West - a decent player - plays 6S at IMPs on H3 lead-Q-K.
Pass (13+) - (no) - 1H (spades) - (2H)
6S - end
Then she spreads her cards and says "I think I can handle this."
N-S look quizzical. She adds "I'll see how trumps go, then ruff two red cards in dummy."
South suggests that she plays on, so the director is called.
Declarer restates her "claim." N-S agree that she "will probably make."
Director comes back with +100 NS at the end of the session, saying that he "can't see a making line".
E-W appeal, 23 IMPs at stake, Butler. To be held in 6 days time.
A few points:
- N-S don't believe they acquiesced.
- The director's comment about "no making line" seems to suggest that he requires declarer to keep playing trumps.
- If trumps were 3-1, declarer's stated "line" would fail, since she would presumably play a second round of trumps and end up a trick short. (She's allowed one club trick only)
- Declarer needs to ruff THREE red cards in dummy. "Cross-ruff" was never uttered.
West's contention is that the 4-0 trump break will alert her to the need to stop trumps and cross-ruff. All the cross-ruff lines work, don't need to be careful. She didn't mention clubs so there seems to be no alternative line.
So declarer was made a "careless" claim, not counting tricks.
Is she then permitted to count tricks in the face of the 4-0 trump break?
Is it "rational" for a declarer who has made such a careless claim to keep playing trumps?