Late claims I

[Finch]

Hand 1:

[hv=pc=n&s=sk4hkt64dkj85cj74&w=s973h832d63ca9632&n=sa8652haqj5dat42c&e=sqjth97dq97ckqt85]399|300[/hv]

 

Declarer is in 6D by South.

He gets the ace of clubs lead and plays as follows:

ace of clubs lead ruffed

spade to the king

club ruffed

heart to the king

club ruffed

ace of diamonds

ace of spades

spade ruffed in hand

king of diamonds (discarding a spade)

heart to dummy

 

he is now in this position with the lead in dummy (sorry if the pips have changed a bit):

[hv=pc=n&s=sht6djc&w=sh7dc84&n=s7haqdc&e=shdqckq]399|300[/hv]

 

The cards are now played as follows:

Ace of hearts, queen of diamonds, 6 of hearts, 7 hearts

East plays the king of clubs and South plays the 10 of hearts, then says "you get a trump"

 

South, an honest citizen, admits that he hadn't seen the ruff, and thought he was following to another winning card from dummy.

 

How do you rule?

How do you rule if South instead says "I was claiming the last two tricks, not following to the club"

[mrdct]

In both cases I rule down one.

 

In the initial scenario, he could change the ♥10 to the ♦J if it was an unintended play and he did so without pause for thought (Law 45C4b). However, on the facts presented it was an intended play based on a misapprehension that the previous trick hadn't been ruffed that was reinforced by his attempted concession of a trump.

 

In the second scenario, I don't buy it - if he was claiming he wouldn't have played the ♥10, he would've faced his hand or otherwise indicate he was ruffing the ♣K and taking the last trick with dummy's ♥A.

[bluejak]

In the initial scenario, he could change the ♥10 to the ♦J if it was an unintended play and he did so without pause for thought (Law 45C4b).

Declarer can't.

[blackshoe]

Law 45C4b has to do with unintended designations. There was no designation here, declarer played the ♥10.