[nige1]

pran, on 2020-January-03, 13:05, said:

Frankly, I do not understand this discussion.

Yes

pran, on 2020-January-03, 13:05, said:

I believe we all agree that declarer cashes the ♣K (as he stated) and then continues with a heart from Dummy.

No

pran, on 2020-January-03, 13:05, said:

Whether or not he at this time believed that all his hearts were high is directly immaterial, RHO will have to follow suit with his ten, and it would be directly irrational for Declarer not to ruff this with his own last trump. Then Declarer must play one of hihs Diamonds. With LHO covering this it would again be directly irrational for Declarer not to ruff with the last trump in Dummy.So where is the "normal" line of play that can possibly give any trick to the defenders?

Other plausible interpretations have been described in previous replies. As pescetom says, the director should consider lines, consistent with the claim, even if he deems them careless/inferior. IMO, unfortunately, the director's ruling is a matter of fine judgement and could go either way

[ahydra]

For those talking about leading hearts from "dummy": North is declarer.

I had failed to appreciate the nuances of declarer stating he cashes the CK implying he knows that will draw the last trump. Nonetheless, my understanding is that when one claims "the rest are mine", the order of the remaining cards should be irrelevant or obvious. Here it is neither since the hearts aren't good and, even if they were, clubs require an unblock or the hearts must be played first. (I recall an infamous ruling made after the hand where an expert declarer was denied a grand slam for failing to mention an unblock.)

North has made a claim which is careless in multiple respects and I simply think it is too much, given the laws about "normal lines including careless lines" and "doubtful points are resolved against the claimer" to allow him to luck his way out of his mistake(s) in this case.

Lamford makes a valid point re. declarer might well have known there's a heart left - but we are given no evidence to suggest as much. Hence my suggestion that if declarer had even hinted he was playing hearts specifically, I would award him the rest.

ahydra

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2020-January-03, 12:25, said:

The Director ruled that declarer made all tricks. We don't know his reasoning, but we do have the comments of a senior Director who approved that decision.

Enough said. Those who argue otherwise are wrong.

[nige1]

pescetom, on 2020-January-03, 12:25, said:

The Director ruled that declarer made all tricks. We don't know his reasoning, but we do have the comments of a senior Director who approved that decision. He argues that had the clubs been KT in North and 96 in South, then playing off both trumps before the "winning" hearts might constitute an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful: but the fact that the clubs are K9 and T6 and declarer has only diamonds in South makes playing the second trump undesirable. Then after playing the K and a first heart he will see the ten in East and ruff, then a diamond ruff, thus making the contract.

lamford, on 2020-January-03, 16:38, said:

Enough said. Those who argue otherwise are wrong.

pescetom, on 2020-January-03, 12:25, said:

He does however concede that a more 'taliban' director might still oblige declarer to unblock the clubs and then "cash" the hearts, a decision which would be very rigid but not mistaken in principle.

[sanst]

Is it probable that declarer would play an extra round of trumps? I don’t think so. In my experience most half decent players keep count of the trumps, whereas they might sometimes miscount the other suits. Only less than half decent players play unnecessarily trumps because they loose count, but these don’t claim and quite often react angrily if you claim. So, I think the level of the player involved should be taken into consideration. I’ve watched and directed matches at a quite high level in Holland and noticed that these players claim by simply putting the cards on the table, saying something like “the rest” or “one trick to you” and nobody making a fuss because they know what the line of play will be. Problems may arise with those who are somewhere between half decent and more than decent, but I don’t like to treat them as nitwits.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2020-January-04, 02:55, said:

Is it probable that declarer would play an extra round of trumps? I don’t think so. In my experience most half decent players keep count of the trumps, whereas they might sometimes miscount the other suits.

That is my experience too. But given that, is it probable that declarer would be careful to make clear (albeit implicitly) that he is aware of an outstanding trump yet consider it superfluous to make clear that he is aware of exactly one outstanding heart? I find the wording of this claim illogical and surprising, characteristic of someone who is either misreading the situation or less than (as you put it) half decent.

sanst, on 2020-January-04, 02:55, said:

So, I think the level of the player involved should be taken into consideration. I’ve watched and directed matches at a quite high level in Holland and noticed that these players claim by simply putting the cards on the table, saying something like “the rest” or “one trick to you” and nobody making a fuss because they know what the line of play will be.

I agree. This is perilous in terms of the current laws, of course, but it is what happens and it does make more sense than a paradoxically incomplete claim such as this one. Between high level opponents the line of play would be obvious here. But the clumsy claim and the lack of trust by opponents suggests the players in question here are not at that level, I think. Of course Director will often know level before coming to the table.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2020-January-04, 05:33, said:

That is my experience too. But given that, is it probable that declarer would be careful to make clear (albeit implicitly) that he is aware of an outstanding trump yet consider it superfluous to make clear that he is aware of exactly one outstanding heart? I find the wording of this claim illogical and surprising, characteristic of someone who is either misreading the situation or less than (as you put it) half decent.

I'm happy to believe declarer forgot about the HT. Had West held it I would probably rule one trick to the defence, but here East will be forced to play it when it can be ruffed away.

As I said before, if we follow his claim statement the rest of the tricks fall into his lap. To rule otherwise is to assume he is going to do something other than what he actually said at the table. Yes it's incomplete and would be problematic on other layouts. But not here.

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2020-January-04, 02:55, said:

I’ve watched and directed matches at a quite high level in Holland and noticed that these players claim by simply putting the cards on the table, saying something like “the rest” or “one trick to you” and nobody making a fuss because they know what the line of play will be.

If a player whose opponent makes a claim without stating a line of play wishes to accept the claim, that's up to him. But if a director gets involved, he should apply the law as written. At some point, the habit of claiming without a proper line of play statement should IMO incur a PP, even given that this is a "should" law which would rarely incur a PP. "Rarely" is not "never", and the director ought to be encouraging people who do this to change their ways. If persuasion doesn't work, well, what's left?

[axman]

sfi, on 2020-January-04, 06:34, said:

I'm happy to believe declarer forgot about the HT. Had West held it I would probably rule one trick to the defence, but here East will be forced to play it when it can be ruffed away.

As I said before, if we follow his claim statement the rest of the tricks fall into his lap.

As I said before, there is a line not in conflict with line stated that makes the above dubious.

[sfi]

axman, on 2020-January-04, 15:12, said:

As I said before, there is a line not in conflict with line stated that makes the above dubious.

Your line is only not in conflict if you believe a declarer who indicates there is exactly one trump out would play two trumps, deliberately unblocking the 10. Do you really believe that matches the stated line of play?