Claim ruling

[skjaeran]

For one thing, the rules are clear that a claim that was acquiesced may later be in dispute- it even gives a time frame for people to change their minds.

What rule makes this clear? Thanks.

Law 69B: Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn.

Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent’s claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director’s judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side.

[ralph23]

For one thing, the rules are clear that a claim that was acquiesced may later be in dispute- it even gives a time frame for people to change their minds.

What rule makes this clear? Thanks.

Law 69B: Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn.

Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent’s claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director’s judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side.

Yes, this Law makes it clear that the ACQUIESCING party may change his mind. It is written to only allow for HIM to do that.

 

It is expressly written so as to EXCLUDE the claiming/conceding party from doing that.

 

It doesn't say e.g. that the claimer/conceder may cancel or revoke the other side's acquiescence -- either completed or tentative or in-process-- in the claim/concession.

 

I think the writing of this Law in this narrow way was done for a purpose.

Edited September 10, 2007 by ralph23

[jtfanclub]

I addressed that in my immediately preceding post. IS there some express or implied textual support for allowing the conceder to nullify the acquiescence?

Back to 68D.

 

if it is disputed by ANY PLAYER (dummy included), the director must be summoned etc. etc.

 

Any player is very clear to me. If they'd meant either opponent, they'd have said either opponent. Any player may dispute the claim.

 

You may believe there is some timeframe different for the claimant and his partner, but there is no such other timeframe expressed in the laws.

[ralph23]

I addressed that in my immediately preceding post. IS there some express or implied textual support for allowing the conceder to nullify the acquiescence?

Back to 68D.

 

if it is disputed by ANY PLAYER (dummy included), the director must be summoned etc. etc.

 

Any player is very clear to me. If they'd meant either opponent, they'd have said either opponent. Any player may dispute the claim.

Law 68D. After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director.

 

(1) If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies;

(2) if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival.

 

(Numbers and emphasis added)

 

You only get to that leg of the "fork" in 68D after you have decided, under the immediately preceding language, that there's not been an acquiescence.

 

If there has been one, go to 69.

If not, go to 70 & 71.

 

You want to say that an acquiescence takes time to mature; OK, I'll ride along with that for the purpose of the argument. Although I'm now not so sure that it's true in this context; but let's say so for now.

 

You also want to say, that during the time it takes to mature, the claiming/conceding side can nullify the ability of the acquiescence to mature. Stunt its growth in effect. :P ... maybe "terminate it" is a better expression, because it can never mature under your reading, without the (express or implicit) consent of the non-acquiescing side.

 

You want to say, in effect, that

 

1. side X can concede; then

 

2. side Y can acquiesce (or at least make step-one in the acquiescence-process and "assent" anyway) in that concession; then,

 

3. before the time expires, side X can "dispute" its own concession (which seems an odd use of the word "dispute" to me .... I can I think "withdraw" or "revoke" or "cancel" my own concession, but how in the world do I "dispute" it? Just an odd use of the word "dispute" imho); and

 

4. as a result, even though side Y still wants to acquiesce and even has waived any right to withdraw (err.... or should I say dispute? :P :D ) its acquiescence (imagine that they, being bridge lawyers, make this express waiver at the moment that they acquiesce), they can't do so. They don't have the power to do so. They are barred from acquiescing any more. Instead, declarer is allowed to "dispute" his own claim or concession and the "dispute" rules (70 & 71) apply, instead of the "acquiescence" rule, Law 69.

 

The textual structure of Law 68D doesn't seem very helpful to me.

 

Is there some other textual support?

 

And isn't it a strange way to speak, when you say "I'm hereby disputing my own claim and concession". I mean, you'd never say that in ordinary English unless you were "catering to" the Laws; you'd just say "I'm withdrawing/ cancelling/ revoking/taking back my prior concession."

 

I mean, I can "dispute" what you say, if I disagree with it.

 

If I come to disagree with what I have said myself, I don't "dispute" it. I withdraw my previous statement and then make a new and revised one. If I've made a move in a game, I can perhaps "cancel" it or "revoke" it, depending on the rules. But how do I "dispute" what I myself have previously said, even if I now disagree with it and think that I was wrong earlier?

 

Seems a peculiar usage of "dispute". Which would make many people suspicious, at a minimum.

Edited September 10, 2007 by ralph23

[ralph23]

And: Is there somewhere in the Laws -- other than 68 -- that makes it explicit that a player can "dispute" (or if you prefer, withdraw, revoke or countermand) HIS OWN concession?

 

It's a funny kind of a "dispute" though. Who are the parties to it? Me and my former (mistaken) self?

 

It's also funny as to how the "dispute" is resolved. My former (mistaken) self is always wrong, and always loses.

[TimG]

You guys might want to take this private...

[jtfanclub]

This is a list, not an if-than-else statement.

 

If there has been one, go to 69.

If not, go to 70 & 71.

 

Patent nonsense. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in 68D that states or implies such. This is a list of conditions, there is no 'otherwise' or 'else' or anything similar in there.

 

Are you saying that if we switched the two phrases, suddenly you'd agree that absolutely they have the right to call the director? If so, this is a rather simple English problem.

 

You want to say, in effect, that

 

1.    side X can concede; then

 

2.  side Y can acquiesce (or at least make step-one in the acquiescence-process and "assent" anyway) in that concession; then,

 

3.   before the time expires, side X can "dispute" its own concession (which seems an odd use of the word "dispute" to me .... I can I think "withdraw" or "revoke" or "cancel" my own concession, but how in the world do I "dispute" it? Just an odd use of the word "dispute" imho); and

 

The possibilities are:

1. Dummy can never dispute declarer's claim, which I think is clearly contradicted by the rules.

2. The dummy has to scream "stop" before the opponents say "ok", in the event of a tie, the first one to put his finger on his nose wins, or

3. The partner has the same time period as the opponents.

 

2 is ridiculous. Somehow, because 2 doesn't make any sense, you've decided that therefore the rules don't apply.

 

And isn't it a strange way to speak, when you say "I'm hereby disputing my own claim and concession".

 

Um, if you say so. Dispute means the question the validity. I could, for example dispute my ability to become President, or buy beer. You dispute an assertion, not another person.

 

I mean, you'd never say that in ordinary English unless you were "catering to" the Laws; you'd just say "I'm withdrawing/ cancelling/ revoking/taking back my prior concession."

 

Of course not. Those don't mean the same things at all. To 'take back' a concession would mean to play the hand out, which is disallowed for declarer. You are disputing the *results*.

 

But how do I "dispute" what I myself have previously said, even if I now disagree with it and think that I was wrong earlier?

 

You turn in a Golf score of 72. Later, you realize that you should have taken a two stroke penalty for using too many clubs.

 

One cannot withdraw, cancel, revoke, or take back a golf score. You dispute it. If you're right, and you did have a 2 stroke penalty, you don't get a 74. You get a Disqualified. If your dispute is overturned, then you keep your 72.

[jtfanclub]

You guys might want to take this private...

Yeah, because nobody else would want to discuss rules.

 

We're not attacking each other, nor are we making patently insulting remarks like there are no good non life masters. We're discussing bridge, in a bridge forum.

 

But I appreciate your concern.

[blackshoe]

Ralph's position vis-à-vis Law 68D rests on the assumption that the actual wording "If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately..." is equivalent to "If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies. If the claim is not acquiesced in, then if it is disputed..." I do not think this assumption is valid. The lawmakers, had they intended this meaning, could certainly have made it clear. Besides, as I was taught English (well, okay, American English) grammar, a semi-colon is used to connect independent clauses. IOW, the second clause does not depend on the first, but stands alone. So IMO what the law says is that (a) If a claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies, and also, independently, (b) if any player (including dummy) disputes the claim or concession, the director must ... apply Law 70 or 71" as appropriate.

 

So. IMO the law is clear about one thing, at least. The director must be called, and the decision as to the fate of the 13th trick is his, and no one else's (although, as in all rulings where judgement is involved, he should consult others - in this case declarer's peers). The applicable law to that decision is Law 71C.

 

Ralph, or anyone, as one of the defenders in this case, can certainly ask for a ruling on the question whether dummy's comment violates Law 43A1©. My ruling would be no, it does not, for reasons I've stated upthread. Even if it did, that does not affect the ruling made under Law 71C. Cf. Law 81C6:

The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.

[Free]

Easiest 12 tricks to declarer ever! Declarer made his line of play VERY clear: cash all the trumps and all the ♣s, lose a ♥ in the end. It's a correct claim, it's accepted, and nothing that is said now will change the number of tricks he made.

[barmar]

The problem with the way Law 69A is worded is that it says that acquiescence occurs when a player assents to an opponent's claim or concession. This apparently is what allows for the possibility that both clauses in 68D could apply -- acquiescence has occurred, but someone else (the other defender or dummy) could dispute it.

 

This is apparently the situation that occurred in this case. The opponent's acquiesced, while dummy disputed, and now it's not clear which clause in 68D applies. One says to go to 69A, which says that the board is scored as claimed; the other says to call the TD.

 

I think that the spirit of the Laws clearly suggests that in a confusing state like this, calling the TD is appropriate.

 

I would suggest that the lawgivers reword the law to indicate that acquiescence occurs when ALL the players assent to the claim.

[mink]

Let's assume the director is there, no matter who called him. What he is told is that the declarer party wishes to undo the concession of 1 trick. Director applies law 71C and judges that the tick cannot be lost by normal play and therefore cancels the concession. The fact that the concession is canceled now implies that it would have been an irregularity if it was not canceled. So it was ok for the dummy to draw attention to this irregularity after the play had been ended by the claim/concession. And if the director judges that there was a normal play that causes a trick to be lost, I hope nobody will blame the dummy for his different opinion.

 

Looking at the story this way, we do not need to interpret details of law 68. Frankly I am a bit puzzled by the idea of law 68D that any player may dispute a claim or a concession. What I would have expected was that the opponents of the claimer maybe like to dispute a claim, while the conceder's partner or even the conceder himself might find a reason to regret a concession. But in the latter case, I would not call this dispute, because a dispute implies different parties, but partners should not be different parties, or should they? Considering this, I tend to believe that when the dummy is mentioned in law 68D, the idea was that a defender had claimed and the dummy now is allowed to dispute that claim. Being declarer I would be rather annoyed if the dummy said, "partner you claimed one trick too many, because opps maybe find a cute way to endplay you". Further evidence to believe that the lawmakers did not intend to enable the dummy to "dispute" a declarers concession is that in case a defender concedes a trick his partner is explicitly allowed to disagree, thereby canceling the concession (law 68B). And, while law 70 deals with a contested claim, law 71 starts with "A concession must stand, once made, except ...". The words "dispute" or "contested" are not mentioned in this law.

 

Karl

[Tola18]

(I would actually be more worried about the possibility of him playing off all his trumps before starting on clubs...

Yes. Which is exactly what happened this my near-expert partner I did told about.

His bidding not top shot not, but cardplay usually very good. As I said - often among prize money, enough to be be one of the few people getting money from bridge (the others are the board-changers as everyone knows. B) )

 

After making a couple of inspired guesses in a hard-bidden contract, he was now home, and but stopped thinking.... (And we werent even disturbed by anything).

 

If he didnt, he would be once again among the top-prize money. Now we get only some bronze-points but no money.... The difference between shared top and shared bottom in a big field.

 

Thus. Even very good players can make beginners mistakes in a easy endplay if the unluck is there.

[bid_em_up]

Mink,

 

I have given one example why dummy should be allowed to dispute a claim using this same hand earlier in this thread.

 

Add the heart K to dummy. Have declarer "misclaim" 12 tricks when no possible rational line of play can prevent declarer from making all 13 tricks. The opponents are quite likely to accept this claim, either from self-interest or simply not seeing that declarer actually has all 13.

 

Should dummy be required to sit idly by and take a bad result because of a simple misclaim?

 

Another example would be in f2f play where a card happens to be turned wrong. Assume declarer had turned a trick the wrong way thinking he lost a trick in the play (maybe one that he should rightfully lose, but didn't, but turned it as if he did). He then subsequently never lost that trick. If he claims according to the # of tricks he thinks he has won (or lost), does dummy have to sit by and accept the fact partner turned a card wrong and so has misclaimed? And again, the opponents are likely to accept the claim, even though it is incorrect.

 

No. Dummy is allowed to dispute it.

[barmar]

Should dummy be required to sit idly by and take a bad result because of a simple misclaim?

 

Dummy has to live with declarer's simple misplays, why shouldn't he have to live with declarer's misclaims?

 

Another example would be in f2f play where a card happens to be turned wrong.  Assume declarer had turned a trick the wrong way thinking he lost a trick in the play (maybe one that he should rightfully lose, but didn't, but turned it as if he did).  He then subsequently never lost that trick.  If he claims according to the # of tricks he thinks he has won (or lost), does dummy have to sit by and accept the fact partner turned a card wrong and so has misclaimed?  And again, the opponents are likely to accept the claim, even though it is incorrect.

 

No.  Dummy is allowed to dispute it.

I believe a claim or concession only refers to the remaining tricks -- it's not possible to concede a trick you already won. If declarer has a trick turned wrong, this is an irregularity that dummy is allowed to draw attention to after the play is completed. And if declarer describes his claim in terms of the total number of tricks taken or lost, this is a simple factual error that I think dummy may also correct; it's no different than if declarer had played it out and announced the result as "down 1" when he actually made.

 

On the other hand, if turning the trick wrong caused declarer to choose a different line of play, and he ends up really going down as a result, you're stuck with that result. But the number of undertricks should be based on the tricks he really lost, not how declarer had his cards turned.

[Cascade]

Easiest 12 tricks to declarer ever! Declarer made his line of play VERY clear: cash all the trumps and all the ♣s, lose a ♥ in the end. It's a correct claim, it's accepted, and nothing that is said now will change the number of tricks he made.

Where did declarer say he would cash all of his trumps.

 

The play had three rounds of trumps and then there was a statement about the clubs and a claim of 12 tricks and therefore a Law 68B concession of one trick.

 

Dummy objected immediately and so the director needs to apply the test in Law 71C

 

"if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."

 

Normal here includes careless and inferior.

 

If you are saying 12 tricks then you have to be saying that it would be normal to play off all of the trumps or normal to not discard the heart.

 

And if you are saying 13 tricks then you have to be saying that it would irrational to play off all of the trumps or irrational to not discard the heart.

 

To a large extent it is irrelevant what declarer thought before the claim we need to judge the irrationality of declarer seeing that pitching a heart will enable 13 tricks on the run of the clubs - unless of course you think it was not irrational to exhaust the trumps before running the clubs.

 

For me on this hand I am inclined to think there is no normal line that will lead to 12 tricks. That is it is more than careless or inferior to exhaust the trumps or not pitch a heart on one of the clubs.

 

For me careless and inferior are things like not playing a standard safety play (careless) - say AK10xx Q9xx - and playing for the drop missing the queen in an eight card fit (inferior) - AKJx xxxx. They are not keeping a sure loser that could easily be discarded.

[mink]

bid_em_up,

 

in both of your examples, even if I was a defender, and aware of the misconcession, I would tell the declarer about it and accept the cancellation of the concession by the director, because it would be irregular to let this concession become effective. And because it would be irregular, the dummy is also allowed to draw attention to it after the playing ends. Maybe reread the first paragraph of my previous posting.

 

Karl

[blackshoe]

I believe a claim or concession only refers to the remaining tricks -- it's not possible to concede a trick you already won.

Then why does Law 71A contain the words "...if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won..."?

[bid_em_up]

bid_em_up,

 

in both of your examples, even if I was a defender, and aware of the misconcession, I would tell the declarer about it and accept the cancellation of the concession by the director, because it would be irregular to let this concession become effective. And because it would be irregular, the dummy is also allowed to draw attention to it after the playing ends. Maybe reread the first paragraph of my previous posting.

 

Karl

It's the 2nd paragraph thats confusing. :P

 

The first paragraph, appears to say its ok for dummy to have called the director.

 

The second one, says dummy wasnt allowed to.

 

Or at least thats the way I interpreted it. I could be mistaken.

[Free]

Easiest 12 tricks to declarer ever!  Declarer made his line of play VERY clear: cash all the trumps and all the ♣s, lose a ♥ in the end.  It's a correct claim, it's accepted, and nothing that is said now will change the number of tricks he made.

Where did declarer say he would cash all of his trumps.

 

The play had three rounds of trumps and then there was a statement about the clubs and a claim of 12 tricks and therefore a Law 68B concession of one trick.

 

Dummy objected immediately and so the director needs to apply the test in Law 71C

 

"if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."

 

Normal here includes careless and inferior.

 

If you are saying 12 tricks then you have to be saying that it would be normal to play off all of the trumps or normal to not discard the heart.

 

And if you are saying 13 tricks then you have to be saying that it would irrational to play off all of the trumps or irrational to not discard the heart.

 

To a large extent it is irrelevant what declarer thought before the claim we need to judge the irrationality of declarer seeing that pitching a heart will enable 13 tricks on the run of the clubs - unless of course you think it was not irrational to exhaust the trumps before running the clubs.

 

For me on this hand I am inclined to think there is no normal line that will lead to 12 tricks. That is it is more than careless or inferior to exhaust the trumps or not pitch a heart on one of the clubs.

 

For me careless and inferior are things like not playing a standard safety play (careless) - say AK10xx Q9xx - and playing for the drop missing the queen in an eight card fit (inferior) - AKJx xxxx. They are not keeping a sure loser that could easily be discarded.

He didn't state his line of play explicitly, but it is clear that declarer didn't know he could discard his ♥s! So his line of play is clearly to either play his trumps, or not to discard hearts.

 

Dummy's objection is irrelevant, until the claim is accepted, he can't point out any irregularity like this! Opps only said clubs break, so in fact you should give a procedural penalty to dummy (starting with a warning ofcourse). (Not sure about the following, but I think you can make a case that they lose all rights to a correction)

 

Once the claim has been accepted, declarer made it clear he would choose a line of play that gave him 12 tricks, not 13. Claiming 12 tricks on this hand proves he didn't see he can discard his hearts. Him being careless, lazy, whatever you call it is irrelevant imo. I must admit, he may realize while playing his ♣s that he can discard a ♥. But I'm not sure if this is decisive...

[jtfanclub]

He didn't state his line of play explicitly, but it is clear that declarer didn't know he could discard his ♥s!  So his line of play is clearly to either play his trumps, or not to discard hearts.

 

He cannot play trumps. Can't play for any trumps to be outstanding, special rules on that.

 

Dummy's objection is irrelevant, until the claim is accepted,

 

C'mon, seriously, read the rules. Don't make stuff up and claim that they're the rules.

 

Find anything, anywhere, no matter how you stretch, where the rules support this interpretation. 5 pages of quoting the rules in this thread, and you start making stuff up.

 

 

Here's the link:

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/play.htm

 

Here's a good starting point:

68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases.

 

What dummy can and cannot do DURING PLAY is irrelevant. You aren't going to find a single thing saying that dummy cannot act until after acquiescence. Especially since acquiescence doesn't actually happen until the next board.

[skjaeran]

He didn't state his line of play explicitly, but it is clear that declarer didn't know he could discard his ♥s!  So his line of play is clearly to either play his trumps, or not to discard hearts.

 

He cannot play trumps. Can't play for any trumps to be outstanding, special rules on that.

He can't play a single card - it's the TD's job to judge the outcome after a disputed claim. Btw, there's nothing in the laws saying that the TD can't rule that declarer must play trumps when it's clear that there's no outstanding trumps. (I know some SO's have made stupid rules concerning this......)

[Echognome]

I think this is an interesting ruling. To me, the fact that declarer has claimed 12 winners means that he did not see at the time of the claim that he could ruff a heart for his 13th means I wouldn't subsequently rule that he makes 13. Sure he might have realized it later in the play, but that is time inconsistency in a ruling. Let me give a different example. Suppose you have an expert player who has 12 top tricks in NT. He claims 12, but if he had actually played out the hand we would have noticed that a squeeze developed for the 13th trick. Suppose further that the squeeze was based on a full count and that any player of his caliber would have realized it. Would you rule 13 tricks then? I don't think you can, because at the time of the claim, declarer did not see that possibility. Here declarer saw 12 tricks. In my view, it would be careless, but not irrational, for him to play his trumps off first when he saw that clubs split. Why? Because if he has all winners, so the order in which he plays them is irrelevant. At least that's how I would rule.

[Cascade]

Easiest 12 tricks to declarer ever!  Declarer made his line of play VERY clear: cash all the trumps and all the ♣s, lose a ♥ in the end.  It's a correct claim, it's accepted, and nothing that is said now will change the number of tricks he made.

Where did declarer say he would cash all of his trumps.

 

The play had three rounds of trumps and then there was a statement about the clubs and a claim of 12 tricks and therefore a Law 68B concession of one trick.

 

Dummy objected immediately and so the director needs to apply the test in Law 71C

 

"if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."

 

Normal here includes careless and inferior.

 

If you are saying 12 tricks then you have to be saying that it would be normal to play off all of the trumps or normal to not discard the heart.

 

And if you are saying 13 tricks then you have to be saying that it would irrational to play off all of the trumps or irrational to not discard the heart.

 

To a large extent it is irrelevant what declarer thought before the claim we need to judge the irrationality of declarer seeing that pitching a heart will enable 13 tricks on the run of the clubs - unless of course you think it was not irrational to exhaust the trumps before running the clubs.

 

For me on this hand I am inclined to think there is no normal line that will lead to 12 tricks. That is it is more than careless or inferior to exhaust the trumps or not pitch a heart on one of the clubs.

 

For me careless and inferior are things like not playing a standard safety play (careless) - say AK10xx Q9xx - and playing for the drop missing the queen in an eight card fit (inferior) - AKJx xxxx. They are not keeping a sure loser that could easily be discarded.

He didn't state his line of play explicitly, but it is clear that declarer didn't know he could discard his ♥s! So his line of play is clearly to either play his trumps, or not to discard hearts.

 

Dummy's objection is irrelevant, until the claim is accepted, he can't point out any irregularity like this! Opps only said clubs break, so in fact you should give a procedural penalty to dummy (starting with a warning ofcourse). (Not sure about the following, but I think you can make a case that they lose all rights to a correction)

 

Once the claim has been accepted, declarer made it clear he would choose a line of play that gave him 12 tricks, not 13. Claiming 12 tricks on this hand proves he didn't see he can discard his hearts. Him being careless, lazy, whatever you call it is irrelevant imo. I must admit, he may realize while playing his ♣s that he can discard a ♥. But I'm not sure if this is decisive...

Absolutely he didn't see it.

 

However this is exactly what L71C deals with. Tricks that weren't claimed but that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

 

What the TD has to judge is whether it would be just careless or irrational to keep his hearts on the run of the clubs.

[Cascade]

I think this is an interesting ruling. To me, the fact that declarer has claimed 12 winners means that he did not see at the time of the claim that he could ruff a heart for his 13th means I wouldn't subsequently rule that he makes 13. Sure he might have realized it later in the play, but that is time inconsistency in a ruling. Let me give a different example. Suppose you have an expert player who has 12 top tricks in NT. He claims 12, but if he had actually played out the hand we would have noticed that a squeeze developed for the 13th trick. Suppose further that the squeeze was based on a full count and that any player of his caliber would have realized it. Would you rule 13 tricks then? I don't think you can, because at the time of the claim, declarer did not see that possibility. Here declarer saw 12 tricks. In my view, it would be careless, but not irrational, for him to play his trumps off first when he saw that clubs split. Why? Because if he has all winners, so the order in which he plays them is irrelevant. At least that's how I would rule.

I think there is a difference in your two examples. The squeeze probably depends on the order in which the cards were played. I could easily imagine that declarer could carelessly play the cards in the wrong order so as to stop the squeeze from operating. If this was not possible then I would be inclined to give the trick that eventuated from the squeeze.

 

In this case (this thread) on the run of the clubs IMO it would be more than careless to keep your sure heart losers while pitching some other irrelevant cards.

 

I also think that trump winners and side-suit winners are not equal.