[blml] Two "problems", one hypothetical, the other bizarre

[Jeff Easterson]

Most honoured blmlers!

Recently in tournaments I was called to tables for two (I think) 
interesting "problems. First the hypothetical one.  (The hand was 
genuine but the "problem" didn't arise.)
Following hand:   A6
                   54
                   754
                   Q109872
743                          QJ1092
AKJ106                       Q9
A8632                        QJ9
--                           J43
                   K85
                   8732
                   K10
                   AK85
I was called to the table (contract was 3 hearts) because declarer had 
revoked.  (He had won the revoke trick and numerous tricks after the 
revoke.) Her had made 10 tricks. I transferred two tricks to the 
defenders and, as is usual, told them that if they believed they could 
win 6 or more tricks without the revoke they should tell me.  At the 
table I saw little possibility of this and the defenders did not see 
any. (Apparently, at least I never heard from them later.)
This was a tournament with a field of only limited playing strength.  A 
few strong pairs. very many of only discrete playing strength and a good 
many of less than discrete strength.
Having time (no calls for TD) I studied the hand and found it quite 
interesting.  With a spade lead and immediate ruff at the 3rd trick the 
declarer ought to make 10 tricks, but must be careful, and must 
find/guess the favourable diamond situation.  He will probably be forced 
to ruff the 4th trick and thus shortened in trump.  Then he must solve 
diamonds, draw trumps and not get blocked in the wrong hand in order to 
take the good spades or diamonds (throwing the blocking diamond on the 
third heart trick for the diamonds).  But what about an immediate club 
lead?  This make the hand more difficult and the result less certain. 
Still 10 tricks as I see it (double dummy) by going to the table with 
the heart Q, playing the diamond Q (South will probably cover but it is 
not important)), taking the diamond J, returning to hand with a trump, 
discarding the blocking diamond on the third trump, and there are 10 
tricks (5 trumps, 5 diamonds).  But how likely is it that declarer finds 
this line (no diamond finesse for the 10, only 1 trump trick before the 
diamonds, etc.)? And if there is a club lead and he misguesses diamonds 
the hand will collapse I think, since he will be too shortened in 
trumps.  But how likely is a club lead? If you have to assign a mixed 
score; how likely are: 7 tricks, 8 tricks, 9 tricks and 10 tricks?  When 
I checked the board later 10 tricks were made only a few times (one 
player made 11 tricks but don't ask me how; you don't really want to 
know) and even fewer made 7 tricks (only one or two), most declarers won 
8 or 9 tricks.  So if you have to give a mixed score; what % probability 
for 7, 8, 9 and 10 tricks?

Now the bizarre case.  I was called to the table by one pair but the 
other pair immediately started to "explain" what happened (not usual for 
the side calling the td to not explain).  The explanation given was 
quite confusing, the player spread his hand and started reconstructing 
the play (first trick was so, second trick...).  I interrupted him since 
imho it is the job of the TD to find out what the problem is, why he has 
been called.  It appeared to me that probably there had been a claim so 
I asked if there had been one.  One pair immediately answered 
affirmatively, the other just as immediately answered negatively!  (The 
bizarre aspect.  I have been directing for many years but cannot 
remember evere having such a disagreement as to if there had been a claim.)
There were now about 40 cards on the table (were as I came and some were 
from closed hands, as yet unplayed) so a continuation of play was unlikely.
Here was the position before I was called (and players started facing 
their hands):  KJ
                AJ
                --
                --
63                        Ax
--                        Qx
--                        --
93                        --
                 --
                 10
                 xx
                 8
Diamonds were trumps and declarer (bottom hand) had already trumped 
spades so it was known that she had no more.  Declarer was in her hand 
when West said, "I have no further trick" (or something similar).  West 
was an experienced and strong player and an EBL td -- he knew the rules 
and a silly mistake was very unlikely.  I tried to find out what had 
happened.  West and East had heard declarer claim and thus West made his 
comment.  East immediately disputed it.  Normally play would thus have 
to be continued but this was no longer possible in the given situation 
since too many cards had been faced.  As I mentioned, West was was a 
quite capable player and there is no way he (or anyone else for that 
matter) would suddenly say in the middle of play that he (not his side) 
had no further trick unless he had heard a claim (and thus assumed that 
declarer had the heart Q instead of the club).  East disputed the 
concession immediately; he had also heard a claim.  Declarer and partner 
insisted that no claim had been made (but admitted to having played 
extraordinarily slowly).  What now?  My decision was to award the 
defenders a trick and I think this is fairly normal.  East sits behind 
the table, when declarer plays her two diamond tricks East can discard 
after the table, and West, knowing the declarer had no more spades and 
seeing KJ on the table would surely discard the two small spades.  But 
the declaring side disputed this, sayin  that West had said he had no 
further claim to a trick and thus had to discard the clubs.  I dismissed 
this as humbug since his statement was based on the "claim".  (And, of 
course, there was no way to determine if there had been a claim or not. 
  It would seem quite unlikely that he, and his partner, heard a claim 
from another table. There might have been a component of linguistic 
misunderstanding: one pair was Austrian, the other Dutch.)  Okay, any 
comments?  Ciao, JE