All mine yet again

[pescetom]

Is it probable that declarer would play an extra round of trumps? I don’t think so. In my experience most half decent players keep count of the trumps, whereas they might sometimes miscount the other suits.

That is my experience too. But given that, is it probable that declarer would be careful to make clear (albeit implicitly) that he is aware of an outstanding trump yet consider it superfluous to make clear that he is aware of exactly one outstanding heart? I find the wording of this claim illogical and surprising, characteristic of someone who is either misreading the situation or less than (as you put it) half decent.

 

So, I think the level of the player involved should be taken into consideration. I’ve watched and directed matches at a quite high level in Holland and noticed that these players claim by simply putting the cards on the table, saying something like “the rest” or “one trick to you” and nobody making a fuss because they know what the line of play will be.

I agree. This is perilous in terms of the current laws, of course, but it is what happens and it does make more sense than a paradoxically incomplete claim such as this one. Between high level opponents the line of play would be obvious here. But the clumsy claim and the lack of trust by opponents suggests the players in question here are not at that level, I think. Of course Director will often know level before coming to the table.

[sfi]

That is my experience too. But given that, is it probable that declarer would be careful to make clear (albeit implicitly) that he is aware of an outstanding trump yet consider it superfluous to make clear that he is aware of exactly one outstanding heart? I find the wording of this claim illogical and surprising, characteristic of someone who is either misreading the situation or less than (as you put it) half decent.

 

I'm happy to believe declarer forgot about the HT. Had West held it I would probably rule one trick to the defence, but here East will be forced to play it when it can be ruffed away.

 

As I said before, if we follow his claim statement the rest of the tricks fall into his lap. To rule otherwise is to assume he is going to do something other than what he actually said at the table. Yes it's incomplete and would be problematic on other layouts. But not here.

[blackshoe]

I’ve watched and directed matches at a quite high level in Holland and noticed that these players claim by simply putting the cards on the table, saying something like “the rest” or “one trick to you” and nobody making a fuss because they know what the line of play will be.

If a player whose opponent makes a claim without stating a line of play wishes to accept the claim, that's up to him. But if a director gets involved, he should apply the law as written. At some point, the habit of claiming without a proper line of play statement should IMO incur a PP, even given that this is a "should" law which would rarely incur a PP. "Rarely" is not "never", and the director ought to be encouraging people who do this to change their ways. If persuasion doesn't work, well, what's left?

[axman]

I'm happy to believe declarer forgot about the HT. Had West held it I would probably rule one trick to the defence, but here East will be forced to play it when it can be ruffed away.

 

As I said before, if we follow his claim statement the rest of the tricks fall into his lap.

As I said before, there is a line not in conflict with line stated that makes the above dubious.

[sfi]

As I said before, there is a line not in conflict with line stated that makes the above dubious.

Your line is only not in conflict if you believe a declarer who indicates there is exactly one trump out would play two trumps, deliberately unblocking the 10. Do you really believe that matches the stated line of play?