[One Short]

In No Trumps dummy wins the 11th trick , has Jack and 10 of a suit as the last two cards but before declarer can designate the next card, dummy’s LHO silently tables his cards. It is clear that LHO is making a claim. He has the queen and a winner in another suit. The queen is not necessarily a winner as the king is still out . It is LHO’s partner who has the king and a card in the same suit lower than the 10.
Thus, LHO is not in control when making the claim as his partner could win the trick and then lead into dummy’s winning card.
Should the director allow defender’s claim?

[gordontd]

So, the only way the defence could lose a trick would be if declarer's LHO overtook his partner's winning card in order to lead back a card that he can see will lose to the card he has thereby establised for dummy?

I think we should allow the claim, unless we have doubts that the position is as clear as that to LHO.

[CamHenry]

gordontd, on 2012-August-07, 03:10, said:

So, the only way the defence could lose a trick would be if declarer's LHO overtook his partner's winning card in order to lead back a card that he can see will lose to the card he has thereby establised for dummy?

I think we should allow the claim, unless we have doubts that the position is as clear as that to LHO.

I think the issue here is that RHO has to play before declarer. If, for example, the position is:

---

rather than the actual

---

then E has to play the K at this trick in order to score either of the two remaining tricks. If declarer has shown out of diamonds (in my example), and E is of sufficient calibre that he can thus place W with the Q, we allow the claim: otherwise (without a very convincing argument from E, such as "declarer opened a 12-14 NT and has already shown up with 14 HCP, so I know partner's got the DQ") we assume E wins the DK as it is by no means careless or irrational.

[gordontd]

Ah, thanks for the diagram. I had read the original post with the East & West hands interchanged. Is that not the case? I think it's the use of dummy's LHO that's a bit confusing.

[One Short]

---

This was the position at the start of trick 12
North is dummy and on lead but before South as declarer can designate a card to play............
East makes the claim not aware that K♦ is still out

My OP describes this position

[Cyberyeti]

Yup, note that it says DUMMY'S LHO.

Since W can see that overtaking cannot possibly gain, I'd let the claim stand.

[Zelandakh]

How can it be a normal line of play for Dummy's RHO to play the king here, regardless of the class of player involved?

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-August-07, 05:58, said:

How can it be a normal line of play for Dummy's RHO to play the king here, regardless of the class of player involved?

No player would ever be so careless as to overtake his partner's queen in this position, it just cannot happen, right? Right?

[CamHenry]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-07, 05:46, said:

Yup, note that it says DUMMY'S LHO.

Since W can see that overtaking cannot possibly gain, I'd let the claim stand.

Ah, good point. Missed that detail, and now I agree with you (and Gordon).

[Zelandakh]

A beginner would not overtake their partner's winner on principle. An intermediate might um and ah about whether the ♦A was still out, then eventually work out that it does not matter. An expert should realise immediately there is no layout where overtaking can win. For which class of player do you think this could be described as a normal action - remember we are playing last to the trick (which partner is winning) looking at ♦x in our hand and a boss ♦ on table...

[blackshoe]

It's nearly midnight, this is your 100th hand of the day, and you were up late last night carousing. You don't think it's possible to make a mistake?

Okay, we don't rule on the basis that you have a hangover, or are tired, or whatever. But... "careless" means "not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or error". And it is certainly true that players sometimes look at their winner and say to themselves "good, I can win this trick" and don't think about what happens next. Whether that's sufficiently likely in this case to rule against the claim is of course debatable, particularly since we seem to be debating it already.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-07, 08:08, said:

It's nearly midnight, this is your 100th hand of the day, and you were up late last night carousing. You don't think it's possible to make a mistake?

Okay, we don't rule on the basis that you have a hangover, or are tired, or whatever. But... "careless" means "not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or error". And it is certainly true that players sometimes look at their winner and say to themselves "good, I can win this trick" and don't think about what happens next. Whether that's sufficiently likely in this case to rule against the claim is of course debatable, particularly since we seem to be debating it already.

But their partner already won the trick. Overtaking in this case goes beyond careless -- you're either irrational, drunk, or playing Olympic badminton (I'm trying to get a new euphemism going).

[ahydra]

barmar, on 2012-August-07, 08:13, said:

But their partner already won the trick. Overtaking in this case goes beyond careless -- you're either irrational, drunk, or playing Olympic badminton (I'm trying to get a new euphemism going).

Agree with this. Both tricks go to the defence.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-August-07, 08:13, said:

But their partner already won the trick. Overtaking in this case goes beyond careless -- you're either irrational, drunk, or playing Olympic badminton (I'm trying to get a new euphemism going).

ahydra, on 2012-August-07, 10:29, said:

Agree with this. Both tricks go to the defence.

ahydra

Fair enough.

[Jeremy69A]

I've finally seen a careless claim that I would allow! Both tricks to the defence.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-August-07, 08:13, said:

But their partner already won the trick. Overtaking in this case goes beyond careless -- you're either irrational, drunk, or playing Olympic badminton (I'm trying to get a new euphemism going).

I doubt it will work with me who has no idea what happened in Olympic badminton.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-August-21, 16:46, said:

I doubt it will work with me who has no idea what happened in Olympic badminton.

There was a big scandal about several teams dumping, in order to be better placed going from the round robin to the KO stage.

[mjj29]

barmar, on 2012-August-22, 04:51, said:

There was a big scandal about several teams dumping, in order to be better placed going from the round robin to the KO stage.

In particular _both teams_ in the same match trying to lose it. Which led to a farcical (if hilarious) match which rather disappointed all the punters who had paid to see olympic-standard badminton