[blml] claim

[Adam Beneschan]

Jack Rhind wrote:
 
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > About one year ago, among French TDs there has been much ado about the
> > following
> > case. I think no one submitted it to the list, sorry if I'm wrong.
> >
> >      AQJ95
> >      A62
> >      AK8
> >      86
> > 2         X7643
> > Q873      K4
> > 9754      J2
> > 5432      QJ97
> >      K8
> >      JX95
> >      QX63
> >      AKX
> > 3NT by South, OL: C4
> > 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A
> > 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K
> > 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8
> > 4th: HX, 7, 6, 4
> > 5th: H5, 8, A, D2
> > 6th: S5, 3, K, 2
> > Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four tricks
> > in
> > spades and I have the DQ."
> > TD!
> 
> 
> I give declarer the remaining tricks. He will see the 1-5 spade break and
> not lose a spade trick and the DJ drops.

You would also have to rule that it's irrational to pitch a diamond
from hand on the third or fourth spade.  Declarer has to make two
pitches from the three cards H9, D3, C10.  (I do *not* think it's
irrational to play all the spades before cashing one high diamond from
dummy; the latter is certainly good technique, but the standard for
adjudicating a claim is, I believe, that we allow lousy technique but
not irrational play.)  

I could be convinced that holding on to H9 or C10 (hoping for a
pseudo-squeeze) is irrational.  But someone has to make that
argument.  Otherwise, I might award all but one of the remaining
tricks. 

                                -- Adam