Home EBU TDs

Defender exposes last 2 cards before partner has played to the last 2 tricks

Dummy card played. Next hand faced last 2 cards, a trump and a small club, intending to ruff dummy and play a small club. However his partner having seen both cards discarded a diamond and held onto a winning club. Declarer complained but defender maintained he would always have discarded the diamond and saved the club. How would you rule?

Comments

  • However his partner having seen both cards discarded a diamond and held onto a winning club.

    This wasn't part of the play - play ceased (or at least was suspended) when the next hand faced their cards and claimed.

    This is a contested claim, and so the question is whether the losing line (discarding a club) for the claiming side is a "normal" play. This is clearest in Law 70D2

    D. Director’s Considerations
    2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner selecting a particular play from among alternative normal 21 plays.

    The TD needs to listen to defenders explaining why it is obvious to keep the club, listen to any counter arguments from the declaring side, and decide whether discarding the winning club is beyond careless or inferior.

    Both defenders might be right that it is obvious to keep the club; but we have to worry that claimer knew it was right for partner to keep the club but claimer was not sure it was obvious to partner.

  • I think we need more information. If it was 2D and AC the choice looks obvious.

    Alan

  • I think we need more information.

    In the absence of hands, access to the players, etc., I tend to interpret "how would you rule" as "how would you go about arriving at a ruling" -- providing the TD with the laws/regulations and processes to enable them to rule.

  • Sorry, two simultaneous comments. Mine was not a reply to the fuller and better explanation from BB.

    Alan

  • I always wonder at the "beyond carelss or inferior" argument. Unless this has been defined (and the word 'irrational' has now been removed from the laws - if indeed it applied in this position), then any play other than the 'correct' one is by definition 'inferior'.

    Or does 'normal' actually mean 'any legal play' i.e. not revoking. Does this definition actually make more sense as to why "careless or inferior" is specifically included?

  • Irrational got removed, for being too emotive I think. The definition of normal is defined as much by case law as the detail of the text. Having said that, law 70A ;

    "Any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimant", and the rest of the law talks about "alternative normal lines of play". As BB details, it is fairly clear there is a burden of proof on the claimant to show they were quite definitely about to make a play. I think "beyond careless or inferior" is included to reinforce that, a player can't simply hide behind a play being incorrect :).

    This is doubly true in this kind of case, since we really can't have defenders helping each other out.

  • I've found out that the last 2 cards held by the defender's partner were winning honours in the minor suits. After the defender showed the last 2 cards simultaneously, a trump and a small club, the other defender discarded the winning diamond and saved the club honour to take the last trick. Surely the defender had unauthorised info.

This discussion has been closed.