[nicolec]

In a club teams match Declarer is on lead from dummy playing in a heart contract. He claims conceding a trump in this end position. Dummy ♥1085 ♦5 - opposite a ♦winner and 3 cards. Declarer thinks the trump out is the ♥J. It is in fact the ♥7 and is sitting under the 1086. Do you award 3 or 4 tricks to declarer?

[nicolec]

Oh yes the defender with the trump is following to the diamond

[iviehoff]

Presuming that declarer has tried to withdraw his concession, the answer is yes, you award 3 or 4 tricks to declarer, you will find people to argue for both results. Personally I award 3 tricks. I think a player under the impression that there is a winning trump out might carelessly play any trump at random from table, thinking it doesn't matter which. You don't tell us whether the defender is ruffing diamonds, but it would also be a normal play when there is a winning trump out to cash the side suit winner first.

[VixTD]

nicolec, on 2012-January-12, 04:36, said:

In a club teams match Declarer is on lead from dummy playing in a heart contract. He claims conceding a trump in this end position. Dummy ♥1085 ♦5 - opposite a ♦winner and 3 cards. Declarer thinks the trump out is the ♥J. It is in fact the ♥7 and is sitting under the 1085. Do you award 3 or 4 tricks to declarer?

Three tricks.

A claimer who is running winners may be considered to always play a suit from the top, but a player who is trying to give up a trick that he believes he must lose might well lead out a small card. This is a normal line of play in this (perceived) situation and so the defence are awarded one trick.

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2012-January-12, 07:18, said:

Three tricks.

A claimer who is running winners may be considered to always play a suit from the top, but a player who is trying to give up a trick that he believes he must lose might well lead out a small card. This is a normal line of play in this (perceived) situation and so the defence are awarded one trick.

Not true, only if he's sure there's only one trump out, the statement of "conceding a trump" is consistent with J2 or J7 missing, in which case he leads from the top. Clarification may establish he thought that there was only one missing in which case you're right.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2012-January-12, 07:18, said:

A claimer who is running winners may be considered to always play a suit from the top, but a player who is trying to give up a trick that he believes he must lose might well lead out a small card.

It depends on the class of player involved, and what he says. Let us say he states, "you get a trump". If he has A32 and there is one trump out, he does not lose a trick, as it is worse than careless to start with a small card. With AK2 and two out, it is worse than careless to start with the 2, even though he has said "you get a trump". With J108 and two out - declarer thinks there is 9xx out - again it is worse than careless to start with the 8. By analogy with the situation where declarer is deemed to lead the suit from the top when running winners, I see no difference. If starting with a low card can never gain, then it is not "normal". Nor is it equitable.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2012-January-13, 08:25, said:

If starting with a low card can never gain, then it is not "normal".

But that is to assume the player actually goes to the trouble of making a conscious choice of which card to play. When a player having a bunch of spot cards he hasn't even looked very carefully at, and considers to be all of equivalent rank, he often does just play the one by his thumb, he doesn't go to the effort of making a conscious choice as to which one to play. I know I do that sometimes. So I think playing a small one in the situation of this hand is a reasonably commonly seen carelessness.

[Cyberyeti]

iviehoff, on 2012-January-13, 08:54, said:

But that is to assume the player actually goes to the trouble of making a conscious choice of which card to play. When a player having a bunch of spot cards he hasn't even looked very carefully at, and considers to be all of equivalent rank, he often does just play the one by his thumb, he doesn't go to the effort of making a conscious choice as to which one to play. I know I do that sometimes. So I think playing a small one in the situation of this hand is a reasonably commonly seen carelessness.

I never ever do this, and nor to my knowledge does anybody else, you always play from the top in case you've miscounted.

[axman]

lamford, on 2012-January-13, 08:25, said:

It depends on the class of player involved, and what he says. Let us say he states, "you get a trump". If he has A32 and there is one trump out, he does not lose a trick, as it is worse than careless to start with a small card. With AK2 and two out, it is worse than careless to start with the 2, even though he has said "you get a trump". With J108 and two out - declarer thinks there is 9xx out - again it is worse than careless to start with the 8. By analogy with the situation where declarer is deemed to lead the suit from the top when running winners, I see no difference. If starting with a low card can never gain, then it is not "normal". Nor is it equitable.

Doesn’t this assume as fact that which is not in evidence?

'there is one trump out,'
'and two out,'
'and two out '-

...as in who asserted there were two out....?

What I mean is that when claimer asserts that E has the CAKQ while we may not know what he would do about it at least we know whether he is right or wrong. The point being that if he says nothing then we know nothing. Is it really the right thing to do to act as though [claimer knows] there is but one trump outstanding when in fact there is exactly one trump outstanding yet claimer asserts nothing about it?

[lamford]

axman, on 2012-January-13, 09:22, said:

The point being that if he says nothing then we know nothing.

Indeed many claims are silent, and what he knows has to be assumed, partly by his ability, and partly by the play to that point. However, if he knows nothing, it is still normal to lead suits from the top. If he has AKQxx and he has no idea how many trumps are out, he will only fail if someone has four or more. Similarly if he has 986 of trumps he will fail if someone has a trick or more when they are led from the top. It isn't 'careless' to lead the six first, it is 'abnormal'. Someone with AKQ102 would not lead the 10 even if they thought there was one card out and it was not the jack. It seems ridiculous to deem that someone plays from the top down in some situations and not in others!

How would you rule if someone with AKQxxxx opposite a void, said "a trump to you" if they broke 3-3? VixTd would rule that you may as well start with a small one, as you think (or hope) they are breaking 4-3, and you are trying to give up a trick.

[blackshoe]

I suppose you could ask declarer (before any defender's hand is faced) how many trump are out. One problem I've had with this is that I asked declarer, and one of the defenders answered! I was tempted to rule in declarer's favor because of that.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-13, 09:13, said:

I never ever do this, and nor to my knowledge does anybody else, you always play from the top in case you've miscounted.

I do it, and some of my opponents do. If I have JT8 and the remaining trumps are Q7 I might easily play the 8, and I am not the only one who does so.

The problem with this top down business is that not everyone does it. Sure, no-one plays the 2 from AK2, but from a mish-mash like JT8 I would agree the majority lead high - but a majority is not a good enough excuse.

lamford, on 2012-January-13, 10:21, said:

Indeed many claims are silent, and what he knows has to be assumed, partly by his ability, and partly by the play to that point. However, if he knows nothing, it is still normal to lead suits from the top. If he has AKQxx and he has no idea how many trumps are out, he will only fail if someone has four or more. Similarly if he has 986 of trumps he will fail if someone has a trick or more when they are led from the top. It isn't 'careless' to lead the six first, it is 'abnormal'.

Wrong: it is careless, but is a play that players make because their mind is on other things.

lamford, on 2012-January-13, 10:21, said:

How would you rule if someone with AKQxxxx opposite a void, said "a trump to you" if they broke 3-3? VixTd would rule that you may as well start with a small one, as you think (or hope) they are breaking 4-3, and you are trying to give up a trick.

Players do not lead the x, so the defence does not get a trick. That does not affect the fact that players do lead the 8 from JT8 or the 6 from 986 when they "know" it makes no difference.

[StevenG]

bluejak, on 2012-January-13, 18:14, said:

I do it, and some of my opponents do. If I have JT8 and the remaining trumps are Q7 I might easily play the 8, and I am not the only one who does so.

May I ask how often you do it and then find out that you were wrong?

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-January-13, 18:14, said:

Wrong: it is careless, but is a play that players make because their mind is on other things.

All of us have pulled the wrong card at some time or other. But the intent of the law, in particular restoring equity, is that a player should not be forced to make pointless plays such as leading the lowest card of a suit. A careless player might lead low from AKQJx because his or her mind is on other things.

[bluejak]

StevenG, on 2012-January-14, 04:25, said:

May I ask how often you do it and then find out that you were wrong?

Never that I remember.

lamford, on 2012-January-14, 05:43, said:

All of us have pulled the wrong card at some time or other. But the intent of the law, in particular restoring equity, is that a player should not be forced to make pointless plays such as leading the lowest card of a suit. A careless player might lead low from AKQJx because his or her mind is on other things.

But he woudl not regularly play low from AKQJx: a player who knows the nine has gone would often lead low from JT8.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-January-14, 18:02, said:

a player who knows the nine has gone would often lead low from JT8.

Indeed if the nine has gone, all three cards are normal. If the nine has not gone, only the jack and ten are. In the claim law, one is allowed to notice if someone has shown out of a suit ("unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit ... etc"). By analogy, one is allowed to notice that a significant card has not yet been played. Certainly one would not lead the lowest card of a suit if there is any doubt.

[bluejak]

If there is no doubt then people will not claim in such a way. Of course a player who gives a trick to the queen has no doubt, and is merely mistaken when it turns out to be the nine.

Really, Paul, players that never make mistakes, never make false claims.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-January-14, 19:16, said:

Really, Paul, players that never make mistakes, never make false claims.

The question is how much of a mistake we make the claimant make. If the player had claimed silently, would you make him lead the 8 from J108 when the nine is out? That seems contrary to the principle of equity. Players fail to notice that someone shows out, but the Laws give them five tricks with AKx opposite Q10xxx in no trumps when RHO shows out on the second round. It would clearly be careless not to notice someone show out, and continue with the queen on the third round. We should apply a similar principle to which card to lead from any suit.

[StevenG]

For anyone who always knows exactly what spot cards are remaining, it is not irrational to play any card from equals, because they are guaranteed to be equals. (Bluejak has admitted that he is in this category.)

However, the rest of us learn from our mistakes. If we lose tricks due to carelessness, we try not to do it again and think how to play a suit to avoid memory errors. It almost invariably means playing a suit from the top, and, thus, playing a low card does become irrational.

For a player in the first category to say "I do it" and then use that as a reason to say it is not irrational for a player in the other category to do the same is illogical. It is not about equity, as the laws demand - it is merely a fiction used as a device to justify ruling (wrongly) against players.

[gnasher]

StevenG, on 2012-January-15, 03:32, said:

However, the rest of us learn from our mistakes. If we lose tricks due to carelessness, we try not to do it again and think how to play a suit to avoid memory errors. It almost invariably means playing a suit from the top, and, thus, playing a low card does become irrational.

But a player who makes a false claim has plainly not learned from his mistakes, is not succeeding in his efforts not to do it again, and is showing evidence of a lack of thought.