[jillybean]

After winning the 9th trick declarer has 3 good cards and the 8 of trump in their hand, faces their hand and says
'if there are no trump out, the rest are mine'. An opponent holds 3 good cards and the 9 of trump and calls the director.

What are the steps the director should take?

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2012-November-03, 09:49, said:

After winning the 9th trick declarer has 3 good cards and the 8 of trump in their hand, faces their hand and says
'if there are no trump out, the rest are mine'. An opponent holds 3 good cards and the 9 of trump and calls the director.

What are the steps the director should take?

The claim is perhaps a bit clumsy in its wording, but still it seems pretty clear that declarer plans to play winners until the person with a trump ruffs in. Declarer has not kept track of trumps, but he is not planning to attempt to draw the last one hoping that his is higher -- he has indicated that he will lose a trick to an outstanding trump.

Defenders get their master trump.

[BunnyGo]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-03, 10:13, said:

The claim is perhaps a bit clumsy in its wording, but still it seems pretty clear that declarer plans to play winners until the person with a trump ruffs in. Declarer has not kept track of trumps, but he is not planning to attempt to draw the last one hoping that his is higher -- he has indicated that he will lose a trick to an outstanding trump.

Defenders get their master trump.

Is it so unreasonable to expect her to play her winners (which are all equivalent in her mind) in the wrong way?

[Bbradley62]

BunnyGo, on 2012-November-03, 12:33, said:

Is it so unreasonable to expect her to play her winners (which are all equivalent in her mind) in the wrong way?

Her cards are not "all equivalent in her mind"; in her claim she admits that she doesn't know whether there is an outstanding trump.

[gordontd]

I agree with vampyr & bbradley - I think the claim was that she'll play her side winners first

[BunnyGo]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-03, 12:49, said:

Her cards are not "all equivalent in her mind"; in her claim she admits that she doesn't know whether there is an outstanding trump.

Ah, yes. I misread that. I agree then as well.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah without the statement I would say they lose the rest but given the statement it implies that they will not play a trump.

[jillybean]

I agree that there here is no reasonable way for declarer to loose more than 1 trick, it was the process that I was interested in.

What happened here and is not an uncommon practice is that the director arrives at the table, asks everyone to face their hand and attempts to decide what the outcome should be. This seems to create a loose/loose situation for the NOS as once declarer has seen the remaining hands they are able to state a line of play to maximise their tricks.

After a claim has been made what I believe should happen is play, and anything else must cease and the very first thing director should do is ask declarer to state/restate their line of play. Often what happens is the director is not called and players start discussing the hand, demanding declarer play a certain card, asking partner to lead a certain card or similar. Once this happens, or all 4 hands have been faced, how is it ever resolved?

[JLOGIC]

You are right that the director should be called immediately, however if no line is stated it is not reasonable for the director to ask declarer to state a line. The problem is, if you claim and they call the director on you, you know something has gone wrong with your claim, most likely you forgot a trump was out and you can then just say "I will pull the trump" or whatever.

If someone claims the rest of the tricks with no line of play, then they think they have all winners. If they have forgotten about a trump or something, they must play their winners in the worst way for them. An exception is if you can imply from their line of play that they knew a trump was out, for instance if someone has AKQx opp xxxx trumps and has the rest on 3-2 trumps and cashes 2 trumps, everyone following, and claims without stating a line then they get it. However, if someone has AKQx opp xxxx trumps and cashes 2 trumps, everyone following, and then takes a finesse and then gets in and claims, then they forgot about the trump and they lose a trick (since they did not pull the trump when they could have).

In this case "I have the rest unless you have a trump out" is an implied line of play of cashing winners and not playing a trump imo.

[bluejak]

jillybean, on 2012-November-03, 13:47, said:

I agree that there here is no reasonable way for declarer to loose more than 1 trick, it was the process that I was interested in.

What happened here and is not an uncommon practice is that the director arrives at the table, asks everyone to face their hand and attempts to decide what the outcome should be. This seems to create a loose/loose situation for the NOS as once declarer has seen the remaining hands they are able to state a line of play to maximise their tricks.

After a claim has been made what I believe should happen is play, and anything else must cease and the very first thing director should do is ask declarer to state/restate their line of play. Often what happens is the director is not called and players start discussing the hand, demanding declarer play a certain card, asking partner to lead a certain card or similar. Once this happens, or all 4 hands have been faced, how is it ever resolved?

Players who claim and then argue about it are putting themselves in a bad situation. How do I solve it? I tell both sides they are in the wrong by not calling the TD first. Then I ask for the original claim to be restated: if the opposition try to interrupt I shut them up.

[blackshoe]

Proper procedure in claiming:

1. Indicate that you are claiming some or all of the remaining tricks. This can be via a verbal statement regarding the number of tricks to be won, a suggestion that play be curtailed, or by showing your cards (Law 68A).
2. State a clear and complete line of play through which you propose to win the tricks claimed (Law 68C).
3. Play ceases.
4. If the opponents agree to the claim, score the board as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play (Law 69A).
5. If anyone (dummy included) objects to the claim, the director should called at once (Law 68D).
6. The director shall require claimer to repeat his line of play statement and hear opponents' objections to the claim (Law 70B). He may require all players to face their hands (same law).
7. The director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer (Law 70A).
8. The rest of law 70 deals with specific situations, such as when there is an outstanding trump, or changes in the line of play, or an unstated line of play (Law 70C, D, and E).

Irregularities:
1. If the claimer is interrupted before he finishes his line of play statement, he should call the director immediately and inform the director that he was interrupted. The director should instruct the opponents to allow claimer to restate his line of play without interruption. Any objections from opponents that he may have changed or added to his line of play statement at a point after the interruption should be ignored. If there was a substantial change to the part of the line before the interruption, Law 70D1 may apply.
2. Objections to the claim shall be heard. When the opponents have the floor, the claimer shall not interrupt (they're entitled to the same courtesy he is when stating his claim). Arguments shall be quashed, and if necessary a disciplinary penalty issued.
3. Players are sometimes clumsy in indicating that they are claiming or in stating a line of play. This does not mean the other side gets the gravy — the TD has to listen to and pass judgement on what was said. In the case at hand, for example, it's pretty clear the claimer intended to play his good side cards until a defender ruffed in, if either defender had a trump, and then ruff in himself if the defender led a winner in a side suit.

[axman]

JLOGIC, on 2012-November-03, 14:05, said:

In this case "I have the rest unless you have a trump out" is an implied line of play of cashing winners and not playing a trump imo.

The words imply no such thing.

[pran]

JLOGIC, on 2012-November-03, 14:05, said:

In this case "I have the rest unless you have a trump out" is an implied line of play of cashing winners and not playing a trump imo.

axman, on 2012-November-03, 17:28, said:

The words imply no such thing.

The statement sure does.

Effectively this statement is a concession of one of the remaining tricks if there is an outstanding trump (regardless of whether this trump is higher or lower than the trump held by declarer) and a claim of all the other tricks.

The only way this can be accomplished is by playing side-suit winners until a defender ruffs and then have the rest.

If declarer had claimed without such a statement then the ruling should be as if he plays his own trump first and then lose all the remaining tricks.

[lalldonn]

axman, on 2012-November-03, 17:28, said:

The words imply no such thing.

Yes they do. If he thought there was no trump out, he wouldn't make that statement. If he thought the trump, if it was out, was lower than his, he would claim he was drawing it. This statement would only be made by either someone who thought the trump, if it was out, was higher than his, or by someone who didn't know if it was higher or lower than his so was willing to assume it was higher than his to avoid disaster.

[barmar]

BTW, I made a claim like that last week. I had several trumps and winners left, and knew there was one trump still outstanding. I thought it was the high trump (I forgot that I'd already lost to that card in an earlier finesse), so I claimed "you get the trump Q, I get the rest". The opponents pointed out that the trump was actually lower than mine. But since he could ruff one of my other winners, since my claim statement didn't include playing a round of trumps to force out the supposed Q.

Cost me an overtrick; since it was matchpoints, it was significant.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-November-05, 13:41, said:

BTW, I made a claim like that last week. I had several trumps and winners left, and knew there was one trump still outstanding. I thought it was the high trump (I forgot that I'd already lost to that card in an earlier finesse), so I claimed "you get the trump Q, I get the rest". The opponents pointed out that the trump was actually lower than mine. But since he could ruff one of my other winners, since my claim statement didn't include playing a round of trumps to force out the supposed Q.

Cost me an overtrick; since it was matchpoints, it was significant.

And correct it was.