[BLML] Claim with partner on lead -- Swiss ruling rectification

Peter Eidt petereidt at t-online.de
Tue Nov 12 18:40:04 CET 2013

Von: RCraigH at aol.com
> Here is a two part director problem from a recent Florida regional  
> In a 2S doubled contract, the five card end position with declarer's
> RHO on  lead, LHO claimed the balance of tricks, holding AKQxx in
> trumps  Dummy had  Jxx of trumps and two diamonds.  Declare summoned
> the director and  requested the lead of a heart, East known to have
> hearts.  The result would  be an uppercut, gaining a trick and
> fulfilling the contract for plus 470.    The director ruled that
> declarer could bar one suit, not demand a  lead, so RHO could lead a
> diamond or a trump, either defeating the contract (LHO  had no more
> diamonds).  Result, minus 100 and a seven IMP loss for  declarer's
> team on a 30 scale.   Before the next round started the director
> announced to the players that he  had made a mistake and allowed the
> contract to make on the play of a heart as  requested by declarer. The
> least effective defense rule applied against the  offending side.  
> Question one -- is the second ruling correct?   

it depends ... among other things on the exact layout of the
last 5 tricks and on the play of the first 8 tricks.

There is no such law that allows the opponent(s) of a claimer
to "demand" or "forbid" a suit or suits. It is simply the TD's task to
apply Law 70 A:
"In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates 
the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any
doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. [...]"
and (here) Law 70 D2:
"The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends
on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal*

So, the TD has to find out, whether there was a LA for East to play
a diamond - i.a.w. if it was normal to play anything else. 
If so, dummy will get a trick; if not the contract will be defeated.

> Question two -- the
> director ruled that because of "director error" he  was giving a split
> score, both teams benefitting from the situation.  that  is, the
> defense was permitted to set the contract and win the match by seven 
> IMPs,while the declarer's team was awarded plus 470 and they also won
> the match  by seven IMPs!   In the final analysis the defending team
> finished behind declarer's in  the overall rankings, but the defenders
> did achieve a result higher than some  other teams (Meckwell among
> them).     What is appropriate?   

Law 82 C:
"If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be
incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored
normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as 
nonoffending for that purpose."
does _not_ say the TD has to give advantageous scores to both sides
(if he has made an error) in any case. Only in those cases, where
"no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally".

Here the play has ended, the cards and the earlier play are facts and
the TD can easily change his first - erroneous - ruling to a better one
without flooding (surplus) VPs over this match.

> Craig Hemphill

More information about the Blml mailing list