[FrancesHinden]

When someone thinks exactly one master trump is out, they frequently lead their lowest trump from hand in order to draw/concede it. I've seen it happen loads of times, if anything more often than leading the top one.

Only last week I saw a player with a trump suit of singleton king opposite AJ98752 play the suit as follows:

Cash the king, playing the 2 from hand (the 10 dropped on his right)
cross to hand
Cash the ace (the Q dropped on his right)
Pull out the 5 from his hand, as his lead to the next trick, and then say 'I've got the rest apart from your trump trick'

[lamford]

It seems from this thread that we would give a different ruling if declarer claimed the rest in a ending of J108 and a plain card, unaware of a missing trump, which was the 9, and declarer conceded one trick in the ending of J108 and a plain card, believing that there is a higher trump out. For this to be so, leading the 8 has to be worse than careless in the first example, but just careless in the second. It is not that relevant what errors people make in practice. For better or for worse, the claim law prevents them making the most egregious ones.

One of our team in the LondonSuperLeague misplayed a trump suit of AQx opposite K10xxx by cashing the king first! Had he claimed instead, stating that he intended to draw trumps, he would have been allowed to pick up Jxxx.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2012-January-15, 06:30, said:

One of our team in the LondonSuperLeague misplayed a trump suit of AQx opposite K10xxx by cashing the king first! Had he claimed instead, stating that he intended to draw trumps, he would have been allowed to pick up Jxxx.

Not by me. The King is a normal (careless) play.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2012-January-15, 06:55, said:

Not by me. The King is a normal (careless) play.

His partner regarded it as worse than careless, as do I. I think careless would be to cash the ace first with A109x opposite KQ8xx. Normal is defined roughly as "conforming to a standard". I would never expect any reasonable player to lead the king first with AQx opposite K10xxx. Those that did would be essentially "pulling the wrong card".

With Ax opposite KQJ9xx would you regard the king first as normal? If not, then the laws (70E1) allow the finesse of the nine on the second round if RHO shows out. Yet it would certainly be careless to fail to do so, maybe miscounting the suit. That is the benchmark you should follow in any judgement of careless.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2012-January-15, 08:42, said:

His partner regarded it as worse than careless, as do I.

I think there are plenty of examples where we (EBU) have ruled that cashing the wrong honour from holdings like AK9xx/Q10xx or AK98x/Qxxx is careless and therefore normal. Claimer has to mutter something about "being careful" or "doing the right thing" in trumps to make the tricks when they are 4-0.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2012-January-15, 11:30, said:

I think there are plenty of examples where we (EBU) have ruled that cashing the wrong honour from holdings like AK9xx/Q10xx or AK98x/Qxxx is careless and therefore normal. Claimer has to mutter something about "being careful" or "doing the right thing" in trumps to make the tricks when they are 4-0.

I would totally agree with AK9xx opposite Q10xx. But I cannot agree that playing the K is normal with AQx opposite K10xxx. If one has an ending of, say Ax xx none none opposite KQx none A none in no trumps and somebody claims the rest, then it would be careless to play the K or Q of the suit from hand. But this situation is given as an example, on both the club and county director course, where the claim is allowed. Beginners are taught in such situations to play the honour from the short hand, and I would allow the claim even in the Newbridge Novice Pairs. Your EBU example is indeed careless, but it does not mean that you lead low from a suit where leading high cannot lose.

[bluejak]

Just to go back to the earlier example, let us get straight what is being said. If I have understood correctly, for the people who disagree with me, the following applies:

• A player who holds JT8, whose standard of carefulness can be understood by the fact that he has been watching the play so carefully that he believes the Q to be out when it is in fact the 9, will nevertheless be careful enough to play the J in case he has made a mistake.

Do you really believe this baloney?

[StevenG]

bluejak, on 2012-January-15, 18:42, said:

Just to go back to the earlier example, let us get straight what is being said. If I have understood correctly, for the people who disagree with me, the following applies:

• A player who holds JT8, whose standard of carefulness can be understood by the fact that he has been watching the play so carefully that he believes the Q to be out when it is in fact the 9, will nevertheless be careful enough to play the J in case he has made a mistake.

Do you really believe this baloney?

It's not baloney, because I do it. I make mistakes, both of memory and of eyesight and I know it. I am aware that some players don't, for them it is careless, because they are, by temperament, careless people - but for me it is irrational, because I make a conscious effort to be disciplined, not careless.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2012-January-15, 18:42, said:

Just to go back to the earlier example, let us get straight what is being said. If I have understood correctly, for the people who disagree with me, the following applies:

• A player who holds JT8, whose standard of carefulness can be understood by the fact that he has been watching the play so carefully that he believes the Q to be out when it is in fact the 9, will nevertheless be careful enough to play the J in case he has made a mistake.

Do you really believe this baloney?

I do this as a matter of routine also.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-January-15, 08:42, said:

Normal is defined roughly as "conforming to a standard".

That's one possible definition. My dictionary gives as the principal definition "usual; regular; common; typical". By that definition it would be the likelihood of the play being made in real life that matters, not the bridge merit or lack thereof; of course what is normal for one player by this definition may not be for another. Considering the two possible interpretations I think it is clear which better achieves the objective described in law 70A, so I believe that is the intended interpretation.

[iviehoff]

It seems to me that the Laws of Bridge are using the word "normal" to describe a particular concept they have in mind, so looking in the dictionary isn't very helpful. The laws of bridge tell us that "careless" and "inferior" plays are included within what it means by "normal". It seems to me therefore that when it talks about "alternative normal plays", it is talking about all lines that come within the scope of what one might normally encounter, covering a broad enough scope of normality to include the careless and inferior. It is not restricting itself only to lines of play that are individually common. But even with that thought in mind, it remains a very fuzzy boundary.

The discussion in this thread is one we have repeated several times before. We never make any progress. The boundary remains just as fuzzy as it ever was. I think the message is, provided your ruling is reasonably plausible, it's not worth spending a lot of time on it.

[richlp]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-16, 04:12, said:

I do this as a matter of routine also.

I strongly doubt that you are careless enough not to know when an honor is the outstanding trump. I suspect it hasn't happened to you in the most recent 80% of your bridge carear.

For what little it's worth, I'm with those that simply toss a small card out when I'm convinced that

A. There is only one trump outstanding
B. It is an honor higher than my highest card

While I have, on occasion, mis-counted trump and have, on occasion, failed to keep track of the highest spot-card, I can't remember being wrong about this sort of claim in the last 30+ years.

YOU may "do this as a matter of routine" but I strongly doubt that EVERYBODY does so, especially somebody who did not keep track of the fall of the trump honors.

[Cyberyeti]

richlp, on 2012-January-16, 12:25, said:

I strongly doubt that you are careless enough not to know when an honor is the outstanding trump. I suspect it hasn't happened to you in the most recent 80% of your bridge carear.

For what little it's worth, I'm with those that simply toss a small card out when I'm convinced that

A. There is only one trump outstanding
B. It is an honor higher than my highest card

While I have, on occasion, mis-counted trump and have, on occasion, failed to keep track of the highest spot-card, I can't remember being wrong about this sort of claim in the last 30+ years.

YOU may "do this as a matter of routine" but I strongly doubt that EVERYBODY does so, especially somebody who did not keep track of the fall of the trump honors.

What I'm saying is that while I'm a decent player but no international, I wouldn't expect anybody above intermediate to play the low one.

Last time I lost track, I had the 42 after a load of overruffing and was unsure whether the last remaining one was the 5 or the 3, but I sure as hell led the 4.

[richlp]

"What I'm saying is that while I'm a decent player but no international, I wouldn't expect anybody above intermediate to play the low one."

While I'm probably not even at your level I consider myself well above intermediate. The anecdotal evidence from me, David, and Frances indicates that your expectations may be somewhat misplaced.

[FrancesHinden]

iviehoff, on 2012-January-16, 07:45, said:

The discussion in this thread is one we have repeated several times before. We never make any progress. The boundary remains just as fuzzy as it ever was. I think the message is, provided your ruling is reasonably plausible, it's not worth spending a lot of time on it.

Yes. I find myself repeating what I have said before, that the whole discussion of what card players actually play when they are missing a master trump is based on very limited evidence, because 99.999% of times they claim saying 'you have a master trump' and they are right.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-16, 13:51, said:

What I'm saying is that while I'm a decent player but no international, I wouldn't expect anybody above intermediate to play the low one.

Last time I lost track, I had the 42 after a load of overruffing and was unsure whether the last remaining one was the 5 or the 3, but I sure as hell led the 4.

Of course no-one would play the low one if they were unsure what was out. But a player who claims conceding a trump is not unsure. I don't doubt that you would always play the 4 even if sure that the 5 was the only one out, but there are plenty of players who might not (me included).

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-16, 13:51, said:

What I'm saying is that while I'm a decent player but no international, I wouldn't expect anybody above intermediate to play the low one.

Last time I lost track, I had the 42 after a load of overruffing and was unsure whether the last remaining one was the 5 or the 3, but I sure as hell led the 4.

So would everyone, but that has nothing to do with this thread. The question is what people will do if they "know" the outstanding trump is the J.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-January-17, 11:23, said:

The question is what people will do if they "know" the outstanding trump is the J.

No, the question is whether it is worse than careless to lead a card other than the highest. An EBU appeal featured someone with Kx opposite singleton Q mistakenly call for the king. That is worse than careless, but the fact that, occasionally, players make hopeless plays is irrelevant. He is given "normal" play when claiming. And, as iviehoff says, the boundaries of normality are very fuzzy.

[bluejak]

Avoiding the question and then calling it fuzzy is unhelpful. The question is what people will do if they "know" the outstanding trump is the J. Why? Because that defines what normal is. So evading the question does not get us anywhere: we need an answer to that question.