[blml] claim

[Tim West-Meads]

Eric wrote:

> We are differing over semantics here.  If I'm playing a seven-card 
> fit, LHO follows once, and I convince myself that the suit must have 
> started 3-3 or 4-2, did I think I already saw LHO discard one (a 
> miscount by Ed's definition), or did I just "forget" that six cards 
> can divide 5-1 (which I'd call a "miscount", but Ed would not)?  
> Should it make any difference to the ruling on my claim?

Ok, consider for a moment that claimer said "OK, the ST will drop now".
He's wrong, but I have clear evidence that he is aware of the "outness" 
of the ST.  In projecting lines of play I will focus on those at which 
he discovers the non-droppingness of the ST at the least favourable 
possible moment - but I won't consider lines that involve him playing 
the S9 to the outstanding ST when doing so would be irrational.  
Declarer having said something different I will try to establish whether 
I have doubts as to his awareness of (and possible attention to) the ST.

I find that doing this sort of thing helps me explain the number of 
tricks I am ruling to both sides - generally that assists in acceptance 
but if not accepted it helps whichever side wants to appeal to focus on 
the key issue.
Thus:  "From what has been said I am convinced that declarer was aware 
that the ST was out and would not have played the S9 but I also believe 
that because he was expecting the ST to drop he might have carelessly 
discarded a Diamond on the 2nd/3rd round of spades."

Tim