[Lanor Fow]

I got called to the table in a recent event. The ruling caused some discussion amongst the directors at the event, so I was interested to hear peoples opinions.

---

The contract was 5d by south. This was over a week ago, and I don't have my notes so I can't remember the auction. The play had gone:

3♠, 2, A, 7
5♥, k, A, 3
8♥, 3, 9♦, 2♥
A♣, 10, 3, 2♦

At this point declarer faced their hand and made a statement. There was some dispute over the statement.

Declarer claimed he said he would draw trumps and throw hearts on the spades. Defenders claimed that declarer never mentioned trumps and just said he was going to throw hearts on the spades. Dummy didn't hear what was said. Defenders said that had trumps been mentioned the director wouldn't have been called. Declarer said that he knew there was a trump out, and corrected himself to two trumps out when defense said "More than one trump". Declarer claimed that he though that the heart had been ruffed with the King, so drawing trumps would not have been an issue regardless of the layout, and that the confusion in the discussion of the claim was to do with which trump the heart was trumped with.

Both sides are adamant about their viewpoint.

All players are of a good standard.

How do you rule?

The white book provides some guidance on the issues of trumps not mentioned and "top down", listed below. We thought, in discussion, an interesting point was whether, given declarer thought the king had gone, whether drawing trumps by playing a heart to the jack, to be able to play a spade up would fit the statements and be a normal line.

Thanks in advance

"8.70.4 Missing trump
A declarer who is unaware of a missing trump is ‘careless’ in failing to draw the missing trump.
Thus if a trick could be lost by playing other winners first then the TD should award that trick
to the non-claimers.
Examples
(a) Declarer claims all the tricks with a good trump ( 9), two spade winners and a
heart winner. The defence can ruff the heart with their outstanding small trump.
Despite declarer swearing on a stack of bibles that they knew there was a trump
out, if they are too careless to mention it, then they may easily have forgotten it
and the defence gets a trick.
(b) Declarer is in 7 with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0.
Declarer cashes one round and says “All mine” when both players follow. They
clearly have not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good.
8.70.5 Top down?
A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the
top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.White Book 2015 – Laws
7 August 2015 135
Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has
not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be
considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it
may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six."

[ahydra]

Given this

Quote

Declarer claimed he said he would draw trumps

and this

Quote

All players are of a good standard

I rule declarer will draw trumps.

Then we get to this

Quote

Declarer claimed that he though that the heart had been ruffed with the King, so drawing trumps would not have been an issue regardless of the layout

at which point I think it's "careless" for declarer to play trumps starting with e.g. a small to the jack, and hence I rule he loses a further trick to the DK. (He gets lucky that spades split 3-2 - it gets a little more interesting if spades are 4-1 as then he can't simply "throw hearts on the spades", he needs to establish them first)

So overall, declarer is two off.

ahydra

[lamford]

Lanor Fow, on 2016-July-25, 03:19, said:

We thought, in discussion, an interesting point was whether, given declarer thought the king had gone, whether drawing trumps by playing a heart to the jack, to be able to play a spade up would fit the statements and be a normal line.

Given that declarer did not even have a valid claim (nothing told him the remaining trumps were 1-1), I would rule that he was unaware of the fact that the king of diamonds was out (although he probably did believe a trump was out), and I would rule that he would continue with a diamond to the jack. That seems a normal but obviously inferior line. So, two down.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2016-July-25, 05:48, said:

Given that declarer did not even have a valid claim (nothing told him the remaining trumps were 1-1, I would rule that he was unaware of the fact that the king of diamonds was out (although he probably did believe a trump was out), and I would rule that he would continue with a diamond to the jack. That seems a normal but obviously inferior line. So, two down.

Not only did he not know the king was out, he did not know how many trump were out. Clearly his claim was based on drawing a single small trump. Furthermore, after becoming aware of all this, it is absurd to continue arguing the point, especially for a "player of good standard."

Obvious down two. Be more careful next time.

[ggwhiz]

Curious situation.

Given that declarer didn't fully address (or know about) the missing trump King OR the possibility of spades not splitting I'm inclined to side with the defenders as to whether "drawing trumps" was part of the extremely amateurish/careless claim statement in either case. On this basis, suffering a spade ruff for down 2 is my choice.

For a player of good standard, that must apply to other aspects of their game.

[Lanor Fow]

ggwhiz, on 2016-July-25, 08:45, said:

...
Given that declarer didn't fully address (or know about) the missing trump King OR the possibility of spades not splitting I'm inclined to side with the defenders as to whether "drawing trumps" was part of the extremely amateurish/careless claim statement in either case. On this basis, suffering a spade ruff for down 2 is my choice.
...

Would you be ruling this basis on the fact that Declarer might not have known that any trumps were out (despite no rounds having been played) or that it would not be irrational to not attempt to draw them?

[barmar]

Lanor Fow, on 2016-July-25, 03:19, said:

I3♠, 2, A, 7
5♥, k, A, 3
8♥, 3, 9♦, 2♥
A♣, 10, 3, 2♦

♥3 was played on tricks 2 and 3?

Quote

We thought, in discussion, an interesting point was whether, given declarer thought the king had gone, whether drawing trumps by playing a heart to the jack, to be able to play a spade up would fit the statements and be a normal line.

Is that the ♥J that was still left in dummy because the 3 was played twice?

[Zelandakh]

ahydra, on 2016-July-25, 05:47, said:

I rule declarer will draw trumps.

Why are you willing to take declarer's claim of statement at face value. Given that Dummy cannot verify it, it does not seem unlikely that he thought he had mentioned trumps but actually got ahead of himself and went directly to the main part about discarding hearts. It is hardly an unusual thing to happen at the bridge table.