BBO Discussion Forums: Claim in 2-card ending - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Claim in 2-card ending

#1 User is offline   mrdct 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,448
  • Joined: 2003-October-27
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Moama, NSW

Posted 2010-December-23, 18:20



Matchpoint pairs - Australia.

South is declaring in 4♠ with 9 tricks taken already. With the lead in dummy, she called for the ♥Q and simultaneously played the ♦10 from her hand whilst stating "I'm going to ruff the ♥ and then dummy is good". The ♦10 was fully released from her hand and placed face-up on the table as she was making her claim statement and it seems that she made a mechanical error thinking she was playing the ♠9 but she didn't didn't attempt to correct it until after West had played his ♥K.

South is a fairly weak player for whom it is by no means certain that she would've known if the ♥Q was high or not and cross-ruffing in a two-card ending has been mucked-up in the past.

Do we let her have the last two tricks or do we treat the ♦10 as a played card?
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
0

#2 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2010-December-23, 19:46

View Postmrdct, on 2010-December-23, 18:20, said:

Matchpoint pairs - Australia.
South is declaring in 4♠ with 9 tricks taken already. With the lead in dummy, she called for the ♥Q and simultaneously played the ♦10 from her hand whilst stating "I'm going to ruff the ♥ and then dummy is good". The ♦10 was fully released from her hand and placed face-up on the table as she was making her claim statement and it seems that she made a mechanical error thinking she was playing the ♠9 but she didn't didn't attempt to correct it until after West had played his ♥K.
South is a fairly weak player for whom it is by no means certain that she would've known if the ♥Q was high or not and cross-ruffing in a two-card ending has been mucked-up in the past.
Do we let her have the last two tricks or do we treat the ♦10 as a played card?
IMO her claim is valid :)
Guthrie.tech
0

#3 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2010-December-24, 04:38

View Postmrdct, on 2010-December-23, 18:20, said:



Matchpoint pairs - Australia.

South is declaring in 4♠ with 9 tricks taken already. With the lead in dummy, she called for the ♥Q and simultaneously played the ♦10 from her hand whilst stating "I'm going to ruff the ♥ and then dummy is good". The ♦10 was fully released from her hand and placed face-up on the table as she was making her claim statement and it seems that she made a mechanical error thinking she was playing the ♠9 but she didn't didn't attempt to correct it until after West had played his ♥K.

South is a fairly weak player for whom it is by no means certain that she would've known if the ♥Q was high or not and cross-ruffing in a two-card ending has been mucked-up in the past.

Do we let her have the last two tricks or do we treat the ♦10 as a played card?

If her claim statement was (essentially) simultaneous with exposing the ♦10 (as is my impression from the text) I see no reason to treat the ♦10 as a played card. It was exposed as part of the claim.
0

#4 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,804
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2010-December-24, 15:26

Since she said she was ruffing the heart, the only reasonable way to treat the diamond as an intentionally played card would be to assume she'd forgotten the contract and thought diamonds were trump.

#5 User is offline   mrdct 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,448
  • Joined: 2003-October-27
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Moama, NSW

Posted 2010-December-24, 16:40

View Postbarmar, on 2010-December-24, 15:26, said:

Since she said she was ruffing the heart, the only reasonable way to treat the diamond as an intentionally played card would be to assume she'd forgotten the contract and thought diamonds were trump.

For the player concerned that's quite plausible.
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
0

#6 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,804
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2010-December-25, 20:57

View Postmrdct, on 2010-December-24, 16:40, said:

For the player concerned that's quite plausible.

The director should be able to ascertain this by asking her.
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users