[Cyberyeti]

---

Clubs are trumps, declarer claims with E on lead, and thinking declarer has a trump and 4 spades we table our hands, then see his diamond, I'm on lead and have one, 2 in fact and one is bigger than the 9.

Now as I recall you can't normally take a winning finesse after a misclaim, Q♠ is onside.

What I'm not sure of is if the EW hands have 7 spades and a diamond left between them after the diamond is played at trick 9 so the drop or any pin cannot work, what happens next, I'm comfortable with there being a losing option you must take if the remaining cards are 6 spades and 2 red cards, but are you required to miscount if there is only one non spade out ?

[steve2005]

If you thought declarer had 4 spades

did you think he was finessing QS? (in original claim)

Why are you tabling your hands before declare tables theirs?

[johnu]

steve2005, on 2018-December-14, 17:33, said:

If you thought declarer had 4 spades

did you think he was finessing QS? (in original claim)

Why are you tabling your hands before declare tables theirs?

Presumably East thought that he was endplayed, either give up a sluff/ruff on a non spade lead, or leading a spade into dummy's KJ in spades.

[The_Badger]

Not a tournament director as I have said previously but, to me, irrespective of you tabling your cards first, declarer has made a direct statement and claimed the last five tricks and hasn't stating any line of play to uphold his claim.

To my knowledge, I believe that declarer cannot take a winning finesse, too, as you said.

Claim disallowed in my book, though it'll be better to have confirmation from an official TD on here.

[ahydra]

You know that the remaining EW cards are seven spades and a diamond, but we don't know if declarer also knew that. It depends on declarer's skill level and possibly also the play to the first eight tricks.

In my experience the average club player, even if they know no spades have been played, doesn't get from that to "ah, so the spades are 4-3 and no drop can work". Tournament players and the higher levels of club players would get this right, but for them I'd be tempted to tack on a PP for not stating a line of play.

ahydra

[sanst]

Declarer didn’t state a line of play. In my book that’s an easy one. We assume the worst line of play that isn’t abnormal and isn’t dependent on a finesse. To play low spades from both hands is not normal, but any other isn’t. You have to take in account the quality of the player involved. A reasonable good one will play the ace first and a small one to KJ. If the Q doesn’t drop before he plays from the dummy, a trick is lost to the queen.
FWIIW, I’m a fully qualified TD.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-December-14, 16:41, said:

What I'm not sure of is if the EW hands have 7 spades and a diamond left between them after the diamond is played at trick 9 so the drop or any pin cannot work, what happens next, I'm comfortable with there being a losing option you must take if the remaining cards are 6 spades and 2 red cards, but are you required to miscount if there is only one non spade out ?

It's interesting to note that the relevant law has changed. What it used to say was:

Quote

L70E. Unstated Line of Play
1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the
other with a particular card, 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 on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

But the final clause was removed as shown. So we have a clear indication that we can insist on a line even if it would be irrational, if the other two requirements of this law are met.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2018-December-15, 03:23, said:

It's interesting to note that the relevant law has changed. What it used to say was:

...

But the final clause was removed as shown. So we have a clear indication that we can insist on a line even if it would be irrational, if the other two requirements of this law are met.

Thanks Gordon, that's exactly what I wanted to know. I don't feel guilty now

[nige1]

When declarer started to claim, if defenders immediately faced their hands, without giving declarer time for a claim-statement, might the director rule in favour of declarer, if the director believed a declarer who said that his claiim would have included his intention to take the ♠ finesse?

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2018-December-15, 11:29, said:

When declarer started to claim, if defenders immediately faced their hands, without giving declarer time for a claim-statement, might the director rule in favour of declarer, if the director believed a declarer who said that his claiim would have included his intention to take the ♠ finesse?

I think it's always important to allow claimer to complete the claim statement and to check whether this happened.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2018-December-15, 11:45, said:

I think it's always important to allow claimer to complete the claim statement and to check whether this happened.

He tabled his hand and said something to the effect of they're all mine, it was not anything like instantaneous for us to realise he had a diamond as it was semi hidden, he had time to say what he wanted to say.

[steve2005]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-December-15, 11:51, said:

He tabled his hand and said something to the effect of they're all mine, it was not anything like instantaneous for us to realise he had a diamond as it was semi hidden, he had time to say what he wanted to say.

Well that makes things more plausible.
Many times I have seen declarer say they have rest and defense just puts shuffle their cards and put them back in the board!