[Antrax]

Declarer left holding KJT9 of trump, currently in dummy. Dummy has four diamonds only. Declarer shows her hand, saying "these are all good". I was sitting to the right of declarer, holding the only outstanding trump, the Q.
Is the claim valid?

[Mbodell]

Antrax, on 2011-June-12, 23:41, said:

Declarer left holding KJT9 of trump, currently in dummy. Dummy has four diamonds only. Declarer shows her hand, saying "these are all good". I was sitting to the right of declarer, holding the only outstanding trump, the Q.
Is the claim valid?

I'd rule yes. I don't see how you can win your Q. When following to a lead suit (or leading) I think default is to play top down from presumed winners, but when ruffing in I think default is to play lowest. With only 4 cards left and a led diamond followed by a non-trump I think the only holding where the K of trump would be right would be stiff Q on the left with stiff A on the right (and a declarer who thinks all trump are good is even less likely to play for that then to play for stiff Q on the right [or on the left with a diamond]).

[pran]

Deleted, sorry I misread your position ("right" of declarer as seen from dummy)

[iviehoff]

The law says nothing about the "validity" of claims, so the question doesn't arise. Rather, the law tells us to adjudicate disputed claims by following certain principles given in L70. I think most players would not bother disputing this claim, despite the error in the claim statement. But I know some who would.

Suppose the claim is disputed. We need to decide whether there is a "normal" line of play in which the Q wins, remembering that "normal" includes "careless" and "inferior". Where this boundary lies in specific cases is unclear. For a player who thinks all his trumps are good, is ruffing high or cashing the trumps from the bottom "normal"? If you think your trumps are good, it isn't even careless or inferior to do so, but is it "normal"? I'm a little torn here. Certainly some players, who think all their trumps are good, do sometimes play them at random or flamboyantly. But probably not quite normal enough for me, given the constraint in L70A to rule "as equitably as possible". Even when declarer has forgotten about the Q, RHO has only a very tiny expectation of winning it.

So at the end of the day it is a matter of opinion, but I would not expect many directors to give a trick to the defence here. But if the director so ruled, and the defence appealed, I would not call that an appeal without merit.

[Antrax]

I disputed it simply because I didn't realize at the time it makes no sense to ruff high, regardless of the location of the Q. Later I got to thinking about the theoretical issues.
At the table, the director ruled they take all the tricks and I explained to my opponents that I'm not trying to catch them on technicalities, their line of play isn't really obvious to me as it is to them, so all ended well.

[billw55]

I thought that as a matter of rule, when declarer makes a claim statement that does not mention an outstanding trump, he is deemed to be unaware of it. In that context, this declarer thinks all his trumps are equals, and therefore he might play them in any order. To me this certainly falls under the umbrella of careless or inferior. I think the defense should be awarded a trick.

That said, I am not a director at any level, and unclear claims are a pet peeve of mine, so I might be biased.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2011-June-13, 08:24, said:

I thought that as a matter of rule, when declarer makes a claim statement that does not mention an outstanding trump, he is deemed to be unaware of it. In that context, this declarer thinks all his trumps are equals, and therefore he might play them in any order. To me this certainly falls under the umbrella of careless or inferior. I think the defense should be awarded a trick.

That said, I am not a director at any level, and unclear claims are a pet peeve of mine, so I might be biased.

This may be relevant: 70E2 The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).. Which was the RA for this case, and have they so specified? And, more generally, does anyone know of RAs that have specified "from the top down"?

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2011-June-13, 08:36, said:

This may be relevant: 70E2 The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).. Which was the RA for this case, and have they so specified? And, more generally, does anyone know of RAs that have specified "from the top down"?

Would that mean that dummy's first diamond gets ruffed by the king?

[Bbradley62]

iviehoff, on 2011-June-13, 04:21, said:

The law says nothing about the "validity" of claims, so the question doesn't arise.

Except that the rules of many online tournaments include "you should accept all valid claims".

[lamford]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-13, 10:30, said:

Would that mean that dummy's first diamond gets ruffed by the king?

I think it is implied that it is only relevant when leading from hand (or from dummy) the suit in question. But the overall test is, as the Law states, what is "normal".

[barmar]

This type of problem has been debated many times. I don't think there's ever been a concensus.

Some say that it's normal to ruff with the lowest of equals, and run suits from the top, and illogical to do anything else.

Others say that if declarer is didn't notice that a trump is outstanding, or maybe he doesn't notice the hole in his suit, then he could make the careless plays of ruffing with the King or running the suit in a random order.

The RA is allowed to specify how the "run the suit" part is resolved, but which card he might ruff with is still left to the TD's judgement.

[iviehoff]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-13, 10:44, said:

Except that the rules of many online tournaments include "you should accept all valid claims".

Isn't it wonderful when people write rules using undefined terms.

[bluejak]

Yes. And people always will, because rules use too many words to define them all. All rules contain terms that are considered general English usage [ok, all rules written in English ] and it is very easy to criticise when someone thinks the term means something else. But one of the changes over time is that most people believe they are experts in everything these days in a way they did not use to, and one of the things is language. Thus a pair in a European Championship used the term "splinter" to mean ace or shortage. When told that is not normal usage they were prepared to walk out of the tournament. Why should they not define a word to mean what they want it to mean? [I do not know whether one of the pair was called Humpty Dumpty. ]

Personally I think the the term "valid claim" too obvious in meaning to need definition.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2011-June-14, 08:03, said:

Personally I think the the term "valid claim" too obvious in meaning to need definition.

It rather depends what you want it to mean. Can a claim with a mistake in the claim statement be "valid"? If we adjudicate the number of tricks claimed, does that make it "valid"? Can a claim where there is room for discussion over the correct number of tricks to adjudicate be "valid"? I suspect it probably doesn't matter. But in other cases such imprecision of terminology can make a rule inoperable.

[barmar]

Probably what they mean to say is "all reasonable claims". The less technical-sounding term makes it clearer that you're supposed to apply common sense judgement, to expedite the process.

In all my online tournament play, claims are rarely made until it's really simple ending: trumps have been drawn and claimer is down to all top cards or a cross-ruff. The point of the "accept all valid claims" rule is to prohibit frivolous rejections of these (this is basically just a special case of the Law against unnecessary delay of the game).