disputed claim
In a 2S Contract, N was Declarer claimed the last two tricks. She had 2 hearts in her hand, the J and the 6, was on lead and thought there were no hearts outstanding.
However an opponent had the 9 of hearts.
I ruled that Declarer could make a normal but careless lead of the H6, which would lose to the H8 and the opponent would then lead their last card, which was the Ace of Clubs and win that trick as well.
Is this a correct interpretation of White Book, Clause 8.70.5?
Dlr: South
Vul: All
•
NORTH
10 9 8 7 2
J 7 6 4 3
8 3
J
WEST
A Q 6
Q 10 8
A 7 2
9 8 7 3
EAST
5
A 9 5 2
Q J 10 4
A K 5 4
SOUTH
K J 4 3
K
K 9 6 5
Q 10 6 2
Comments
Sounds right to me.
I think the ruling is consistent with 8.70.5
For two-card holdings, I would interpret 8.70.5 to say that the 5 is not normal from A5 but the 5 is "normal" from 75.
Somewhere between A5 and 75, there is a line where the small card becomes "normal" - which side of line lies J5 and J6?
Dura lex sed lex. It would also have been a good opportunity to educate the lady as to why they should make a comprehensive statement and state the order in which they play the cards.
If I put this on my card and information that the ops should note, would that count for anything here?
It does feel harsh to rule that she doesn't get the tricks but I feel that the ruling is correct. It takes little effort to say, "Good from the top" and I'm sure she'll add those words to future claims, if she makes future claims. I'm also sure that she feels cheated out of two tricks but then so do people who have a handful of winners and simply forget that there's a trump out which they could easily pull.
But with your poor memory you might forget that that is what you do.
Haha , no :)
I'm a great believer in claiming to save time (although not against some opponents, where by definition it won't save time), but when there isn't much time to be saved, such as in a 2-card ending, I tend to play the penultimate card and then show the last one.