[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-April-03, 15:00, said:

They certainly do. I have ruled on a number of appeals involving claims, and the TD form always includes both the current position and the play so far. There's even a special version of the appeal form for claims which asks for the play up to the point o the claim. I never rule on a disputed claim without knowing how the play has gone.

I think that there is a practical difference between the initial ruling and an appeal. The last two times I can recall a ruling with a missing trump, two of the best TDs on here only looked at the ending, established what trumps were, and ruled. In neither case did the declarer state that he was aware of the missing trump. Perhaps TDs on here can indicate if they look at the earlier play or ask about it before ruling. Or whether they do so only if declarer claims to be aware of the missing trump. If so, I can amend my ways on the rare occasions I direct.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2014-April-04, 03:15, said:

I think that there is a practical difference between the initial ruling and an appeal. The last two times I can recall a ruling with a missing trump, two of the best TDs on here only looked at the ending, established what trumps were, and ruled. In neither case did the declarer state that he was aware of the missing trump. Perhaps TDs on here can indicate if they look at the earlier play or ask about it before ruling. Or whether they do so only if declarer claims to be aware of the missing trump. If so, I can amend my ways on the rare occasions I direct.

If declarer never says that he was aware of the missing trump, then there is no need to go through the previous tricks to find evidence that he was aware of the missing trump. If declarer's awareness is not disputed, you don't need to investigate it. You can safely assume that what everybody agrees on is true.

The point is that there are cases where declarer is aware of the missing trump, but doesn't mention it, either because he thinks it is blatantly obvious, or (and I have seen that too) an opponent interrupts the claimer, saying "I still get a trump".

In the first cases, the TD and AC are not interested in the previous play (at least not for this reason). In the second they are.

I don't see why you distinguish between the TD and an AC. Do you mean that as a TD, you will rule without checking the play, but then when there is an appeal (which you usually hear long after the hands went back into the board), you are going to reconstruct the play, because the AC wants to know it when ruling on claims?

Why not write it down when the cards are still on the table in the order that they were played? And since you then have the information, you might as well look at it if it gives any clues.

Rik

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-04, 17:37, said:

If declarer never says that he was aware of the missing trump, then there is no need to go through the previous tricks to find evidence that he was aware of the missing trump. If declarer's awareness is not disputed, you don't need to investigate it. You can safely assume that what everybody agrees on is true.

The point is that there are cases where declarer is aware of the missing trump, but doesn't mention it, either because he thinks it is blatantly obvious, or (and I have seen that too) an opponent interrupts the claimer, saying "I still get a trump".

In the first cases, the TD and AC are not interested in the previous play (at least not for this reason). In the second they are.

I don't see why you distinguish between the TD and an AC. Do you mean that as a TD, you will rule without checking the play, but then when there is an appeal (which you usually hear long after the hands went back into the board), you are going to reconstruct the play, because the AC wants to know it when ruling on claims?

Why not write it down when the cards are still on the table in the order that they were played? And since you then have the information, you might as well look at it if it gives any clues.

You don't know if the play will "give any clues" if you don't look at it.

The EBU claim form has a place to write down the play. I would guess that's because the EBU, at least, figures it is or may be important. IAC, if I were in the EBU (and perhaps even if I weren't) I'd fill out the form - including the play.

In cases where the claimer is interrupted by an opponent in the middle of his claim statement I will tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the claimer.

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-04, 17:37, said:

I don't see why you distinguish between the TD and an AC.

TDs are typically under more time pressure than ACs.

[RunemPard]

I don't know much about laws...but IMO declarer has taken away any chance for a careless line to result in an extra trick to the defender. How can we know what they would do? Obviously the normal line is to go high "just in case", but how many times, especially at my local club, have I seen someone rough low in an obvious situation where they should go high. This carries on to the post-mortem for awhile.

Giving declarer the claim to me is rewarding careless claims and possibly punishing the innocent defenders of a trick that this particular declarer was about to give up to them.

[VixTD]

 lamford, on 2014-April-04, 03:15, said:

Perhaps TDs on here can indicate if they look at the earlier play or ask about it before ruling. Or whether they do so only if declarer claims to be aware of the missing trump. If so, I can amend my ways on the rare occasions I direct.

I'm pretty sure I would do so only if declarer tried to make a case, particularly if they were experienced enough to know about correct procedure when claiming. If declarer tried to explain that they did know about the missing trump I would certainly listen, and go through the play if necessary. I wouldn't just quote law 70C and walk away. Also if declarer was inexperienced I'd go through the process more slowly, possibly including the play, so that I can explain to them why I'm awarding a trick to the defence.

Most of the time it's quite obvious that declarer realises they've made a mistake and they don't raise a strong objection.

In case anyone's worried that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, here's the full deal:

---

The lead was ♥9.
Declarer can play safely for ten tricks, or try for eleven, but I can't see any reason why they would draw two rounds of trumps and leave one outstanding.

That got me thinking about what sort of evidence from the play might make me believe that the claimer knew there was a trump out. Suppose (on a different deal) they had drawn two rounds in a partial elimination play and thrown a defender in to give a ruff-and-discard. They might argue they had not drawn the last trump because they had to leave one in dummy.

There's still the evidence against them to consider, though, that they knew there was a trump out and they didn't mention it.

[jallerton]

Yes, but disputed claims only tend to occur when the claimer fails to mention his line of play in detail, so the claimer's failure to mention a problem (whether it be an outstanding trump, handling entries, or how to play a particular suit combination) will always be evidence against the claimer.

[mfa1010]

 VixTD, on 2014-April-07, 11:37, said:

That got me thinking about what sort of evidence from the play might make me believe that the claimer knew there was a trump out.

I remember a hand from our national mp qualification a couple of years ago. My partner was playing a marginal slam, and after having ruffed 2 losers in dummy succesfully he needed to get safely back to his hand in a side suit to pull the last lurker. After a minutes-long, agonizing deliberation he chose one of his two possible re-entries and it held without being ruffed. In triumph he spread his hand "I have the rest". He didn't say anything about the trump, but his hand was all tops from there. Should he have said "pulling the trump"? No doubt. Should the defense have had a trick? I think not. Even the cleaning lady at the toilet knew what that hand was all about.