[blml] claim

[Herman De Wael]

Guthrie wrote:
> [Koen Grauwels]
> Yesterday I was called at the table for the case described below. Both 
> West and I are (inexperienced 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 immediately 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 Tournament 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 therefore 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.
> 
> [nige1]
> North      East       South      West
> C:x        C:Q10      dummy      C: J
> H:AT8      H:xx                  D: 9xx
> Suppose this had been the ending. From East's point of view the 
> position may look the same. But, in this ending, when North leads a 
> club, East must crocodile coup CQ to take 2 tricks. CT takes only one 
> trick. Hence, IMO, on Koen's actual hand, either ruling is arguable.
> 

I don't believe this one causes any troubles - and it says nothing 
about the other one.
You take the view that only the cards are important, but that is not 
the case. We must also consider the mind of the player.
In the player's mind, his Q and T are both high.
We should have a rule telling us which cards are normal in certain 
situations.
That rule must be the same in both lies of the cards.

There are two possible rules:
- when winning a trick, it is always done with the lowest of the 
possible cards; or
- when winning a trick, player can play any of his winning cards.

Under both rules, playing the 10 is normal.
Therefore, in the second case, the Jack will always win the trick and 
declarer gets some more.
But in the first case, the outcome depends on which rule we use in 
determining normal play.



> BLMLers have long opined that the WBFLC should provide more 
> comprehensive guidelines for such rulings.
> 
> I agree. It would be even better, IMO, to simplify the law to make all 
> such disputes unnecessary.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html