Posted 2012-December-10, 21:50
Let's go back and look at the OP. The question asked was "How should the director rule?" Let's take this, at least at first, not as "what's the ruling?" but rather "Via what process should the director arrive at his ruling?"
The first point is that the director's job in any ruling situation is to determine the facts. In the OP, we are presented with the following facts:
1. East declares 3NT at pairs scoring. I presume this means "matchpoints" since "pairs" is not a method of scoring.
2. South's opening lead is the ♦2, won by North's KIng.
3. North returns the 10, East covers with the Jack, and South ducks.
4. East leads (presumably, I don't see how else this could work) the ♣K, South ducks, East leads his low club, and South takes the Ace.
5. At this point, each side has two tricks, and South is on lead.
6. East claims, "having forgotten the Ace of diamonds was still out".
My first question, as TD, is "who called me?" Let's presume South. Here are more questions:
2. What, precisely, did East say when he claimed?
3. Did he face his hand?
4. Did he state a line of play?
5. If he did not state a line of play, did South give him an opportunity to do so before objecting and calling the director?
Suppose (case 1) the answers are "I have the rest" (a common way of claiming), no, no, and yes. Or suppose (case 2) the answer to the fourth question is no. These two cases will lead to different things in the subsequent process. In case 1, declarer did not state a line of play, and will not be given an opportunity to do so. In case 2, declarer's line of play statement was short circuited by South, so he should be given the chance to state a line now — with the caveat that it should be the line he had in mind (if any) when he claimed, with no modification based on South's objection.
Once the director has all the facts, and they are agreed by both parties, he goes to Law 84B: "If the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented." There is such a law — Law 70. That law says that the director should:
1. Require claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.
2. Hear the opponents’ objections to the claim, but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections.
Item 1 here goes back to question 5, and the subsequent discussion in the paragraph below that. If he made no line of play statement, he doesn't get to make one now, unless he was interrupted by South. If he made one, let's hear it.
Item 2 is important. If South's objection is "I have the Ace of Diamonds!" that's one thing. If it's "I have at least one trick" that's a different thing. One could argue that the "but" in item 2 allows (perhaps even requires) the director to consider lines of play that do not start with South taking his Ace of diamonds, and I would agree with "consider", but I don't think it means "let's find whatever line we can, however silly, that gains NS the most tricks". IAC, we're now up to "what's the ruling?" I look at it this way:
1. If South leads his ♦A, he gets a trick, and now East has all the rest — there is no reasonable way he can give away more tricks.
2. If South leads a low diamonds, East will get his Queen, and now he has three possible losers: the ♥T9, and the ♦8. I don't think "I have the rest" is the same as "all my cards are winners", so I think it would be nuts to play any of these three cards — and he doesn't need to, since the ♦8 can go on the ♣J, and then the rest of his hand is all winners.
3. If South leads any other suit, East will win in whichever hand is appropriate, both the ♦Q and ♦8 will go on the ♣JT, the ♠K is good, and again all the cards in East's hand are winners.
In case 1, South gets a trick. In cases 2 and 3, South gets no tricks, unless we impose an irrational line (not taking tricks he knows are winners first) on East. Keep in mind, also, that the OP says East can be expected not to block his suits.
Keep in mind that (a) South is on lead and (b) we don't know precisely what his objection to the claim is.
I suspect South will take his ♦A (case one), in which case I rule one trick to the defense. In case two, I rule no more tricks to the defense. In case three, there are several possibilities:
no tricks to the defense
1 trick to the defense (♦A)
2 tricks to the defense (♦A then ♦9, blocking the suit
3 tricks to the defense (same as 2 tricks but then the ♠10 — this requires East to take all his spade tricks before leading the ♦Q)
4 tricks to the defense (same as 2 tricks, but East takes his ♥AK before leading the ♦Q
5 tricks to the defense (same as 3 tricks, but in addition to taking his spades, East has to take his two hearts as well).
None of these contemplate that South might lead the ♥Q or J, btw. After all, that might give away a potential trick. Some of these require really stupid (ie, irrational) plays by East. Some require the defense to keep particular cards they aren't like to keep. Bottom line, I might rule South gets his ♦A at trick 13, I might rule he never gets it. Depends on what answers I get to the question I ask (see above).
If the facts aren't agreed by both parties, the director has to decide, based on the balance of probabilities, what the pertinent facts are (Law 85), and then proceed as above.
One other thing. This is a judgement ruling. Law 83 applies, so the TD might tell the players they have the right to appeal, if he believes a review of the ruling "could well be in order".
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Help
JohnlW wrote
"East declares in 3NT at pairs scoring. South is now on lead with the following cards remaining: At this point East claims the rest - having forgotton the ♦A is still out. How should the Director rule - (it can be assumed that Declarer will avoid blocking suits)"
Agree with Bixby: whatever declarer's standard, he has obviously lost the place. Hence the TD can rule that South exits in ♥ then declarer plays ♥AK, ♠KA and attempts to cash ♦Q,. This is as sensible line of declarer-play as any other -- given that declarer is convinced ♦AK have been played. The defence then wins ♦A ♥QJ and ♦9 for two-down. This resolves doubtful points in favour of the NOS. Unless the OP failed to mention some significant fact, any other ruling seems illegal.
The ruling does assume that defenders are allowed to take advantage of declarer's manifest confusion.