Easy (?) claim ruling

[Coelacanth]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sht4dj3c&w=sh9876dc&e=s3hdq4c3&s=s5hakjdc]399|300|Scoring: MP

Spots approximate[/hv]

South is declarer in a ♥ contract. East has won the previous trick and leads the ♦Q. South claims, making no statement other than something like "I have all the high trumps".

 

West objects, saying "I have more trump than you. I get a trick at the end". South, somewhat flummoxed by this unexpected objection, concedes a trick to the defense.

 

This is the last board of the round. West leaves the table. Before the next round is called, South articulates the fact that he can ruff his losing spade with the high trump in dummy, West will be forced to underruff, and declarer need lose no more tricks.

 

West is located and the director is duly summoned.

 

How do you rule?

[PeterE]

I rule 1 trick to the defence.

 

If declarer needs several minutes to realise his simple winning play, I judge "not ruffing the spade" as within the "normal" plays as written in the laws (see footnote to Law 70 (and 71)).

I've no idea what declarer thought to do with his (seemingly) low spade, but obviously declarer wasn't prepared to answer this question at the point of his claim either.

[blackshoe]

Concession stands. PP to West for failure to call the director when objecting to the original claim (Law 68D).

[Phil]

I rule 1 trick to the defence.

 

If declarer needs several minutes to realise his simple winning play, I judge "not ruffing the spade" as within the "normal" plays as written in the laws (see footnote to Law 70 (and 71)).

I've no idea what declarer thought to do with his (seemingly) low spade, but obviously declarer wasn't prepared to answer this question at the point of his claim either.

I agree.

 

As a matter of fact the statement "I have all the high trump" indicates to me that declarer was going to draw trump instead of crossruff.

[richlp]

I rule 1 trick to the defence.

 

If declarer needs several minutes to realise his simple winning play, I judge "not ruffing the spade" as within the "normal" plays as written in the laws (see footnote to Law 70 (and 71)).

I've no idea what declarer thought to do with his (seemingly) low spade, but obviously declarer wasn't prepared to answer this question at the point of his claim either.

I agree.

 

As a matter of fact the statement "I have all the high trump" indicates to me that declarer was going to draw trump instead of crossruff.

 

Deleted response as I mis-read the original post

[lmilne]

Concession stands. PP to West for failure to call the director when objecting to the original claim (Law 68D).

PP? Really?

[jeremy69]

Normally I'm all for a few more PP's ;) but I wouldn't do it here unless this is the fifth time this pair have failed to call the TD after being asked to.

For sure it is one trick to the opponents. The claim statement was deficient.

[blackshoe]

I'm coming to believe that TDs are too lenient on players wrt PPs, particularly when the laws use the word "must".

 

…if it [the claim] is doubted by any player (dummy included), the director must [emphasis mine] be summoned immediately…

“must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed)

"Shall" is weaker than "must", and "shall"

will incur a procedural penalty more often than not.

"Must" obviously will incur a PP more often than "shall", so I think we should be reluctant to fail to give one.

 

Maybe I'm too radical. :blink:

[dburn]

Would not consider a PP appropriate - I know what the Law says, but I also know that very often, disputed claims are sorted out at the table without the need to dial 999 (or 911, or 112 depending on jurisdiction).

 

As to ruling a trick to the defence (or defense, again d.o.j.) this implies that "normal" play for South (who knows that nobody still has the queen of hearts) is to ruff in his hand, draw two rounds of trumps and attempt to cash the five of spades. Is it really?

[blackshoe]

Well, he's certainly going to ruff in his hand. To then play two rounds of trumps would be careless, sure, but careless is still "normal".

[Coelacanth]

Thanks to everyone for their input to this thread!

 

It seems I misremembered the original hand slightly. South's ♠ spot was not high, and it was established (to the TD's satisfaction, at least) that South knew it was not high at the time he claimed.

 

The ruling thus came down to that fine line between careless and irrational; ie would it be irrational, or merely careless, for South to fail to ruff the spade high in the dummy. The TD ruled, given South's experience, that it would be irrational, and awarded South the balance of the tricks. The TD did emphasize, however, that this was extremely close and advised south to be more careful when claiming. He also advised EW of their right to appeal.

 

The context was the first session of a two-session pair game. EW were not qualifying for the final no matter what the ruling, and NS were always qualifying, so the only impact the ruling had was a fractional difference to NS's carryover.

 

FWIW, awarding one trick to the defense would have resulted in 3♥ by S -2, for -200 NS and zero matchpoints. The TD's ruling of 3♥ -1 resulted in NS scoring 2 MPs on a 12 top. (ACBL matchpoints, of course)

 

So, much ado about not very much.