Careless or beyond?

[Pig Trader]

[hv=pc=n&s=shat95dc&w=shj76dkc&n=shkq8dcj&e=sahd85cq]399|300[/hv]

 

This was from the A Final of the Pairs at last weekend's EBU Seniors Congress. West is in 4♠ and South is on lead. West says "Dummy is high".

 

Dummy will ruff the heart return. Do we allow declarer to unblock ♦K on ♣Q next? The Strength of Field is about 60%, for those familiar with the NGS.

 

I thought this was close but favoured one solution over the other. Both my colleagues thought as I did, one of whom thought it also worth posting, so how think the IBLF panel? :rolleyes:

[Fluffy]

I think it is pretty clear declarer missed the blocking.

[Vampyr]

I think it is pretty clear declarer missed the blocking.

 

Except that "dummy is high" means you will take the remaining tricks in the dummy. I think I will be chicken and give a weighted score.

[jnichols]

Except that "dummy is high" means you will take the remaining tricks in the dummy. I think I will be chicken and give a weighted score.

Are weighted scores permitted when ruling on a claim? I was thinking you must decide on a specific number of tricks.

 

I'm in the ACBL so we haven't been using weighted scores. Starts January 1!

 

 

[blackshoe]

My understanding is that a claim ruling is not an adjusted score (Law 12), so you can't give a weighted score.

 

"Dummy is high" is not a true statement when declarer has the top diamond in his hand. It would be careless to unblock, and he didn't mention doing so, so he loses the last two tricks. Law 70.

[WellSpyder]

It would be careless to unblock,

It would be even more careless NOT to unblock! :) But I agree with your ruling....

[Pig Trader]

No, you can't weight a claim ruling but well done the ACBL for seeing The Light! :rolleyes:

[steve2005]

I think if he played it out he would make. However, from his claim statement (dummy high) it's pretty clear he hasn't thought this thru, so down he goes. imo.

[Cyberyeti]

I think as soon as the top heart hits the table it would be beyond careless/inferior at the level the board was played to do anything other than unblock. I would rule differently with beginners.

[gordontd]

I don't think anyone who has failed to mention a blockage can be assumed to notice it in time and recover from it. The failure to mention it is evidence of a mental block in noticing it.

[ggwhiz]

As soon as you challenge the claim west will notice the blockage but that's too late imo. Given the incomplete statement of claim, I wouldn't give a split score even if I could. down 2

[axman]

I think it is pretty clear declarer missed the blocking.

 

I would like to put a different view upon it. The Unblocking was not included in the clarification and it can be said that a ruling turns on that fact, plus, if it is determined as fact that the clarification was not interrupted by an opponent.

[gordontd]

I would like to put a different view upon it. The Unblocking was not included in the clarification and it can be said that a ruling turns on that fact, plus, if it is determined as fact that the clarification was not interrupted by an opponent.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.

[pran]

I would like to put a different view upon it. The Unblocking was not included in the clarification and it can be said that a ruling turns on that fact, plus, if it is determined as fact that the clarification was not interrupted by an opponent.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.

I think what he says is that if an opponent interrupted the clarification which otherwise might have included mentioning the blockage then not mentioning the blockage shall not be held against the claimer. And I agree with this.

[gordontd]

I think what he says is that if an opponent interrupted the clarification which otherwise might have included mentioning the blockage then not mentioning the blockage shall not be held against the claimer. And I agree with this.

Sure, if we are moving on to discussing some other hypothetical case.

[Pig Trader]

" .... if it is determined as fact that the clarification was not interrupted by an opponent .... "

 

While always something to be wary of, it wasn't an issue here. I'd have said if it was. :rolleyes:

[aguahombre]

No, you can't weight a claim ruling but well done the ACBL for seeing The Light! :rolleyes:

Sounds like misery loves company; you want us to suffer weighted rulings too, and it seems we will get to do that soon.

[Trinidad]

I am with the "if declarer would have been aware, he would have mentioned it. So he wasn't aware." - folks.

 

And just in case these IDWHVBAHWHMISHWA folks were wrong, this will be the last time that declarer will fail to mention what he is "obviously aware of".

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

The actual effect of telling a good player that he is deemed to play like a moron is that he won't claim again and the game will slow down even further.

[aguahombre]

The actual effect of telling a good player that he is deemed to play like a moron is that he won't claim again and the game will slow down even further.

Agree totally with this post, since you stated a valid general point. However in specific to this case, it should tell that "good player" to clean up his claims by mentioning the unblock which is so obvious to him.

[gordontd]

The actual effect of telling a good player that he is deemed to play like a moron is that he won't claim again and the game will slow down even further.

Maybe it'll just make him realise he's not as good a player as he thought he was. Not holding my breath though.

[gordontd]

Sounds like misery loves company; you want us to suffer weighted rulings too, and it seems we will get to do that soon.

I doubt many who actually have experienced them would consider it to be suffering.

[aguahombre]

I doubt many who actually have experienced them would consider it to be suffering.

True enough. It is a good way to hedge a decision. And those who deserved an actual adjusted score rather than an artificial one will rarely know that they got screwed or they gained.

[campboy]

I disagree with the majority here, and would allow the claim. It seems to me that by saying "dummy is high", declarer has implied that he does not intend to win a trick with the ♦K. (Indeed, had the ♦J been out I would rule on the basis that he would still "unblock", and would give the defence two tricks rather than one as a consequence.)

[lamford]

I disagree with the majority here, and would allow the claim. It seems to me that by saying "dummy is high", declarer has implied that he does not intend to win a trick with the ♦K. (Indeed, had the ♦J been out I would rule on the basis that he would still "unblock", and would give the defence two tricks rather than one as a consequence.)

So, if West had a club instead of on of his hearts, you would disallow the claim because one of the tricks had to be won by the king of diamonds, and therefore dummy is not high? The correct procedure with all claims is to give the claimer the worst line that is careless. Here that is not to discard the king of diamonds. If West had a club, it would be worse than careless not to play a diamond before using both entries.