[bali 2]

I don't understand why it is not allowed to give split scores in claim cases.
There are a lot of situations where it would be logical , and fair, to rule split scores in claims. For example : S is playing 4S and after trick 9, E shows his hand and says " one trick for me ". All players agree, looking at all remaining cards.
Later, S realises that if he simply have ruffed a card in dummy, he would have made the 4 tricks instead of only three; He calls TD and explain, but naturally TD judges that if he has not seen the play with all cards in front of him, he would not if play had been continued, so he don't give him the trick . But is it a reason to give this trick to E/W, who are gaining a trick from nothing, a trick that all players in the tournament have not gained ? In my opinion, TD should rule three tricks to N/S and zero trick to E/W, which is not allowed ( where is it inscribed on the laws or on the regulations ? ).

This case in one in one hundred other cases , similar, where a split score should give what is right to each side.
Many thanks in advance
Al. Ohana

[bali 2]

---

Sorry, forgot to give the example
Al. Ohana

[blackshoe]

Law 69B2 said:

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A above) may be withdrawn within the correction period established under Law 79c… 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. the board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

In your example case, it seems to me that declarer would likely have won all four tricks (although it may depend on where the lead was) so, at least if the lead was in declarer's hand, I would give him the trick. If I did so under this law, there would not be grounds for a split score. In fact, I don't see the need.

[bluejak]

There have been a few cases over the years where it has seemed to me and others that it would be fairest if claims were treated as adjustments, not perhaps so often a question of split scores, more a question of weighted scores. If there is misinformation a TD decides on th likelihood of various results without the infraction and normally gives an adjustment with a weighting to each. While claims are often direct, there are some where it might be felt that since declarer will probably do this, but possibly that, why not weight the result to take account of this and that?

I can see no reason myself why the Law should not be changed to treat them in this way, but currently the TD or AC must decide a single number of tricks, and I have heard of no official source that suggests any alternative is even being considered.