[blackshoe]

That (whether the rules should be changed) is not an issue for this thread. Given the rules we have, what do we do?

[pran]

I see no problem with the claim laws in this respect.

The very fact that a claim is contested is itself an alert to the claimer that his claim might be faulty.

He is not (and should not be) allowed to take this alert into consideration if attempting to clarify his claim.

So a defender facing his cards after a claim changes nothing in how the claimer may clarify his claim or how the Director shall adjudicate the claim.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 01:56, said:

So a defender facing his cards after a claim changes nothing in how the claimer may clarify his claim or how the Director shall adjudicate the claim.

OK, so you are saying that the TD should not ask declarer anything about the remaining cards should the defender not face them. So under what circumstances do you rule one trick rather than none?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 04:40, said:

OK, so you are saying that the TD should not ask declarer anything about the remaining cards should the defender not face them. So under what circumstances do you rule one trick rather than none?

If there is any reasonable doubt about which line of play the claimer might have selected from what he said, and even more important from what he did not say, with his claim I shall rule according to the possible line of play that would be less successful for the claimer.

Anything he says subsequent to learning that an opponent contests his claim is irrelevant unless it is obviously not the result of such learning.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 05:12, said:

If there is any reasonable doubt about which line of play the claimer might have selected from what he said, and even more important from what he did not say, with his claim I shall rule according to the possible line of play that would be less successful for the claimer.

Anything he says subsequent to learning that an opponent contests his claim is irrelevant unless it is obviously not the result of such learning.

So in the given case, if the defender on lead had shown out of diamonds at some point during the play, would you rule one trick or zero? And are there circumstances under which it might vary between these two possibilities?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 05:22, said:

So in the given case, if the defender on lead had shown out of diamonds at some point during the play, would you rule one trick or zero? And are there circumstances under which it might vary between these two possibilities?

Reasons for ruling against the claimer:
- He did not mention anything about the Diamonds with his claim.
- Not cashing his ♦A earlier was a serious and incomprehensible error.

Possible reason for not ruling against the claimer:
- If the defender now on lead had shown out of Diamonds in the last previous trick so that the claimer could hardly have overlooked or forgotten it.

[Zelandakh]

Here is an example layout that I think matches the OP:

---

West, thinking that all the hearts are gone, crosses in diamonds and on seeing North throw a club takes the finesse. Not unravelling the diamonds earlier may or not have been an error but certainly is not a serious and incomprehensible error at this point. That leaves your point 1 against declarer and point 3 in favour. How many tricks?

Now the same layout except that North shows out of diamonds a trick earlier:

---

Declarer crosses in diamonds and cashes the ♠A before taking the club finesse. Now only point 1 remains from your list. Zero tricks?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 08:55, said:

Here is an example layout that I think matches the OP:

---

West, thinking that all the hearts are gone, crosses in diamonds and on seeing North throw a club takes the finesse. Not unravelling the diamonds earlier may or not have been an error but certainly is not a serious and incomprehensible error at this point. That leaves your point 1 against declarer and point 3 in favour. How many tricks?

Now the same layout except that North shows out of diamonds a trick earlier:

---

Declarer crosses in diamonds and cashes the ♠A before taking the club finesse. Now only point 1 remains from your list. Zero tricks?

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.

[billw55]

Certainly, there are circumstances where the TD could correctly rule that declarer gets the last trick, and circumstances where the TD could correctly rule that the defense gets the last trick.

IMO the default ruling should be for the defense. If a good argument exists to do otherwise, declarer can offer it for the TD's consideration. But the TD should not make declarer's argument for him, and so should not need to dig into the prior play. If north showed out of diamonds and declarer knows it, he should be able to say so.

[pran]

billw55, on 2016-May-16, 09:12, said:

Certainly, there are circumstances where the TD could correctly rule that declarer gets the last trick, and circumstances where the TD could correctly rule that the defense gets the last trick.

IMO the default ruling should be for the defense. If a good argument exists to do otherwise, declarer can offer it for the TD's consideration. But the TD should not make declarer's argument for him, and so should not need to dig into the prior play. If north showed out of diamonds and declarer knows it, he should be able to say so.

In these new diagrams I would need the full history in order to decide whether or not the blockage in Diamonds was a serious error.

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.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 09:04, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 09:20, said:

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]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 09:28, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-16, 09:39, said:

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]

nige1, on 2016-May-16, 09:49, said:

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]

pran, on 2016-May-16, 09:19, said:

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.

nige1, on 2016-May-16, 09:49, said:

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]

billw55, on 2016-May-16, 12:23, said:

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.