[blml] Another claim with inadequate statement

[Tim West-Meads]

Herman wrote:
> 1) the forgetting of the small trump. Our correspondent did indeed 
> say that he does not believe West had miscounted the trumps. But in 
> that case, why is there a problem.

There is a problem because even if declarer is aware of the small trump 
he hasn't counted either black suit and cannot be sure which line might 
succeed (his RHO could have a doubleton Spade).
The line I originally suggested was the first "careless" line I 
considered consistent with declarer being aware of a small trump out.
Having found one such line I didn't bother looking further (and I have 
no need to).  If you prefer we can rule that crossing to the CK is an 
"inferior" line to cashing the S winners - it has a lower percentage 
chance of success but will work better when South is 2xx4 so it's not 
irrational.

> 2) the imagining that C7 is high. Of course you are allowed to find 
> that declarer is in this misapprehention. 

And why would finding so be any different to your deciding declarer had 
miscounted trumps when the collective table opinion was that he hadn't?

> But this smacks to me as 
> "I'm not able to rule against this declarer because of A, so I'm 
> ruling against him because of B". Tell me honestly, Tim, if there 
> were no second trump out, and declarer claims the same way, adding at 
> some point "yes of course you get your high trump", would you rule 
> against him? 

No, but in that scenario declarer's statement is typical of "cashing 
winners from hand - ruff when you like" - there's no complexity in the 
play no possible entry problem, no possible 4th trick for the defence.

Tim