[blml] claim

[Eric Landau]

On Dec 12, 2007, at 4:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> koen wrote:
>>>
>> ...sorry to ask again (I agree it is irrational for West todiscard  
>> Heart
>> A)...
>> Considering that East :
>> - played club Q followed by the T after the claim and the discussion,
>> - did apparantly not know that West could have Heart A and free  
>> diamonds,
>> - is not a good player,
>> - It is very well possible - even likely - that he did not know that
>> Club J is still in the play.
>
> OK, let that be the TD's decision. What we then need to decide is
> whether it is rational for a player who thinks QT are good to win the
> trick with the 10 or with either.
>
> I say tricks are won with the lowest possible, and led from the top
> (thus 4 tricks to defenders), but others will of course disagree (they
> will give declarer 3 tricks).
>
>> => Is it irrational or very unlikely that he would actually have  
>> played
>> the club Q followed by the T if he would not have claimed?
>> Is giving 3 tricks to N-S a very bad ruling (I think you either give
>> none or 3 to N-S)?
>
> Indeed that's it.
>
> We will never solve this one on blml. I remember the flack I received
> when I told this list that the highest AC in the EBL had once decided
> on a claim and I dared suggest that this ought to be considered "case
> law". It seems to me as if some of you consider blml as a debating
> forum rather than as a tool to get TD's minds in the same direction.
>
> This ruling can go either way, and I'd like to know which way we're
> all going to rule this. We really ought to have some guidance from the
> WBF on this one.
>
> So, may I ask the WBF to give us guidance on this stripped case:
>
> A player has to take a club trick (let's strip some further and say in
> fourth position) with either of two cards that he believes are high.
> He shall play the other one next (also believing it to win the trick).
> Do we consider that to take the first trick with the higher of the
> two, and to lead the lower to the next trick, constitutes a "normal
> play"? Does it differ whether the two cards are AQ or 86?

I would vote no and no.

In Koen's original case, I think he goes wrong by writing that "East  
played club Q followed by the T after the claim and the discussion".   
But the Law does not allow us to view cards tabled "after the claim  
and the discussion" as "played".  They are merely being exposed, per  
L70B2; the order in which they are put on the table has no significance.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net