Playing on

[bluejak]

[hv=pc=n&s=sthdq6cqj4&w=s9ht5d8cak&n=sj76hj86dc&e=sh97dc9875]399|300[/hv]

 

Declarer was South in 6♠. In the diagram position he waved his hand feebly in the air, E/W having won one trick and West being on lead. "Are you claiming?" he was asked. "Yes, I think so," he said, showing his cards. "I am not sure they are all yours," said West, and led the ♥T.

 

T8: ♥T ♥6 ♥7 ♠T

T9: ♦Q ♦8 ♥8 ♣7

T10: ♦6 ♠9 ....

 

Some time later East or West had the bright idea of calling the Director. Well?

[G_R__E_G]

If I'd been called to the table at trick 8 I'd rule down one due to declarer not mentioning the outstanding trump. At this point however I'd rule making since the defense has nobody to blame but themselves for allowing play to continue.

[billw55]

It may depend on what this means:

 

T10: ♦6 ♠9 ....

Did declarer overruff in dummy or not? Or was director called at this exact moment?

[Lanor Fow]

Out of interest, which laws are you using for that ruling Greg?

 

As play stops when a claim is made, what they have done with the cards afterwards doesn't count as playing to the hand, and so I'll rule down one for both sides, with a warning to call director rather than play on. I dont really consider a PP.

[ahydra]

Doesn't play cease when a claim is made, so any future play is void, hence 1 trick to the defence (there's an outstanding trump that could conceivably win a trick, eg if hearts are played from dummy)?

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

Did declarer overruff in dummy or not? Or was director called at this exact moment?

Yes, declarer over-ruffed dummy.

 

I also have a correction from the earlier play, not that it probably makes a material difference (I was the TD at the table).

 

After the claim West led ♦8 to South's queen, and then the ♦6 ruffed by West and over-ruffed.

[gordontd]

Out of interest, which laws are you using for that ruling Greg?

 

L70D3

[shyams]

Doesn't play cease when a claim is made, so any future play is void, hence 1 trick to the defence (there's an outstanding trump that could conceivably win a trick, eg if hearts are played from dummy)?

 

ahydra

I believe there is also a direction where subsequent "plays" are taken into account when deciding defective claims (i.e assessment of how likely hearts would be played can be affected by actual "play" after a claim). I'm not sure about this though.

[Lanor Fow]

Thank you gordon (it was an honest question)

[pran]

I believe there is also a direction where subsequent "plays" are taken into account when deciding defective claims (i.e assessment of how likely hearts would be played can be affected by actual "play" after a claim). I'm not sure about this though.

There is indeed!

[blackshoe]

Do not forget Laws 10 and 11.

[Rossoneri]

Do not forget Laws 10 and 11.

 

I was going to say.

 

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either

member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the

Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending

side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in

ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

(Law 11A)

[iviehoff]

I believe there is also a direction where subsequent "plays" are taken into account when deciding defective claims (i.e assessment of how likely hearts would be played can be affected by actual "play" after a claim). I'm not sure about this though.

Actually it is a Law, L70D3, precisely the one Gordon quoted. It reads:

 

"In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim."

 

There was a case a while back where a player put his cards down and claimed "on a double squeeze". The op said "play it out", he did, and he messed it up. A ruling was sought, and the ruling was that the contract was made, since the claim was valid and the play after it was void and irrelevant. But that was under the old laws, which didn't have 70D3, and I believe that would not be the appropriate ruling if the same thing happened today.

 

Ed refers to Laws 10 and 11. But I do not believe that adjudicating on a claim is the rectification of an irregularity. We should therefore read L70D3 and do what we can with that, not look at 10 and 11.

 

I therefore think that once LHO has foolishly displayed his trump and dummy has over-ruffed it, we need to consider the claim from that position. Declarer does have the rest from that point, provided he uses his trump in hand for ruffing. Is playing a round of trumps rather than ruffing worse than careless? I think it is arguable either way. On balance I think I'd rule one down.

[gordontd]

There was a case a while back where a player put his cards down and claimed "on a double squeeze". The op said "play it out", he did, and he messed it up. A ruling was sought, and the ruling was that the contract was made, since the claim was valid and the play after it was void and irrelevant. But that was under the old laws, which didn't have 70D3, and I believe that would not be the appropriate ruling if the same thing happened today.

In fact it's widely believed that this change in the law was precisely because of that case. "Gunnar's law"!

[gordontd]

I therefore think that once LHO has foolishly displayed his trump and dummy has over-ruffed it, we need to consider the claim from that position.

Actually I had the impression at the table that there was no objection to the claim from that position - the question was about the play from the moment of the claim to that point.

[lamford]

Actually I had the impression at the table that there was no objection to the claim from that position - the question was about the play from the moment of the claim to that point.

I think that the play up to that point is cancelled and the Laws say that the TD may follow 70D3:

"if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim."

 

Here the subsequent play makes it clear that declarer was unaware of the missing trump. However, I am struggling to find a normal line where declarer goes off. Playing jack and another heart, ruffed in South, noticing they are 2-2, ruffing a club, and leading a heart seems good enough, or bad enough, so I would rule one off. That would be a successful line if there were no missing trump, so I think is imposed.