director training. Missed one (but it's encompassed in my #1): Declarer will not play trump to put pressure on a defender. i.e. "sure, the squeeze is automatic, but if you didn't say you were playing for it, you don't get to."
I like these rules, because they answer a lot of (frankly, frequently fanciful) objections (on both sides):
- "Declarer will ruff low with her trump-tight, and you will have to follow. Then they will play trumps from the top and drop your forgotten trump."
- Conversely, "You will ruff low with your AK7, and she will overruff with the 9."
- You can't force declarer to "pull" the outstanding trump when it's high, but declarer can not pull it when it's low.
- "But I don't *need* the diamond K, I have enough winners in the obvious KQx of clubs." "Yes, but you said they're *all* good. If it was so obvious, you'd have said 'clubs and trumps'."
One thing I did notice: in the ACBL, declarer is deemed to be aware of the cards that are played; they will notice a 5-0 break before conceding a trick to the T (but not necessarily while keeping the entry if the squeeze executes after AKQJ). In the White Book, it is considered careless (and therefore normal*) to not notice the break and keep playing the suit. Interesting, that.
Long live the Republic-k. -- Major General J. Golding Frederick (tSCoSI)
#9
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 924
- Joined: 2009-July-29
- Gender:Male
Posted Yesterday, 19:12
pescetom, on 2025-November-29, 15:58, said:
I have sympathy with your argument.
The FIGB actually does better than most RAs here, as it gives public guidance that Declarer will never play the 9 of trumps if she gave no indication of being aware that there was an outstanding trump (think about the case where North has the 8), and also that each remaining suit shall be played in descending order. Alas it still slips through the planks by not specifying if/when/why the Director can decide to play one suit rather than another and by supplying non-public guidance that the level of Declarer should be taken into consideration and any reasonable line of play be considered automatic.
My feeling (as a Director, but also as a player and student of Law) is that nobody has a duty or right to claim without a statement of intended play in such an uncertain situation and they deserve everything coming to them if they do. Within the limits of L70 and our Regulations taken at the letter, as Director I would play the clubs top down here.
I would also be quite happy if a claim of all tricks without declaring a line of play was punished with a transfer of one trick even if all tricks are certain.
The FIGB actually does better than most RAs here, as it gives public guidance that Declarer will never play the 9 of trumps if she gave no indication of being aware that there was an outstanding trump (think about the case where North has the 8), and also that each remaining suit shall be played in descending order. Alas it still slips through the planks by not specifying if/when/why the Director can decide to play one suit rather than another and by supplying non-public guidance that the level of Declarer should be taken into consideration and any reasonable line of play be considered automatic.
My feeling (as a Director, but also as a player and student of Law) is that nobody has a duty or right to claim without a statement of intended play in such an uncertain situation and they deserve everything coming to them if they do. Within the limits of L70 and our Regulations taken at the letter, as Director I would play the clubs top down here.
I would also be quite happy if a claim of all tricks without declaring a line of play was punished with a transfer of one trick even if all tricks are certain.
There is a notion called attractive nuisance. If FIGB wishes to teach its players to not earn their scores their Policy is such a route that attracts players to not play bridge.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,478
- Joined: 2007-October-15
Posted Today, 08:56
When I have served on Appeal Committees, the principle that is followed is that if declarer regards all his cards as winners, then he can play them in any sensible order. In this example:
Declarer is unaware of the missing trump and may well play ace, king of clubs and ruff a club, fatally. This would be 100% if no trumps were missing. If he was aware of the trump, he would have cashed the ace of spades. This line looks "contrived" however, and might not be "as equitably as possible".
The possible lines, with the 9 of spades and not the ace of spades, are
a) Diamond, Diamond, Diamond. Declarer makes whether North ruffs or not
b) Diamond, Diamond, Spade. This is 100% if there is no trump out but here is one off.
c) Diamond, Diamond, Club, Club. This makes as West can ruff a club for his tenth trick
d) Diamond, Club, Club, Club ruff. One off although 100% if there are no trumps out.
e) Diamond, Club, Club, Diamond. Now North should not ruff. In the two-ending West has TD and 9C. I have been on more than one AC in which declarer has claimed both tricks in a two-card ending and was deemed to play the loser first, making 0 or 1 trick depending on the situation.
e) Diamond, Spade. This makes.
f) Club, Club, Club Ruff. This goes one down, but would be 100% if there was no trump outstanding.
g) Club, Club, Diamond, Spade. This is one off as North has the last two tricks.
h) Club, Club, Diamond, Diamond. This transposes into e) above. Declarer is in a 2-card ending, and one play wins one loses. SO he is 1 off.
All of the above lines would be 100% if there was not a trump outstanding. No lines involving ducking a club should be considered. Nor does it consider exiting with the 8 of diamonds. Here only lines a), c) and e) make. There was no stated line, so declarer is one off.
Declarer is unaware of the missing trump and may well play ace, king of clubs and ruff a club, fatally. This would be 100% if no trumps were missing. If he was aware of the trump, he would have cashed the ace of spades. This line looks "contrived" however, and might not be "as equitably as possible".
The possible lines, with the 9 of spades and not the ace of spades, are
a) Diamond, Diamond, Diamond. Declarer makes whether North ruffs or not
b) Diamond, Diamond, Spade. This is 100% if there is no trump out but here is one off.
c) Diamond, Diamond, Club, Club. This makes as West can ruff a club for his tenth trick
d) Diamond, Club, Club, Club ruff. One off although 100% if there are no trumps out.
e) Diamond, Club, Club, Diamond. Now North should not ruff. In the two-ending West has TD and 9C. I have been on more than one AC in which declarer has claimed both tricks in a two-card ending and was deemed to play the loser first, making 0 or 1 trick depending on the situation.
e) Diamond, Spade. This makes.
f) Club, Club, Club Ruff. This goes one down, but would be 100% if there was no trump outstanding.
g) Club, Club, Diamond, Spade. This is one off as North has the last two tricks.
h) Club, Club, Diamond, Diamond. This transposes into e) above. Declarer is in a 2-card ending, and one play wins one loses. SO he is 1 off.
All of the above lines would be 100% if there was not a trump outstanding. No lines involving ducking a club should be considered. Nor does it consider exiting with the 8 of diamonds. Here only lines a), c) and e) make. There was no stated line, so declarer is one off.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,078
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted Today, 09:33
axman, on 2025-November-29, 19:12, said:
There is a notion called attractive nuisance. If FIGB wishes to teach its players to not earn their scores their Policy is such a route that attracts players to not play bridge.
It's an interesting parallel, but not quite on target I think: the innocent party exposed to harm here is the Director, the players have no problem in recognizing the opportunity nor scruples about exploiting it or denying even to themselves having done so.
Page 1 of 1