[blml] claim

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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."

Exactly what "evidence" makes you convinced declarer is aware that the ST
has not been discarded and is still out? Once he fails his accounting of a
suit this failure can very well include forgetting that he has not seen the
ten in that suit? IMO you give too much allowance to the claimer.

Sven