[PeterAlan]

---

S is in a ♠ contract; W is on lead having just won ♠Q, when S exposes her cards and claims the last two tricks without a statement. She's probably not aware that ♠9's still out (let's accept for the discussion that all are aware that the trumps higher than ♠10 have already been played), so Law 70C's in point. What's "normal" play from dummy if W, as one must assume he will, leads the ♦Q [Edited: was "plain card"]?

Logically, if declarer were to think about the trumps at all, then:

• if she thinks there might be a trump out, then clearly it can't be right to play the 10
  
• if she thinks there's no trump out, then there's no reason to play the 10 either.

But declarer isn't thinking about the trumps, so what do we consider to be "normal" (ie "including any play that would be careless or inferior for the" reasonable club "class of player involved") for the purposes of Law 70C(3), bearing in mind that Law 70A requires the TD to rule "as equitably as possible to both sides, but" with the arguably not entirely consistent rider that "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer"? Is it "normal" for S to ruff the ♦Q with the 10♠ instead of the ♠6?

[aguahombre]

Deleted...OP fixed, now.

[PeterAlan]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-03, 11:34, said:

need better diagram. south doesn't hold the spade ten. East's lead will be coming up to the t6 of spades.

Sorry, "West" not "East". I've corrected OP.

[Vampyr]

Ditto

[billw55]

I have a firm opinion on this that I always post in threads like these: if declarer makes a claim that does not mention an outstanding trump, he should be deemed to be unaware of it.

In this case, if declarer thinks no trumps remain in defenders' hands, he might well play the ten, since he thinks it does not matter. I rule one trick to the defense.

Whether the laws actually support this is another matter. I am not a director and this is only a forum so I can say stuff like that

[ahydra]

Never heard the term "plain card" used before. I would have assumed it meant the non-decorated card, i.e. the S9, in which case a ruling based on South not playing the 10 from dummy is just plain stupid...

Not sure what to suggest here though - I'm not a director either. But my first instinct is to let S have both tricks - if S thinks there are no trumps out and were to play the last two tricks in full, she'd probably say "ruff" or "small" (no reason to ruff high, as you mentioned), then take the last trick with the S10.

Edit: but on the other hand, there is precedent for claimers being presumed to play suits from the top down...

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Let's walk through it.

"Declarer exposes her cards and claims without a statement". No statement at all? Okay, fair enough. This is definitely a claim (Law 68A). Failure to provide a line of play statement is an infraction of law 68C ("A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played"). Play ceases (Law 68D). Presumably West now objects to the claim, since he has a trump. So the Director is called, and he will, as Law 68D requires, apply Law 70. Law 70A requires the director to be "as equitable as possible to both sides" while giving the benefit of any doubt to the non-claiming side. Law 70B tells the director how to proceed:

1. Require claimer to repeat his line of play statement. This is not an opportunity to come up with a statement. Claimer didn't make one, so the only correct action by claimer at this point is to 'fess up: "I didn't make one".
2. Hear the opponents' objections (though his considerations are not limited to those objections).
3. The Director may require the players to place their cards face up on the table.

Okay, now what?

As the OP suggested, Law 70C is germane. Here's that law:

Quote

Law 70C: When a trump remains in one of the opponents’ hands, the director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if:

1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and
2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and
3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play.

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

Claimer made no statement about the trump, since she made no statement at all. OP asserts that "she's probably not aware of the outstanding trump" but gives no evidence in support of it. So what evidence do we have? Well, we have the evidence that she didn't say anything about it. Normally if a player knows a trump is outstanding, she'll say something about (particularly if she's run into this problem before). So I'd say the criterion here is met: she may well have been unaware. Could a trick be lost by any normal play? The footnote tells us that on a diamond lead ruffing with the ten would be "normal" as it is certainly inferior, and also careless. So this criterion is also met.

The rest of Law 70 is either irrelevant to this particular case, or reinforces the correct ruling per Law 70C: the criteria of Law 70C having been met, one of the remaining two tricks goes to the defense, and one to the declarer.

Earlier I mentioned that declarer violated Law 68C in not making a line of play statement. That law says a statement "should" be given, so the Introduction to the laws tells us that a procedural penalty, while possible, would be rare. I don't see a reason to give anything other that a warning in this case.

[PeterAlan]

Thank you for your responses, and especially blackshoe for the very detailed reply. My apologies once more for loose wording in the OP: I meant "plain card" to mean "non-trump" (ie ♦Q here), and I've further edited the OP to reflect this.

We needn't concern ourselves with the question of whether declarer knew there was a trump out, since for the purposes of the question I posed I want to assume that she didn't (at the table it was contentious, but I don't want to explore the rights and wrongs of that issue). I agree fully with blackshoe up to the point where he says:

blackshoe, on 2012-January-03, 17:43, said:

The footnote tells us that on a diamond lead ruffing with the ten would be "normal" as it is certainly inferior, and also careless.

but that question is the crux of what I was asking, and it is not at all clear to me that the matter is as straightforward as he says. [As a matter of logic, "A includes B and C" does not mean that if something is both B and C then it is necessarily A.]

To illustrate with an extreme example, if dummy's last cards were the AQ of trumps and the K was led then playing the Q would remain both inferior and careless, but would not, I suggest, be regarded as "normal" for the purposes of Law 70C(3). I am looking for guidance on where the boundary is thought to lie.

[blackshoe]

The footnote quoted above was changed in the 2007 laws. In the 1997 version, it read "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." I honestly don't know why it was changed.

I think the intent is that if no one in his right mind would make a particular play, the director cannot, in ruling on a contested claim, impose that play, but if it's reasonable that someone might make it, then he can impose it.

[Vampyr]

PeterAlan, on 2012-January-03, 18:15, said:

My apologies once more for loose wording in the OP: I meant "plain card" to mean "non-trump" (ie ♦Q here), and I've further edited the OP to reflect this.

Your wording was not "loose"; the meaning of "plain card" is, er, plain to native English speakers, and is used in bridge literature. Perhaps it is potentially confusing for non-natives, but it is difficult to predict that.

[iviehoff]

PeterAlan, on 2012-January-03, 18:15, said:

To illustrate with an extreme example, if dummy's last cards were the AQ of trumps and the K was led then playing the Q would remain both inferior and careless, but would not, I suggest, be regarded as "normal" for the purposes of Law 70C(3). I am looking for guidance on where the boundary is thought to lie.

You won't find guidance on where the boundary lies. You will just be able to tell by the increasing amount of disagreement whether you are in its vicinity.

What you can find instead is an explicit refusal to give guidance. It has been proposed to give guidance, but to date the "no guidance" party predominates. The reason for this is a feeling that it is probably better for the director to know that all the information he requires to rule on a claim lies in the book of laws, rather than needing to consult some additional fat document with guidance. There is of couse some precedent in the form of published appeals, but these are not binding and an examination of them will not present a clear dividing line.

I think the ruling as you present it is not a very contentious one, nearly all will rule one trick to the defence, with perhaps a small minority dissenting from that.

BillW goes a bit far in saying that if a player fails to mention outstanding trumps he should ALWAYS be deemed to be unaware of them. Suppose declarer holds AKQJxx opposite xx in trumps, plus a number of side-suit tops. He draws one round of trumps thereby to discover that they don't break 5-0, and at that point shows his hand in silence. It would be a rare director would supported the pedant who argued with that.

[gwnn]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-03, 19:27, said:

Your wording was not "loose"; the meaning of "plain card" is, er, plain to native English speakers, and is used in bridge literature. Perhaps it is potentially confusing for non-natives, but it is difficult to predict that.

ahydra is from England unless I'm mistaken.

Anyway I know that this sounds unbelievable but in practice everyone would ruff the ♦Q with a low spade there and everyone would cover the ♠9 with the 10.

[Vampyr]

gwnn, on 2012-January-04, 03:46, said:

Anyway I know that this sounds unbelievable but in practice everyone would ruff the ♦Q with a low spade there and everyone would cover the ♠9 with the 10.

I agree.

[billw55]

I also agree. And I don't care. One trick to the defense. And stop claiming without a valid statement.

[blackshoe]

"I don't care" is a poor attitude for a TD to take, and a worse thing for him to actually say at the table.

[iviehoff]

gwnn, on 2012-January-04, 03:46, said:

Anyway I know that this sounds unbelievable but in practice everyone would ruff the ♦Q with a low spade there and everyone would cover the ♠9 with the 10.

Not quite everyone, only those who are making a conscious choice of what to play. Some players, when they think it no longer matters, don't make conscious choices any more, they just say things like "play one", especially when you are down to just spots. I am sure we have all occasionally benefited because declarer thought it did matter, said "anything" or the like, and we could use our privilege as defender to choose the unspecified play from dummy. So I think the careless player, who thinks it doesn't matter, will occasionally end up playing the 10, and this is within the ambit of careless/inferior play.

[Cyberyeti]

This seems completely illogical and absurd. The play of the 10 is not just inferior, it's completely no win, nohow never. Compare with the situation where S has a losing diamond and spade 8 where ruffing high wins if the 7 is out, offside and about to overruff the 6 where there is a decision to make and if you claim without statement you're going to lose.

I think the claimer should be protected from doing something no beginner would do if the cards were actually played, this is a level of idiocy we should not be forced into if we fail to make a statement of something that should be self evident.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-04, 09:50, said:

"I don't care" is a poor attitude for a TD to take, and a worse thing for him to actually say at the table.

I agree again! Luckily, and as per my previous post, I am not a director and this is only a forum. With actual people I would proceed with more courtesy.

Cyberyeti said:

I think the claimer should be protected from doing something no beginner would do if the cards were actually played, this is a level of idiocy we should not be forced into if we fail to make a statement of something that should be self evident.

Perhaps, but what about iviehoff's point? There is actually a written law, 46B5, that states defender may specify the card if declarer says something obviously ambiguous. The question then is, is facing cards without saying anything at all such a case? I am not sure.

[blackshoe]

There is nothing in the law about "self-evident".

"Inferior" isn't the only possibility. There is also "careless". And it would certainly be careless to play the ten.

BTW, the claimer isn't doing anything. Play ended when he claimed. It's now up to the TD to judge how the play might have gone, giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimer's opponents.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2012-January-04, 13:57, said:

I agree again! Luckily, and as per my previous post, I am not a director and this is only a forum. With actual people I would proceed with more courtesy.

You don't think the people reading and posting here are real?