[DuaneC]

Contract is 6D North

---

Contract is 6D North, ACBL club game.
After 9 tricks consisting of 3 rounds of trump, ruffing out the club loser, ruffing the spade suit good, and cashing the
Heart Ace, declarer is in dummy in this position (NS cards 100% sure, EW close, guessing HQ lead):

---

At this point, Declarer leads a heart from dummy, but carelessly plays a spade loser to the trick, and then declares the rest.
He had turned the previous trick as if he had won it, and assumed he was in his hand. At this point, director (me) was
called to table, and ruled 12 tricks for declarer. It seemed to me that establishing that declarer had lost the previous
trick, and that West was on lead, would inevitably "wake up" declarer, and he would not pitch another spade winner on West's
Club lead. Having ruled this way I forgot whether declarer's statement was "good spades and a trump," or "a trump and good
spades." So, is the ruling correct, and if not, does the exact wording of the claim affect the outcome?

Thanks in advance,
Duane Christensen

[gordontd]

DuaneC, on 2013-January-24, 12:58, said:

At this point, Declarer leads a heart from dummy, but carelessly plays a spade loser to the trick, and then declares the rest.
He had turned the previous trick as if he had won it, and assumed he was in his hand.

If he assumed he was in hand, how did he come to lead from dummy?

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2013-January-24, 13:29, said:

If he assumed he was in hand, how did he come to lead from dummy?

He assumed he was in hand after playing a heart - I think declarer intended to win in hand by ruffing - I think declarer had temporarily decided spades were trumps.

[nige1]

DuaneC writes"Contract is 6D North, ACBL club game.After 9 tricks consisting of 3 rounds of trump, ruffing out the club loser, ruffing the spade suit good, and cashing the Heart Ace, [SNIP] Declarer leads a heart from dummy, but carelessly plays a spade loser to the trick, and then declares the rest. He had turned the previous trick as if he had won it, and assumed he was in his hand. At this point, director (me) was called to table, and ruled 12 tricks for declarer. It seemed to me that establishing that declarer had lost the previous trick, and that West was on lead, would inevitably "wake up" declarer, and he would not pitch another spade winner on West's Club lead. Having ruled this way I forgot whether declarer's statement was "good spades and a trump," or "a trump and good spades."

IMO, DuaneC ruled correctly. Despite the unnecessary loss of a ♥ trick, if declarer's claim statement is followed, 6♦ makes.

---

[Trinidad]

Welcome to the forum.

DuaneC, on 2013-January-24, 12:58, said:

Having ruled this way I forgot whether declarer's statement was "good spades and a trump," or "a trump and good
spades."

It doesn't matter. Declarer stated what tricks he was going to win, not in what order he planned to win them.

Rik

[iviehoff]

DuaneC, on 2013-January-24, 12:58, said:

So, is the ruling correct, and if not, does the exact wording of the claim affect the outcome?

Rulings on claims are judgment rulings, so different directors can come to different conclusions.

The ruling strays into several difficult areas of claim ruling: how to judge claims with the following features-
(1) when declarer has claimed with some misperception of the situation, and in particular where we are not quite sure what that misperception is
(2) when declarer is going to have a surprise if he tries to follow the line of play in his (plainly faulty) claim statement - what will he do in response to that surprise

I can imagine that some directors would rule differently from you, but I'm guessing most would follow you. Yours is certainly well within the bounds of reasonable judgment, and that's what matters.

Personally I think I prefer the ruling you actually made to the alternative. Did declarer suddenly think that spades are trumps as Gordon suggests? I doubt it, it is inconsistent with what he said. Did declarer get ahead of himself and play the card he intended to play to the next trick (I've done that a few times)? Or did he mispull the card from his hand and turn it over before he noticed what it was? Could be one of those. So what's going to happen when the other side asserts they are on lead? Nost likely he'll look at his hand, notice he still has the trump he was going to play, realise what happened, trump the club lead, and his hand is high. Those who wish to argue otherwise will probably say that according to his claim statement he is going to play spades to the next two tricks (disregarding the fact that his was to cash a spade, not follow with a spade to a club lead), therefore he will lose them. Unfortunately the amusing scenario of the defence letting declarer think he is on lead and accepting his lead out of turn does not assist the defence, so doesn't affect the ruling.

In general the precise wording of a claim statement can make a difference, as it can be a window into what declarer was thinking. Pedantically following the precise wording of declarer's claim statement is something some directors do, but more would have in mind what he was actually saying.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2013-January-24, 13:38, said:

He assumed he was in hand after playing a heart - I think declarer intended to win in hand by ruffing - I think declarer had temporarily decided spades were trumps.

Ah, so when the OP said the previous trick, he was of course talking about the current trick!

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2013-January-28, 08:45, said:

Ah, so when the OP said the previous trick, he was of course talking about the current trick!

He meant the trick played immediately prior to making the claim.

[lamford]

I think the ruling of 12 tricks is correct. The only "normal" line for the (seeming) class of player is to ruff the next club and play winning spades. I do not think that the error of discarding on the previous round instead of ruffing affects the class of player much. We look at all nine or ten tricks to decide that. You do not decide that someone who has revoked prior to a claim is a beginner; similarly here.