[VixTD]

This came up last week at the club:

..........♠83
..........♥J
..........♦-
..........♣-
♠-.............♠4
♥10...........♥-
♦32...........♦8
♣-.............♣5
...........♠-
...........♥Q9
...........♦-
...........♣4

South was in hearts, West on lead. South faced his hand and said "cross-ruffing". He admitted he had forgotten the outstanding trump.

How many of the remaining tricks to declarer?

[Hanoi5]

2

[WellSpyder]

I wonder if we've finally found a claim hand on which everyone will agree? I can't see any reason not to give declarer 2 tricks - the only way I can see for him only to make one trick would be to ruff a ♦ with J and over-ruff with Q. Surely that would be irrational?

Perhaps for completeness I should also set out the argument for not awarding declarer 3 tricks! One possibility is that on a ♦ return declarer will ruff in dummy. Now there is no way to stop a trump promotion. Another possibility is that on a trump exit declarer will win ♥J, then attempt to cross-ruff in accordance with the claim statement. After a ♠ ruff he will unfortunately discover there is no trump left in dummy to ruff the last trick, and will lose it to ♣5.

All in all one of the easier claims to adjudicate, I would have thought.

[RMB1]

I thought for one scary moment this would be an entry switching squeeze on a trump return; but I guess VixTD's club is not frequented by lamford.

Luckily I do not have to decide whether it is obvious which black suit will deliver the last trick if West returns a ♥10. Instead I rule that a diamond return ruffed by ♥J is a normal play. Two tricks to declarer (Law 70C).

[ahydra]

Hmm... If West returns the H10 then North wins, perforce (playing the HQ would be irrational) and cashes the S8 to make all the tricks? Similarly if West returns a diamond then South could say "I make the absolute rock-solid-safe play of ruffing in hand, since then I have a high crossruff - whether there's a trump out or not, it doesn't matter".

Admittedly the S8 isn't part of the claim statement, but "cross-ruffing" normally means "cross-ruffing losers" (suppose you claim "cross-ruffing" with

♠A ♥x ♦x opposite ♥x ♣xx

where there are no trumps out and hearts are trumps, you are clearly not going to ruff your spade ace).

I guess ruffing a diamond with the HJ is sufficiently "normal" to award 2 tricks to your average club player. But suppose the player was an expert / was known for super-solid card play, I'd probably award 3 tricks.

ahydra

[Trinidad]

[Silly stuff deleted and replaced by:] See Robin (RMB1).

Rik

[iviehoff]

RMB1, on 2012-February-23, 08:32, said:

Instead I rule that a diamond return ruffed by ♥J is a normal play.

That's a sufficiently "inferior" play that one may as well rule that declarer wins W's trump exit in hand is "normal" too.

[WellSpyder]

ahydra, on 2012-February-23, 09:18, said:

But suppose the player was an expert / was known for super-solid card play, I'd probably award 3 tricks.
ahydra

A rock-solid expert capable of forgetting about ♥10 is also capable of not realising ♠8 is a winner.

[WellSpyder]

WellSpyder, on 2012-February-23, 08:29, said:

I wonder if we've finally found a claim hand on which everyone will agree?

Didn't take long to get an answer to that question....

[RMB1]

iviehoff, on 2012-February-23, 09:24, said:

That's a sufficiently "inferior" play ...

What is inferior about ruffing in dummy, leaving only trumps in hand, for someone who thinks all the defenders' trumps have gone?

[iviehoff]

RMB1, on 2012-February-23, 09:42, said:

What is inferior about ruffing in dummy, leaving only trumps in hand, for someone who thinks all the defenders' trumps have gone?

It is plainly inferior because it fails to cater for one's own forgetfulness. In fact it caters for up to 5 forgotten trumps smaller than the J still being held by the opposition, and is therefore such a "strong" line that it is likely to be overwhelmingly the line actually chosen. Which is why I think it unlikely that the defender would actually lead a diamond, when it is so easy for the opposition to "make sure" of all 3 tricks, even against their own forgetfulness.

But I'm just teasing you because you seemed to have some sort of inhibition against determining the other 2-trick line to be normal, whereas I think they are both normal.

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2012-February-23, 09:42, said:

What is inferior about ruffing in dummy, leaving only trumps in hand, for someone who thinks all the defenders' trumps have gone?

Actually, I think it is superior, not just not inferior. Yes, of course there are some hands where it fails if you have forgotten what has happened, but that is the case most of the time I forget what has happened. The reason it is superior when you know what is going on is that it makes it quicker to claim after this trick. No-one will dispute a claim when you have just trumps left in one hand, but if you need to demonstrate a cross-ruff for the remaining 2 tricks then at least some defenders will take time to work it out. Maybe it's just me, but I do try to make claims as simple as possible when I think it will be a courtesy to the opponents (not when I'm playing people of the standard of most of those on this forum, of course.....)

[ahydra]

WellSpyder, on 2012-February-23, 09:29, said:

A rock-solid expert capable of forgetting about ♥10 is also capable of not realising ♠8 is a winner.

Isn't that a semi-non-sequitur? (Semi because there would likely be a correlation between the number of people who forget about the H10 and the number of people who forget the S8 is a winner, but that's about the only logical connection between the two).

Suppose the TD comes over, and without seeing the opponent's hands South says voluntarily that the S8 is a winner... it'd be a bit silly for the TD to say "yes, but you might have forgot about that at the time - after all, you forgot the H10 was still out".

I'm gonna stand by my "2 tricks for anyone who isn't an expert, 3 tricks otherwise" for now.

ahydra

[barmar]

ahydra, on 2012-February-23, 12:29, said:

I'm gonna stand by my "2 tricks for anyone who isn't an expert, 3 tricks otherwise" for now.

But I'd suggest revoking their expert status. If they can't keep track of trumps, they're losing it.

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2012-February-23, 09:18, said:

But suppose the player was an expert / was known for super-solid card play, I'd probably award 3 tricks.

What is less "expert" or "solid" about ruffing a diamond in dummy when you don't think it makes a difference?

[ahydra]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-23, 19:39, said:

What is less "expert" or "solid" about ruffing a diamond in dummy when you don't think it makes a difference?

I see what you're getting at. But an expert player will always take a 100% line over a 99.99999% line, "just in case LHO psyched" or whatever (in this case "just in case I forgot there's a trump out"). Why ruff in dummy when you can ruff in hand and guarantee all three tricks?

I guess what I'm getting at is that experts aren't always perfect, but plays like ruffing in hand rather than dummy would be so innate to them that they would never consider doing anything different, even if they were sure (but wrong) that there were no trumps left.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2012-February-24, 04:44, said:

I see what you're getting at. But an expert player will always take a 100% line over a 99.99999% line, "just in case LHO psyched" or whatever (in this case "just in case I forgot there's a trump out"). Why ruff in dummy when you can ruff in hand and guarantee all three tricks?

I guess what I'm getting at is that experts aren't always perfect, but plays like ruffing in hand rather than dummy would be so innate to them that they would never consider doing anything different, even if they were sure (but wrong) that there were no trumps left.

I don't agree with you. A player who "innately" arranges the play so that he will be OK if he has forgotten there is a trump out will have to make so many inferior plays that he could scarcely be called an "expert".

In this particular case declarer not only failed to count the trumps accurately but also failed to notice that the dummy was high. If he is an expert, then he is certainly drunk (and I know only one expert whose standard of play does not suffer even when he drinks to serious excess during a session).

[VixTD]

I did just wonder as I awarded two tricks to declarer that someone might argue this is another "no lose" situation in which declarer can guarantee three tricks even if the trump which isn't outstanding happens to be the 10.

I'm glad to see there's near unanimity.