Surprisingly, we had another tough claim ruling at last night's Woodberry Christmas Party (matchpoints). West led the king of diamonds and declarer claimed, indicating that he would draw trumps and ruff a heart in dummy. West stated that trumps were 4-0 so there would be no trump left in dummy. Declarer conceded one down but dummy chipped in with the remark that declarer still makes as the jack, ten, nine of clubs were tripleton. East thought there was an alternative but unsuccessful line of trying to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, but South stated that "drawing trumps" was part of his claim, and this meant all of them. How do you rule?
A Careless Claim Drawing Trumps
#1
Posted 2010-December-23, 10:31
Surprisingly, we had another tough claim ruling at last night's Woodberry Christmas Party (matchpoints). West led the king of diamonds and declarer claimed, indicating that he would draw trumps and ruff a heart in dummy. West stated that trumps were 4-0 so there would be no trump left in dummy. Declarer conceded one down but dummy chipped in with the remark that declarer still makes as the jack, ten, nine of clubs were tripleton. East thought there was an alternative but unsuccessful line of trying to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, but South stated that "drawing trumps" was part of his claim, and this meant all of them. How do you rule?
#2
Posted 2010-December-23, 11:39
lamford, on 2010-December-23, 10:31, said:
According to Law 68D I should have been called before any further action (for example, objections to the claim being stated). I rule that both sides have lost their right to rectificaiton (Law 11): NS 7NT-1, EW 7NT=.
If called at the right time, I may have been able to adjudicate the outcome of the board equitably: for instance, by pointing out to declarer can not draw trumps and ruff a heart if trumps are 4-0. I would then be able to judge other lines of play suggested by the claimer. If he had said he would try to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, I would rule 10(?) tricks; if he had said he would play for heart/club squeeze (or ♣8 being good), I might rule 13 tricks.
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#3
Posted 2010-December-23, 12:22
RMB1, on 2010-December-23, 11:39, said:
If called at the right time, I may have been able to adjudicate the outcome of the board equitably: for instance, by pointing out to declarer can not draw trumps and ruff a heart if trumps are 4-0. I would then be able to judge other lines of play suggested by the claimer. If he had said he would try to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, I would rule 10(?) tricks; if he had said he would play for heart/club squeeze (or ♣8 being good), I might rule 13 tricks.
I think it is too harsh to apply Law 11 here. That does say "may be forfeited" and cites the example of subsequent action causing the non-offending side to gain. That does not really apply here, as your 72D1 duty is only to establish the normality of other lines not embraced in the original clarification statement. I don't think it would be right for the TD to say to South "That line won't work as trumps are 4-0. How are you going to play now?". So, I do not think the typical discussion of the merits of a claim, which I would guess occurs with 95% of contested claims, should cause you to deny rectification. I agree you are allowed to, but I think it is poor judgement to do so. And, at MPs, 7NT = would be a particular harsh score for E/W!
#4
Posted 2010-December-23, 12:59
This is an easy down 1.
We should allow declarer to make his contract only if all normal sequences of play will do. So we just have to find one normal sequence of play where he will go down. Normal play is not very good and here there are plenty of beef on the end game to go wrong.
It is normal to roll all the trumps and then ♥AKQ. When sneaky east has saved only the ♥5, it is normal for declarer to have miscounted and try to cash ♥2. Likewise we could give west a diamond trick instead on the ♦9.
#5
Posted 2010-December-23, 13:16
#6
Posted 2010-December-23, 13:53
campboy, on 2010-December-23, 13:16, said:
Right. I missed that fact that he goes down many, if he tries to ruff a heart. So we have to consider if he should be forced to do so. This is a little tricky and I had hoped to avoid this judgement by stating that he will go down anyway.
I note that declarer concedes down one immediately after being told that trumps are 4-0. I think that this is sufficient to count as a clarification of his plan = to draw all the trumps. ~Law 70D3.
So I stick with down 1, but I withdraw calling the ruling "easy".

#7
Posted 2010-December-23, 14:01
lamford, on 2010-December-23, 10:31, said:
Surprisingly, we had another tough claim ruling at last night's Woodberry Christmas Party (matchpoints). West led the king of diamonds and declarer claimed, indicating that he would draw trumps and ruff a heart in dummy. West stated that trumps were 4-0 so there would be no trump left in dummy. Declarer conceded one down but dummy chipped in with the remark that declarer still makes as the jack, ten, nine of clubs were tripleton. East thought there was an alternative but unsuccessful line of trying to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, but South stated that "drawing trumps" was part of his claim, and this meant all of them. How do you rule?
Any declarer capable of noticing that the club is high (or recognizing that there might be a heart/club squeeze) would, in actual practice, play Spade, Heart, Heart.......OOPS and wind up down 3.
When a claim is contested do we hold South to the literal claim statement even when that is unfavorable to the defenders?
#8
Posted 2010-December-23, 14:02

I'd love to see something conclusive, but it seems to me that the program "crashes" when B does not follow A. In the other thread, declarer said, I have 13 tricks including five club tricks. (buzzer sounds) - No, you don't, so adjudicate the claim as if no statement were made, and take the spade hook.
Here, (declarer says): "I'm drawing trump...."(check, but we draw all the trump) and "ruffing a heart". (buzzer sounds). So can't we accept the initial 'part' of the claim, or does the entire claim statement get thrown out? If this is the case, declarer will try for a squeeze. In all variations I can see, declarer is not pitching the club that is becoming a winner. As a matter of fact, since West holds all of the high diamonds, I believe declarer is stone cold on any layout of the clubs.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#10
Posted 2010-December-23, 17:38
There is no justice using law 11 here.
Hlidartun 6
270 Mosfellsbaer
Iceland
vip@centrum.is
www.bridge.is
#11
Posted 2010-December-23, 17:58
RMB1, on 2010-December-23, 11:39, said:
I have never heard this suggestion before and it does not seem to me to follow normal TD practice. Are you sure this is a valid use of Law 11?
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#12
Posted 2010-December-23, 19:48
I'm guessing that this hand is a setup hypothetical. (Or at least the spots have been altered.)
#13
Posted 2010-December-24, 05:13
bixby, on 2010-December-23, 19:48, said:
Why would this matter in the slightest? And why would it matter if the pips were not accurately recorded?
#14
Posted 2010-December-24, 05:15
Phil, on 2010-December-23, 14:02, said:

I'd love to see something conclusive, but it seems to me that the program "crashes" when B does not follow A. In the other thread, declarer said, I have 13 tricks including five club tricks. (buzzer sounds) - No, you don't, so adjudicate the claim as if no statement were made, and take the spade hook.
Here, (declarer says): "I'm drawing trump...."(check, but we draw all the trump) and "ruffing a heart". (buzzer sounds). So can't we accept the initial 'part' of the claim, or does the entire claim statement get thrown out? If this is the case, declarer will try for a squeeze. In all variations I can see, declarer is not pitching the club that is becoming a winner. As a matter of fact, since West holds all of the high diamonds, I believe declarer is stone cold on any layout of the clubs.
Cute post

Here I'm allowing declarer's second statement as evidence. I can do that at my own discretion.
When told that trumps are 4-0, declarer immediately concedes down 1. Obviously because there won't be a trump in dummy for the heart ruff when he has drawn trumps. So now we have a claim of 12 tricks and a plan leading to 12 tricks. Alles in Ordnung. He gets 12 tricks.
[Contrast to the other hand where we were left with a discrepancy between declarer's statement and his actual number of tricks.]
Declarer won't get a 13th trick because he might misjudge (= miscount) the end position and try to cash a red "winner" before testing the clubs at all. That is within normal play.
Merry Christmas everybody

#15
Posted 2010-December-24, 10:27
bixby, on 2010-December-23, 19:48, said:
I'm guessing that this hand is a setup hypothetical. (Or at least the spots have been altered.)
I am not sure why this makes it a "problem". When abstract questions have been asked here and on other forums it has often proved very difficult to answer them. Far better is to discuss an actual hand which can make a point much clearer. So if a person wants to discuss a point and invents a hand that fits, why not?
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#16
Posted 2010-December-24, 13:08
Both sides are offending sides, so 7S-3 for North/South and 7S= for East/West.
#17
Posted 2010-December-24, 13:22
Bbradley62, on 2010-December-24, 13:08, said:
That law only applies when some other law tells us to adjust the score. Law 70 (on contested claims) does not give the director the right to adjust the score, only to adjudicate how many tricks were taken. (Law 68D, which seems to be the only law that either side has violated, also does not give the director the right to adjust the score.)