[dickiegera]

With 6 cards to play Hearts are Trump

Declarer held None,3,AQxx,6
I held Q9,9,xx,x

Declarer claimed saying he has to give us a club trick [my partner held the Ace of clubs]

However I held the high Trump so he had to give us another trick.

Also after calling directer I stated if declarer leads a trump ♥ before cashing good diamonds that
I would be able to cash 2 Spades and he would be down more [four]

Director said it would be not be logical for declare to play the cards that way.

Is that correct?

[TylerE]

I would so. If declarer doesn't think there any trumps out, he doesn't have any reason to lead trumps.

I think he's leading a club, and then your partner wins, and leads whatever, which, as the non claiming side, should be whatever is favorable to you. You don't get to have declarer make the worst possible play, directly contradicting his (incomplete) states line.

[mycroft]

It would be unreasonable to lead trump first if the diamonds are not known good, or if he's going to lead the club first (can't handle more clubs after). Assuming the diamonds *are good*, then I think leading the trump is reasonable. Why?

Same declarer, same hand, next week. Now, of course, the trump out is the 2 not the 9. Now, "of course I'd play the heart first, it's obvious to."

[Edit to correct the trump spots, misread the OP.]

[ggwhiz]

dickiegera, on 2017-February-07, 14:46, said:

I stated if declarer leads a trump ♥ before cashing good diamonds that
I would be able to cash 2 Spades and he would be down more [four]

Director said it would be not be logical for declare to play the cards that way.

So declarer may well lead a club and claim the rest so even if the heart lead is not logical, that one is. Leads to down 3?

[dickiegera]

ggwhiz, on 2017-February-07, 18:18, said:

So declarer may well lead a club and claim the rest so even if the heart lead is not logical, that one is. Leads to down 3?

On club lead will be down 4. I will overruff a 2nd club and cash my 2 good spades.

[weejonnie]

Since declarer said he would give up a club then he has to give up a club. It would seem normal (includes careless or inferior) to give it up at the first opportunity.

Otherwise the general concensus is that if declarer thinks the other 3 cards in his hand are equal (all winners) then it does not matter in which order he plays (and your statement about down 4 is accurate).

In August, or when the new rules come into force, you will have the opportunity of saying 'Play on please' and if your partner and declarer/ dummy agree then you can continue. HOWEVER you will lose the director's ability to rule under law 70 (which as can be seen from the topic, should be much more favourable to you.) (IMHO no defender should really request the new option however I assume the new law has been drawn up aas a matter of expediency because this is what often happens in real life.)

[billw55]

Other things being equal, declarer should not be forced to lead a trump. But he can certainly be forced to lead a club per his statement.

If what mycroft says is correct, then enforcing a trump lead is also ok.

[ahydra]

dickiegera, on 2017-February-07, 19:37, said:

On club lead will be down 4. I will overruff a 2nd club and cash my 2 good spades.

Given this and the fact that declarer said he is giving up a club, I would rule down 4.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2017-February-08, 03:29, said:

I assume the new law has been drawn up aas a matter of expediency because this is what often happens in real life.

Probably. Expediency is rarely a good idea, though.