[spw60]

Straightforward position: declarer is on lead with only J3 of trumps left. He claims saying, "You get your queen of trumps." The only trump out is the eight-spot, the queen having been played long ago. One trick or two to declarer? Is this universal or a matter of local interpretation>

[sanst]

Interpretation is dependent on the individual TD, though there are guidelines. If a player claims saying "The rest is mine" and showing a hand with only trumps, he is supposed to play these top down, at least in Holland and, as far as I know, also in many other jurisdictions. But this case is different. Here the declarer expects to loose one trick to the last outstanding trump. Playing the 3 first is not abnormal, so one trick to the opps.

[BudH]

I would have difficulty not awarding both tricks to the claimer. The norm in most jurisdictions is suits are played from the top down. Additionally, we all "know" if there was no claim but was played out, playing the 3 first would be very abnormal.

[TylerE]

sanst, on 2016-July-02, 15:40, said:

. Playing the 3 first is not abnormal, so one trick to the opps.

I would argue that it IS abnormal, to a claimer who is aware there is exactly one trump outstanding. Playing high first can never cost, playing low can (in exactly this situation, where declarer has the count right and the rank wrong).

While I can see ground to support ruling either way, as an opponent I would voluntarily concede both tricks without a second thought.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 68B1: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

Declarer conceded a trump.

Quote

Law 71: A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:
1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

It might be careless or inferior for declarer to play his low trump first, but that makes it normal within the meaning of the law. One trick to the defense.

[sfi]

In my experience, declarers play the low trump in this sort of situation all the time, both when claiming and in actual play. There's no way I would expect a reasonable declarer in a serious event to try and claim all the tricks, nor would I rule for one who did unless they actually indicated the Jack in some way.

[BudH]

I'd consider a declarer with two cards remaining in the same suit with dummy immaterial leading the low card and not the high card beyond careless or inferior. This assumes the declarer being moderately competent.

Does anyone have any similar examples from documents or tournament rulings to change my mind on this one?

[sanst]

BudH, on 2016-July-04, 10:50, said:

I'd consider a declarer with two cards remaining in the same suit with dummy immaterial leading the low card and not the high card beyond careless or inferior. This assumes the declarer being moderately competent.

Does anyone have any similar examples from documents or tournament rulings to change my mind on this one?

You seem to forget that this declarer thinks that he is going to lose one trick. If you think that it's competent to lead your highest card in that situation, I'm wondering about your defenition of competent.