BBO Discussion Forums: Careless it irrational? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Careless it irrational? Or just plain ridiculous? :)

#1 User is offline   zenbiddist 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 2013-May-20
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2015-May-18, 07:52

It's trick 12 and declarer claims the rest, with K9 of trumps in dummy sitting over Q7. Declarer is on lead with only non-trumps in hand. The problem is - declarer doesn't realise trumps are outstanding :)

Without the claim, if LHO had ruffed in with the queen, could declarer have carelessly called for the nine of trumps? I know I have certainly played a card on autopilot before. I asked the TD about who claimed, to gauge calibre, but the TD remained respectfully mute. Your ruling?
0

#2 User is offline   zenbiddist 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 2013-May-20
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2015-May-18, 07:55

Careless or* irrational (autocorrected - sry)
0

#3 User is offline   bixby 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: 2009-August-06

Posted 2015-May-18, 07:59

IMO, playing the nine on the Queen would be irrational.

But I would still award a trick to the defense, because if LHO ruffs with the seven on trick 12, declarer might play the King. Declarer might do this either because he thinks it doesn't matter, or because he might wake up, remember that the Queen is outstanding, and play to drop it with the King.

Declarer can't be allowed to take a successful finesse after claiming when playing for the drop is a logical alternative.
0

#4 User is offline   zenbiddist 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 2013-May-20
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2015-May-18, 08:19

Playing for the drop could be a logical alternative if a trump was led from hand at trick twelve, but declarer had only non-trumps.

Has nobody ever carelessly under-ruffed or under-finessed before? Be honest. And remember you've just forgotten about TWO trumps :)
0

#5 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,199
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2015-May-18, 08:22

Drop is not a "logical" alternative because he had only non-trumps in his hand. So ruffing with the king can never be correct.

Whether it would be careless or irrational I don't know.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
1

#6 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,594
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-May-18, 09:55

View Postzenbiddist, on 2015-May-18, 08:19, said:

Has nobody ever carelessly under-ruffed or under-finessed before? Be honest. And remember you've just forgotten about TWO trumps :)

We've also revoked and played out of turn, but we don't assume these are possible when adjudicating claims.

#7 User is offline   bixby 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: 2009-August-06

Posted 2015-May-18, 12:24

View Postzenbiddist, on 2015-May-18, 08:19, said:

Playing for the drop could be a logical alternative if a trump was led from hand at trick twelve, but declarer had only non-trumps.



Oops, that is correct. Sorry.

I still think playing the nine on the Queen should be ruled irrational.
0
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users