[blml] claim

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:

> As I have indicated before: 3NT+3 is outrageous, 3NT+2 can be an 
> acceptable compromise depending on the circumstances and 3NT= is the
> correct result if you shall follow the laws to the letter (and 
> intention).

Which is bunkum - the "correct" ruling depends on the TD establishing 
the facts to his satisfaction.

For example did declarer say "Les piques viennent? J'ai DQ." or "Les 
piques viennent. J'ai DQ".*  In the former case the lucky diamond 
position would result in 13 tricks without any doubt (declarer has 
indicated that he is aware of a possible non-break and a D discard would 
be irrational in that situation).

If it was the latter the TD investigation may lead him to determine that 
declarer would not notice the non-appearance of the ST (and thus award 9 
tricks).  If not he might assume that declarer will carelessly discard a 
D on the 2nd/3rd spade and award 12 tricks or he might be in no doubt 
that West showing out on the S8 would alert declarer to the split and 
that a D discard would still be irrational.

Any one of those rulings would be reasonable depending on the 
facts/level of doubt.

*Apologies to French speakers if I have butchered my translation somehow 
but I believe tonal interrogatives are fairly common over there.

Tim