[Phil]

---

Some of the detail are fuzzy. I'm guessing at the auction but we know that South reached 3N.

The defense ran four diamonds. Declarer bared her ♠Q and a heart from dummy.

The defense exited a club and declarer won in dummy. Down to her last chance, declarer led a heart to the T.

When it lost, declarer claimed -1.

The defense calls you over. How do you rule?

[TylerE]

What trick does the defense propose to take, exactly? Having already taken one club, declarer has 4 clubs, 2 hearts, and a spade remaining. Looks like 8 tricks to me.

[Phil]

TylerE, on 2015-March-15, 14:02, said:

What trick does the defense propose to take, exactly? Having already taken one club, declarer has 4 clubs, 2 hearts, and a spade remaining. Looks like 8 tricks to me.

Hi Tyler - I think your answer actually demonstrates that eight tricks is far from obvious, and this may have been what declarer was (or was not) thinking.

[manudude03]

I rule 8 tricks. When the defence leads a second heart, I don't see any other reasonable line than to pitch the other club honour on the last heart winner and the clubs are running.

[kfay]

Down 3. Declarer has to strip West of their last heart (hardly obvious) then endplay? I think down 3 will suffice.

I don't think a jettison should be allowed on a misclaim.

[joshs]

Either a heart comes back or it doesn't, if it doesn't then there is no problem. if it does, declarer is suddenly stuck in his/her hand and will see there is no more entry and will suddenly wake up...

[TylerE]

Either I'm not following the line of play, or y'all are confused.

S hooked the T♥ and still has the AK, right?

So even on a ♥ return, why not win, heart back, run clubs, cash the spade?


Nevermind - Missed the part about a ♥ getting pitched from dummy.

[toukie]

THe EBU White book may help us a little here.
[For the non-englesh, the EBU white book is the EBU's interpretation of the laws]

‘Blatantly obvious’
An Appeals Committee thought the winning line was ‘blatantly obvious’ yet ruled against the
claimer. The L&EC believed that if a line was blatantly obvious then all other lines would
presumably not be ‘normal’, as defined by the footnote to Law 70C3. If so the Appeals
Committee should have held that, in effect, the line should be permitted.


Obviously the TD will rule that a heart has been returned. Declarer will at this point 'notice' that the club suit is blocked. So it is blatantly obvious that the only play is to cash the heart and unblock the club.

Art least, that is how I think the EBU would rule. Other bridge authorities may interpret it differently.

[blackshoe]

kfay, on 2015-March-15, 14:27, said:

Down 3. Declarer has to strip West of their last heart (hardly obvious) then endplay? I think down 3 will suffice.

I don't think a jettison should be allowed on a misclaim.

I don't see a line that's down three. Down one I can see.

Declarer does not have to strip West of his heart. In fact, he probably shouldn't, since if he keeps the ♥A and West exits with a heart after taking two spade tricks, his hand is good (♥A, top clubs). But maybe I'm missing something.

[lamford]

I would rule that it would be careless to fail to notice the jettison of the top club. If declarer had already noticed the problem, he should have indicated it. And how would he have played if East has inserted the jack or queen on the first round of hearts from Qx or Jx? I bet he would have risen, crossed to the top club and repeated the heart finesse, rather than playing the unlikely squeeze on West. While the discard of a top club might be obvious, the discard of the heart from dummy rather than a spade could not gain, and suggests that South is not the sharpest pencil in the box.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-15, 18:44, said:

I bet he would have risen, crossed to the top club and repeated the heart finesse

Huh? How's he going to do that when he started with AKT in hand and has already finessed once?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-16, 11:21, said:

Huh? How's he going to do that when he started with AKT in hand and has already finessed once?

You are missing the point. If, when he led towards the AKT, East "split" his putative two honours, then I would bet my bottom dollar (I wonder where that phrase comes from) that declarer would win, cross to the top club and then play his second and last heart towards the 10, killing the South hand when it loses unexpectedly. And I would bet that he did not consider that line when finessing the ten on the first round.

I think I have an answer. First cited in the La Crosse Independent Republican, September 1856:
"I'm goin' to vote for you [James Polk] - you can bet your bottom dollar on that!"

[Cascade]

manudude03, on 2015-March-15, 14:26, said:

I rule 8 tricks. When the defence leads a second heart, I don't see any other reasonable line than to pitch the other club honour on the last heart winner and the clubs are running.

If declarer thought of this possibility then it should have been mentioned in the claim.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-16, 11:26, said:

You are missing the point. If, when he led towards the AKT, East "split" his putative two honours, then I would bet my bottom dollar (I wonder where that phrase comes from) that declarer would win, cross to the top club and then play his second and last heart towards the 10, killing the South hand when it loses unexpectedly. And I would bet that he did not consider that line when finessing the ten on the first round.

Maybe so, but this is irrelevant, since it would have happened before the claim, and didn't.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2015-March-16, 13:41, said:

If declarer thought of this possibility then it should have been mentioned in the claim.

Based on the testimony of the OP, nothing was mentioned in the claim. No line of play statement. I would rule according to the worst possible normal line, but I still don't see how it comes to down three. Maybe I'm just dense.

[toukie]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-16, 14:55, said:

Based on the testimony of the OP, nothing was mentioned in the claim. No line of play statement. I would rule according to the worst possible normal line, but I still don't see how it comes to down three. Maybe I'm just dense.

If we're going for the worst possible normal line then I make it 4 down.
On the heart return declarer cashes the other top heart from hand discarding a spade, then leads the SQ covered by the K and ace. He can exit with a low spade but east rises with the 9 and cashes his master heart, west discarding a club. The defence makes 4 diamonds, 2 hearts, and 2 spades for 8 tricks, declarer makes 5 tricks.

[lamford]

toukie, on 2015-March-16, 16:01, said:

If we're going for the worst possible normal line then I make it 4 down.
On the heart return declarer cashes the other top heart from hand discarding a spade, then leads the SQ covered by the K and ace. He can exit with a low spade but east rises with the 9 and cashes his master heart, west discarding a club. The defence makes 4 diamonds, 2 hearts, and 2 spades for 8 tricks, declarer makes 5 tricks.

I think that is worse than normal. More likely is that declarer wins the heart return, crosses to the club and then realises he does not have an entry back to South. He will play a spade to the queen and finesse the forced spade return, going down two. I think other lines are worse than careless. Don't forget we are obliged to adjudicate the claim as equitably as possible, not to find the worst line. If you force declarer to play the ace of spades on the spade return, it is down 3, although that also feels worse than careless.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-16, 18:21, said:

Don't forget we are obliged to adjudicate the claim as equitably as possible, not to find the worst line. If you force declarer to play the ace of spades on the spade return, it is down 3, although that also feels worse than careless.

True, that, and I had forgotten.

lamford, on 2015-March-16, 18:21, said:

If you force declarer to play the ace of spades on the spade return, it is down 3, although that also feels worse than careless.

Yes, although it seems that's what the committee did.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-16, 20:51, said:

Yes, although it seems that's what the committee did.

Surely it is not unreasonable for declarer to play ♠A and another instead of playing to the queen in lamford's line, hoping to find ♠Kx in either hand. That gives -3 on a merely careless line.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-24, 15:13, said:

Surely it is not unreasonable for declarer to play ♠A and another instead of playing to the queen in lamford's line, hoping to find ♠Kx in either hand. That gives -3 on a merely careless line.

In the ending we reached, declarer had AT7xx opposite singleton Q, with six spades out including the KJ98, so the only normal line is low to the queen. Ace and another would never gain, as the person with Kx would just unblock, and dummy would be endplayed. I suppose it could be classed as careless to play ace and another and it seems the committee have forced the claimant to adopt some misère line.