Yet another claim without a statement

[Zelandakh]

Inventing new layouts incompatible with the situation under discussion is a distraction. Your new diagrams differ from OP in such serious ways that we probably need the full history in order to judge.

In what way does the first layout differ from the OP plus the stipulation that North shows out of diamonds on trick 10? North is on lead to trick 12 with ♥J and a club, West has ♣A and ♦A. The OP does not provide more detail than this so it is up to us to work out when one ruling would be given and when another. You gave your criteria and I constructed the second layout to try and find out where your boundary might be.

[pran]

In what way does the first layout differ from the OP plus the stipulation that North shows out of diamonds on trick 10? North is on lead to trick 12 with ♥J and a club, West has ♣A and ♦A. The OP does not provide more detail than this so it is up to us to work out when one ruling would be given and when another. You gave your criteria and I constructed the second layout to try and find out where your boundary might be.

Keyword: Blockage

[Zelandakh]

Keyword: Blockage

I do not see any mention of a blockage either way in the OP so if it is relevant we need to say so in a complete answer. In particular it was one way of showing that not cashing the ♦A was not necessarily a serious and incomprehensible error.

[nige1]

When a defender disputes declarer's claim, made without out a statement or with an incomplete statement, it alerts declarer to his omissions. If an expert declarer knows the law and was aware of a problem, when he made his claim, he would have mentioned it, explicitly, or he would have delayed his claim. Assume, therefore, that he lost the place when he made his faulty claim. The director-call is likely to wake the offender up. An expert is likely to diagnose the problem and can amplify his claim, accordingly. Here, for example, if he has forgotten, he's likely to guess correctly and produce a plausible justification. IMO, under current law, a director should be more sympathetic to a beginner, less aware of his legal responsibilities and less able to elucidate his claim, in the first place.

 

Rubber-bridge protocol is better: Declarer "claims" by playing on with his hand face-up on the table. Defenders continue playing until they're satisfied. This rule speeds up the game and encourages "claims", even when there are language difficulties. Again, It's shorter, simpler, fairer and easier for players and directors to understand.

[pran]

I do not see any mention of a blockage either way in the OP so if it is relevant we need to say so in a complete answer. In particular it was one way of showing that not cashing the ♦A was not necessarily a serious and incomprehensible error.

No, it isn't mentioned but it is there.

The claimer has played his cards so badly that he cannot cash his ♦A before finessing the clubs.

[aguahombre]

Rubber-bridge protocol is better: Declarer "claims" by playing on with his hand face-up on the table. Defenders continue playing until they're satisfied. This rule speeds up the game and encourages "claims", even when there are language difficulties. Again, It's shorter, simpler, fairer and easier for players and directors to understand.

That protocol seems better in all situations. If Dummy is up, for instance, Declarer cannot hide a previous revoke because his own hand is faced.

 

It behooves Declarer not to state a line when he is not on lead such as the OP case. The guy just cashes his good trick and lets things happen.

[billw55]

And I have already stated that I expect a claimer to point out all important facts with a claim (agreeing with you!), once a claim is disputed the option to point out such facts is usually gone.

If an expert declarer knows the law and was aware of a problem, when he made his claim, he would have mentioned it, explicitly, or he would have delayed his claim. Assume, therefore, that he lost the place when he made his faulty claim. The director call is likely to wake the offender up.

Agree with both in principle. But it is also true that some things are so obvious that we assume declarer knows them. Everyone agreed to this in the other thread about Hurd claiming 13 tricks at trick one without a statement. Similarly it is at least possible in this case that north's last card is, just as obviously, not a diamond.

 

Of course we were not given any such circumstances in the OP. So on the information given, the correct ruling is the last trick to the defense. But if north showed out of diamonds on the previous two tricks then surely it is obvious enough to toss that ace.

[aguahombre]

 

So on the information given, the correct ruling is the last trick to the defense.

On the information given, the correct ruling involves getting more information before making the correct ruling.