[par31]

Declarer is on lead after 10 tricks in a no trump contract, holding diamonds K75 opposite T8 in dummy. Dummy also has a loser in another suit. No more diamonds are out.

Declarer faces his hand and claims three diamond tricks. If I were called at this point by a defender objecting that declarer might block the suit, I expect I would allow the claim even if declarer was very inexperienced.

What actually happened was that, because of some external distraction, the defenders didn't agree or contest the claim immediately. After a pause, declarer said something like "Wait a moment, I get stuck in dummy and only get two tricks." How should one rule at this point? I assume this is not a concession of a trick as he has already claimed all three remaining tricks. But is it appropriate to consider this evidence that he would have misplayed (even though it isn't actually subsequent play but just a statement) or should it simply be discounted?

EBU regulations, so no specified order in which suits should be played.

[TylerE]

Since it is possible to lose a trick, I think declarer loses it.

[mjj29]

There's some disagreement about this. I think you can use this as evidence that he wouldn't get it right (I think 70D3 supports this), but on the EBL course this year one of the questions in the final exam included a claim, with a later statement like this indicating declarer would have got it wrong. They gave the official answer that the claim was good, but I know a lot of people (particularly the EBU TDs) disagree with that. If you were to rule that the claim wasn't good in the EBU you would find a lot of sympathy with that view.

There's also the famous 'claim on a squeeze, later misplay it' ruling, which between the TD and the appeals committee went both ways (although I can't remember which way round).

[Zelandakh]

mjj29, on 2013-February-15, 09:45, said:

There's also the famous 'claim on a squeeze, later misplay it' ruling, which between the TD and the appeals committee went both ways (although I can't remember which way round).

The AC allowed the claim after the TD had ruled against Declarer. The Laws have since been changed.

[blackshoe]

Declarer claimed three diamond tricks, without saying how he would play the diamonds. Later he clarified that his intent was to play the K and another diamond. That, as he realized, blocks the suit. My ruling: he gets two diamond tricks, not three.

If the EBL thinks the ruling should go the other way, well, I'd be interested in hearing their logic.

[campboy]

Did the claim statement not mention the beer at all? Probst's (other) rule: if the correct line involves winning the beer, declarer is a student and didn't mention it, he wasn't planning to play the correct line.

[RMB1]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-15, 10:18, said:

The AC allowed the claim after the TD had ruled against Declarer. The Laws have since been changed.

My recollection is that the TD upheld the claim (the subsequent play was void and there was no Law 70D3) and the ruling was upheld by the AC.

I can not find the original appeal written up (it was Masstricht 2000?) but there is an EBL TD training document that mentions the ruling/appeal Sanremo 2010 "The WBF Laws Committee", see "Claims - Concessions" page 10/15.

This hand/ruling was immortalized by David Burn's "Claimed it on a double squeeze"

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2013-February-15, 15:10, said:

My recollection is that the TD upheld the claim (the subsequent play was void and there was no Law 70D3) and the ruling was upheld by the AC.

I can not find the original appeal written up (it was Masstricht 2000?) but there is an EBL TD training document that mentions the ruling/appeal Sanremo 2010 "The WBF Laws Committee", see "Claims - Concessions" page 10/15.

This hand/ruling was immortalized by David Burn's "Claimed it on a double squeeze"

Robin's recollection is correct:

http://www.worldbrid.../pdf/bul_13.pdf

Appeal no 16

[iviehoff]

For a certain class of player, blocking the suit is merely careless, ahd the player has just given you strong evidence that he is in that class.

[paua]

campboy, on 2013-February-15, 13:13, said:

Did the claim statement not mention the beer at all? Probst's (other) rule: if the correct line involves winning the beer, declarer is a student and didn't mention it, he wasn't planning to play the correct line.

He definitely doesn't get the beer unless it was the first thing mentioned in the claim.