[pescetom]

A real world claim at a lower level, simple but with some wrinkles.

---

West (intermediate) is Declarer in 4♠X.
North (almost intermediate) leads ♦J to the K of South, who continues diamonds ruffed by North.
North then plays ♣K which holds and he (mistakenly) continues with the Q, ruffed by West.
West pulls trumps from the top (discovering the unlucky split), leaving North in Hand.

North contemplates the dummy now down to ♥AT9 ♦AT, uncertain whether to lead a heart or a club.
West lays down his hand containing ♠63 ♥J7 ♦Q and says "it's all mine: the trumps, the hearts Ace and the diamonds are all winners".
North frowns and says "No, play on" and without waiting for reply tables a heart. West refuses to play on and calls you, the Director.

How do you proceed and what if any are your concerns?

This post has been edited by Gerardo: Today, 12:30
Reason for edit: Added the final pass so play can be followed

[Gerardo]

♥A, 2 ♦ winners, 2 good trumps.
This is consistent with the claim statement.
Declarer said "♥A" so won't duck this trick
Declarer said "all diamondS" so won't block them.
Down 1.

[smerriman]

According to the laws, the first step is asking North why he rejected the claim.

The second step is seeing any such reason is silly and ruling 1 down.

My concern is that someone thinks there is a concern The odd thing is that it wasn't even North that called the director; West could have just played on as stated (well, unless S/E disagreed) and taken down 1 without adjudication even if their original claim did happen to be insufficient..

If anything is wrong here, it was North playing a card before West had declined to play on, but that's insignificant.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-February-26, 14:45, said:

According to the laws, the first step is asking North why he rejected the claim.

The second step is seeing any such reason is silly and ruling 1 down.

My concern is that someone thinks there is a concern The odd thing is that it wasn't even North that called the director; West could have just played on as stated (well, unless S/E disagreed) and taken down 1 without adjudication even if their original claim did happen to be insufficient..

If anything is wrong here, it was North playing a card before West had declined to play on, but that's insignificant.

I've always thought you would make an excellent Director
The first step IMO is making sure what the claim actually was, but I agree about your two subsequent steps.
Also that the infractions of "ordering" West to play on and playing a card before he accepted to do so are insignificant.
I would be curious to know why North rejected the claim, but he is still learning and a little presumptuous and might have imagined that West could have forgotten the first trick.

I don't think it is odd that West refused to play on (or that it speaks badly of him). IMO that is consistent with a player who feels he made a sufficient claim and has no intention of making a(nother) stupid error under stress when forced to play on after a challenge.

I do think as a Taliban that there is a legitimate (albeit minimal) concern about how the claim was phrased: saying that the AT-Q diamonds are "all" winners does not totally erase the doubt that he is only sure about A and Q, remembering the K but having forgotten or being uncertain about the J.
I would try to eliminate this doubt by asking point blank about the missing honours in hearts and then in diamonds: if he can say something like "they still have the ♥K, nothing in diamonds" then the tricks are his. Not sure what other Directors think about this.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-February-26, 16:38, said:

I don't think it is odd that West refused to play on (or that it speaks badly of him).

Oh, I didn't mean West's decision was odd or bad; always calling the director is usually wise regardless.

More odd from North's perspective, because if North did have a valid argument, wanting to play on would more likely than not have thrown that out the window (the chance West was actually going to play wrongly - even initially, but now with AI knowledge of the claim being doubted - is surely far lower than the chance West's claim statement was sufficiently ambiguous).

I suspect that North just wanted to 'see what happens' with less understanding of the claim procedure, and had no real argument against the claim itself when pressed further, which is perfectly understandable for a newer player.

I would be a *hopeless* director; I'd want to rule based on common sense which is contrary to the literal laws far too often At least, where lamford's from..