[pran]

ahydra, on 2016-May-09, 13:37, said:

Well, what happens if the TD rules that W will misguess and ruff partner's CQ on the next trick?[...]

"Normal" play? Come on - please!

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-09, 09:35, said:

And yet one person voted that the defense get one trick. He must be assuming that East has to play the ♣Q under the King.

No, as Ahydra says, West might be forced to ruff their partner's queen, to which Pran says:

pran, on 2016-May-09, 15:04, said:

"Normal" play? Come on - please!

even though a few posts earlier he said:

pran, on 2016-May-06, 10:24, said:

The way I see it West considers whether or not to use his trump.
If East holds the ♣Q West has every reason to use it, while if South holds the ♣Q in addition to his King (just played) there might be a reason for West to postpone using his trump.

East's "interruption" makes it clear (UI) to West that East has the ♣Q and consequently that West should use his trump immediately.

Consequently West should be denied the use of his trump to this trick.

West was thinking about not ruffing the ♣K, and the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South suggests they should ruff the king, so they can't do that. Now if South follows with another club towards the jack, West cannot base their play on the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South, so ruffing this trick is an action they must choose from among any logical alternatives.

I could easily be persuaded that this is too harsh on the defence, and that ruffing the second club is not normal, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments yet.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2016-May-10, 06:36, said:

West was thinking about not ruffing the ♣K, and the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South suggests they should ruff the king, so they can't do that. Now if South follows with another club towards the jack, West cannot base their play on the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South, so ruffing this trick is an action they must choose from among any logical alternatives.

I could easily be persuaded that this is too harsh on the defence, and that ruffing the second club is not normal, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments yet.

May I remind you of my statement earlier in this thread about South leading a low Club instead of the King:

pran, on 2016-May-08, 13:23, said:

I haven't given that much consideration, but I just possibly might rule that West uses his trump on a small club from declarer. "Knowing" that East has the Queen clearly suggests that he does not use his trump.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2016-May-10, 06:36, said:

West was thinking about not ruffing the ♣K, and the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South suggests they should ruff the king, so they can't do that. Now if South follows with another club towards the jack, West cannot base their play on the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South, so ruffing this trick is an action they must choose from among any logical alternatives.

Ruffing the second club is not a logical alternative. If South has the queen of clubs (and I totally agree that if East has it then that fact is UI), it would be correct to wait to ruff the third club. Ruffing the first or second clubs would then be an error. If East has the queen of clubs, then ruffing the first round of clubs is correct, but ruffing the second round of clubs is not even in the ballpark of "normal".

I do find it suprising that anyone would have voted for 1 trick.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-May-10, 10:09, said:

I totally agree that if East has it then that fact is UI

Um. If East's objection to West's concession conveys information about East's holding to West, then West cannot act on that information, whether or not it's correct. So it doesn't matter whether East actually has the Queen, West can't play him for it.

The takeaway from this seems to be "don't ever concede any tricks as a defender unless you are absolutely certain partner doesn't have a trick; don't ever object to partner's concession". The latter because if you object, it won't help matters unless there is no way in hell you can't get your trick, and no way in hell you can crash one of partner's, and if that's the case, partner will have taken your trick(s) into account in his concession.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-10, 11:55, said:

Um. If East's objection to West's concession conveys information about East's holding to West, then West cannot act on that information, whether or not it's correct. So it doesn't matter whether East actually has the Queen, West can't play him for it.

But if the efficacy of West's LAs doesn't depend on who has the queen, the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest any choice among them, so he can do what he likes.

So if ruffing the 3rd club is just as good as ruffing the first club, he's safe from constraints.

[johnu]

lamford, on 2016-May-10, 10:09, said:

Ruffing the second club is not a logical alternative. If South has the queen of clubs (and I totally agree that if East has it then that fact is UI), it would be correct to wait to ruff the third club. Ruffing the first or second clubs would then be an error. If East has the queen of clubs, then ruffing the first round of clubs is correct, but ruffing the second round of clubs is not even in the ballpark of "normal".

I do find it suprising that anyone would have voted for 1 trick.

As I posted earlier, if South has the ♣Q, declarer can win the jack, draw trump, and run clubs for all the remaining tricks. I would consider not ruffing the 2nd club to be a rather large error. Not ruffing the ♣K is also an error, no matter who has the queen.

[manudude03]

It would be very strange of declarer to not cross to the jack of clubs and draw the last trump if he had AKQ of clubs. I think that even without the signal or East exposing the queen, West could easily work out that East had it anyway, so I would allow the ruff and give the defense 4 tricks. I don't think people should be punished for thinking the hand through.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2016-May-10, 19:47, said:

It would be very strange of declarer to not cross to the jack of clubs and draw the last trump if he had AKQ of clubs. I think that even without the signal or East exposing the queen, West could easily work out that East had it anyway, so I would allow the ruff and give the defense 4 tricks. I don't think people should be punished for thinking the hand through.

Declarer would not know whether the club was being ruffed, so he could not be sure to cross to the jack of clubs. However that is indeed a no-cost play, so East has the queen of clubs just from the AI. I have changed my view, and agree with you that 4 tricks is correct.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2016-May-10, 10:09, said:

Ruffing the second club is not a logical alternative. If South has the queen of clubs (and I totally agree that if East has it then that fact is UI), it would be correct to wait to ruff the third club. Ruffing the first or second clubs would then be an error. If East has the queen of clubs, then ruffing the first round of clubs is correct, but ruffing the second round of clubs is not even in the ballpark of "normal".

I agree it would not be logical for a West who is aware of South's remaining club holding to ruff the second club. My ruling assumes that West is not aware, and careless. That's probably too high a standard to apply.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2016-May-11, 06:52, said:

I agree it would not be logical for a West who is aware of South's remaining club holding to ruff the second club. My ruling assumes that West is not aware, and careless. That's probably too high a standard to apply.

It is not right to assume that West is careless. The correct procedure is to allow play to continue and West cannot use the UI that his partner has the queen of clubs. However, he has to choose among logical alternatives only, and, for a player of any reasonable ability, ruffing the king of clubs is the only LA. IF declarer has KQxx in clubs, then ruffing is the same as discarding. There is a big difference between a contested defensive claim and a declarer claim. Maybe there shouldn't be, but I have long given up hope that the laws will be consistent.

[RMB1]

RMB1, on 2016-May-06, 07:19, said:

West tanked, so West has logical alternatives.

Despite what I wrote: West might have been trying to work out if it was ever wrong to ruff and would (in the end) always ruff ♣K.
It is difficult to poll, because we don't know whether West had played sufficient attention to the earlier play, but there may be no logical alternative to ruffing ♣K.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2016-May-11, 08:45, said:

It is not right to assume that West is careless. The correct procedure is to allow play to continue and West cannot use the UI that his partner has the queen of clubs. However, he has to choose among logical alternatives only, and, for a player of any reasonable ability, ruffing the king of clubs is the only LA. IF declarer has KQxx in clubs, then ruffing is the same as discarding. There is a big difference between a contested defensive claim and a declarer claim. Maybe there shouldn't be, but I have long given up hope that the laws will be consistent.

My original thought was that West cannot ruff the king, but might then realise that if he doesn't ruff the next club he may not take a trick at all: North will win the jack in dummy, draw the trump, return to the queen and make the last club, but if he's going to think all that through he would ruff the king anyway, so it doesn't hold together.