[blml] claim

[koen]

Thanks a lot for the answers so far (I know that this mailing list is 
not really intended for these simple questions, but I hope it give all 
of you some relaxing away from more serious discussions avout he laws :) )
Additional questions at the bottom of this mail...

Koen Grauwels wrote:

>
> Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. Both 
> West and I are (inexpereinced and playing) Club directors. West did 
> send me a mail to ask to review my decision. West is the best player 
> at the table, the other 3 players are at best intermediate.
> Mail be West:
> "These were the hands when North plays a small club in a NT contract. 
> South (dummy) has only small cards left, but no Clubs.
> North       East       South      West
> C:Jxxx      C:Q10      dummy      H: A
>             H:xx                  D: 1098
> North plays a small Club and East shows his cards and says: "Two clubs 
> for me and the rest is for you". West immediatly protests because he 
> still has Heart Ace and 3 free diamonds (all higher diamonds are gone).
> Now there follows a lot of rumour/discussion at the table because of 
> the protest of West (unauthorized information?), after which some of 
> the cards come on the table. West is not sure in which sequence the 
> cards come on the table; according to North first club Queen and then 
> Club Ten, so North now asks 3 tricks. The sequence of club Queen 
> followed by the Ten is not important because further play after the 
> claim should be cancelled.
> The Tournement director now has to decide how many tricks E-W make in 
> case of normal completion of the play. It is clear that East will make 
> his 2 tricks (club Ten followed by the Queen) in case of normal play. 
> Other play by East would be unrealistic and should therefor not be 
> taken into account according the rules. Because East now has left only 
> Hearts, West will make the remaining tricks. There are no other 
> possibilities.
> I rememeber that some years ago there was a similar case at a World 
> championship. Declarer claimed and would make his contract. The opps 
> protest and demand to continue the play. When continuing the play the 
> declarer makes an error (caused by the rumour at the table) and goes 
> down. The TD has given the claimed tricks to the declarer as normal 
> play and has cancelled the play and error that happened after the 
> claim at the table."
> My comments:
> - East confirmed that he did first Club Q on the table (that was after 
> the claim and after the dicussions at the table).
> - If East does not know that North still has Club J then it is not 
> unrealistic that we would play Club Q instead of club T? I agree that 
> play can not continue after cards are shown, but the 'play' of the 
> club Q indicates that it is a possibility? Also the claim in itself 
> indicates it because East did not know that West could still have 
> Heart Ace.
> - I ruled 3 tricks for N-S (Club Q followed by club T). I'm not 100% 
> happy with that ruling as I don't want to discourage claims and 
> probably West has a point that the 'play' of club Q can have been 
> caused by the rumours at the table.
> Your comments?
> Thanks a lot!
> Koen
>
Seems like there is a concensus that my ruling was very bad and that E-W 
should have given 4 tricks.
For playing club Q or T do you take into account the level of East 
player or is this more following a rule..In cases like this you always 
assume he plays low first?
One or Four tricks for E-W?:
- If East claims two club tricks, and immediatly follows this by tabling 
Club Q, followed by the T
- If East claims two club tricks, North looks confused and East therefor 
tables Club Q, followed by the T
- If East claims two club tricks, West objects the claim and East plays 
club Q after which West claims the rest of tricks?
- If East claims two club tricks, West objects the claim and West shows 
his cards (...is West claiming now?)
- If East claims two club tricks, West objects the claim and East plays 
club Q followed by a low heart?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071213/96eaf182/attachment.htm