[lamford]

---

Matchpoints; Opening lead A♥ Table Result: ?

SB hosts once a month at the North London Club (one other reason why the club is reluctant to get rid of him) and there is a scramble to avoid turning up without a partner when this day comes around. RR also has a problem getting partners at times and last week he was the "odd one out" and partnered SB. He recognised the genuine Yarborough he was dealt this time, and did not expect to be declarer. SB rarely makes a take-out double opposite RR, as sometimes RR does not realise it is takeout, but could not think of another reasonable bid here. RR thought that passing might be best, but decided to take his medicine in 4S.

ChCh, West started with two top hearts on which Vera was tempted to give false count, but decided that she had better peter. "What are your signalling methods?", asked RR. "Normal attitude and normal count" responded ChCh. After a little thought he continued with the ♥4, suit preference for clubs. RR paused to think and believed he had a "loser on loser" play here. He could ruff in dummy and throw his diamond loser on this when East overruffed, and the other three trumps would fall under the ace, king and queen. He was so confident that he claimed 10 tricks.

Claims by RR had caused problems in the past, particularly online, and he had been advised to follow Law 68C and explain his claim. He typed, "I ruff this, and throw my losing diamond away. You get a trump as the other three trumps will fall under my top three trumps". Both ChCh and VV accepted this claim with alacrity. RR's line of play was about to get 11 tricks and a complete top.

SB immediately pressed the CALL DIRECTOR button repeatedly as soon as the hand record showed that East's singleton spade was the two. OO arrived. "How can I help?" he asked patiently. "VV and ChCh accepted a claim knowing that they would not win a third trick," he began. "RR's bizarre play should have gone off, of course, but as stated he was destined to make 11 tricks, as East could not overruff the three. Please adjust the score."

How do you rule?

[Cyberyeti]

I think he gets 11 as the stated line of play is to play ♠AKQ when he gets in, which happens to be a trick earlier than he expected. (and you mean his singleton spade not heart in the last paragraph)

[mycroft]

s/without a partner//

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-October-09, 09:02, said:

I think he gets 11 as the stated line of play is to play ♠AKQ when he gets in, which happens to be a trick earlier than he expected. (and you mean his singleton spade not heart in the last paragraph)

Corrected. The BBO software does not allow corrected claims, but tournament directors can change the score for a tournament. There is an argument that a trick could be lost by "normal" play and he only claimed 10, but I think I agree with you.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2020-October-09, 17:59, said:

The BBO software does not allow corrected claims, but tournament directors can change the score for a tournament. There is an argument that a trick could be lost by "normal" play and he only claimed 10, but I think I agree with you.

I agree that 11 tricks should be assigned.

This is in some ways similar to my own recent incident that I reported in another thread here: claiming all the remaining tricks and stating a line of play that would be successful, but wrongly adding "although the ♣A is not even necessary". Following the line in the order I specified would indeed have taken all the remaining tricks, but the ♣A was a necessary trick and I can imagine some bloody minded director forcing me to discard it even though it was the last trick I mentioned.