Claim: is it illogical to throw a higher card
Contract is 4 hearts, we are at trick 10
Declarer has DAQ, SQ
Dummy has CQ8, D9
Declarer claims saying "They're all winners".
They are not - there is a trump out.
If declarer pays SQ and throws CQ, she will lose two tricks, otherwise only one.
Given that declarer believes her hand to be high, is it illogical to throw CQ on SQ?
Comments
You have implied that the lead at the start of Trick 11 is in declarer's hand, in which case, declarer seems to think his hand is high. So is it now beyond "careless or inferior" to play SQ and throw CQ? I would say "no, it isn't". If declarer thinks his hand is high, it can't possibly matter to him which order he throws cards from dummy.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Yes it is - sorry I should have stated this.
I think any card from dummy is normal if declarer has stated that declarers cards are high, including the highest card. "normal" both in the sense of the footnote and in natural language.
But if the SQ is ruffed by the next defender then (I suppose) declarer is deemed to wake up and think that dummy's cards may be relevant and throw 8 from Q8.
"Normal includes...careless or inferior..."
If dummy had, say, a singleton CQ & small doubleton spades, I would say it's quite 'normal' to discard the CQ first. But it takes a conscious decision to call for the CQ ahead of the C8, which goes beyond carelessness, IMO. The only reason even an inferior declarer would actively choose to play the CQ is if they were showboating: "Look, I can afford to throw away all of dummy's winners!" Perhaps showboating might be considered normal.
Having said that, what might also be considered 'normal', if play had continued, would be for declarer to call "any card" at dummy's turn. In this case the defenders would be entitled to insist that the club queen be played. Is this sufficient to be able to consider the play of the CQ normal?
Reverse Declarer & Dummy, & I think discarding from hand might be a different matter. If you think all your cards in hand are equals (or equally useless), you might just throw away the one 'nearest your thumb', whether that's the CQ or otherwise. A similar argument might apply to online bridge
I can remember years ago John Probst ruling that a declarer claiming their hand was high might discard a high card from dummy rather than a low one in the same suit. The conversation went something like:
"Why would I discard my ace?"
"Well, players do sometimes [be flamboyant], don't they?"
When ruling on disputed claims I'm always mindful that the law does not ask the TD to rule on the basis of what is likely to have happened had the hand been played out. It asks them to consider normal (including not very good) lines of play, so I don't think the extra effort of calling for the queen rather than just "a spade" or choosing the card nearest their thumb should come into it.
When an opponent of mine claimed and the director was called I managed to find a line of play consistent with the claim statement that involved declarer chopping and changing suits when cashing winners that would have been quite unusual to see played out, giving us an extra trick. I think that should have been considered "normal", but the TD didn't.
A lot of the contention around adjudicating claims comes from the wording of law 70A:
"the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to
both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer"
which contains two contradictory instructions to the director. The outcome depends on whether they favour equity to both sides over resolving doubt against the claimer.
I think more firm guidance on the "top-down" (when leading) and "bottom-up" (when discarding) would be useful and lead to greater consistency.
It sounds like I would agree with your TD. My paper on claims includes:
"Having once started to play a suit by cashing winners, it is normal to
continue that suit until it is exhausted before switching to another suit.
If a player is conceding a trick as part of the claim, unless it has been
otherwise specified in the claim it is normal for the player to either play
to lose the trick immediately or at the end of play, so once again we rule
according to the more disadvantageous of the two. It is not normal to
play some winners and then attempt to concede the trick in the middle
of the play."