Disputed claim, take 2.
It seems to happen quite frequently to me that when asked to adjudicate an appeal, the information I am initially given turns out not to be correct, and indeed often changes several times before a consensus is reached.
So this is the true situation (AFAIK) on the disputed claim:
The contract is 5C by N. This is the position after trick 4:
W's hand has nothing of relevance, and defenders have no trumps.
On the bidding declarer has no reason to place any of the red suit honours with E. W could have any one or indeed any two of them.
Declarer is in Dummy, and claims 8 tricks, stating "I concede 1 Diamond trick, the rest are mine" No line of play was mentioned.
The claim is disputed.
IF declarer crosses to hand and plays DT then he has created a winner and will take 8 of the remaining 9 tricks.
Law 70D1: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original
clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful."
So what is the alternative normal line of play that is less successful? Would attempting the cross ruff and then realising you were one short count as normal (including of course careless or inferior)? Is there any blatantly obvious reason not to start by leading a diamond from dummy?
Comments
I think the stated line is to lead a diamond to the ten and then find himself one trick short.
It's not only you to whom players often give incomplete or erroneous information :)
Actually, on second thoughts, doesn't this line also produce enough tricks, because the HQ becomes good, unless we force the heart finesse? I'll think more about this once I've woken up properly!
One of them is to start a cross-ruff. This works when either the DA or the HQ drops and it happens to work on the hand.
However I think there are two other lines that might be adopted if declarer now realises he is a trick short, each of which might be considered normal.
The first is to take a ruffing finesse in diamonds and the second is to finesse in hearts. Both of these fail.
The cross-ruff is probably the best line, but a declarer who has given an incomplete claim statement doesn’t get to benefit of the best line when there are alternative normal lines that fail, which in this case I think there are.
So I think declarer loses two tricks.
A normal line is Hx to King, Dx to 10 and Queen, Sx ruffed; declarer now realises he can't ruff two hearts in South and needs another trick, and takes the losing heart finesse. This line loses two tricks.
(What Gordon said.)
To clarify: We assume that declarer, once he realises he is a trick short of not only his claim but his contract, will attempt to make the contract and in the process lose an extra trick? It seems right to me, but I'm just checking.
OK I've just realised this doesn't apply in the case. but the principle remains:
When adjudicating a disputed claim, and playing on behalf of declarer, we assume declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see (WB 8.70.8).
If, when playing as declarer, we find out that the stated line will not work(maybe from an unexpected ruff), we will look at what lines could be taken from then on and choose the least favourable.
Let's assume that there is a risky play that might make declarer the contract, but will leave him 2 down if it fails. All other lines leave him 1 down.
Should we assume that taking the risky option would be normal, and hence (if it fails) rule 2 down, but if it succeeds rule 1 down (i.e. one of the other lines is less favourable than the successful risk line)?
Just look at all normal lines consistent with the claim statement, or what we believe claimer to know about the hand, and award the least favourable outcome of those.
Put another way, you follow the claim statement until it breaks down and then consider what normal lines remain from that point. Here there was no claim statement, so you consider all normal lines from the outset.
If the lead were in the North hand I think I would allow the claim because it seems perverse (and therefore not normal) to cross to dummy just for the purpose of leading a diamond towards the stiff 10, and the concession of a diamond affords some indication that declarer was going to play on diamonds. But that very fact means that it is certainly normal for declarer to start with a diamond to the 10 given that the lead is in dummy.
In response to Jeremy's point about risky lines, the form of scoring may be relevant to the assessment of normal lines. Here I assume that declarer has probably already lost a spade, so if the claim is valid he makes his contract, and if he loses more than one more trick, he goes down. But I could certainly imagine the scenario of a claim of, say, 10 tricks in 3NT. If the claim statement breaks down, normal lines at Pairs might include taking a finesse for an overtrick, going down if it fails, whereas at Teams such a line would not be normal if there was a line to guarantee making 9 tricks.
If the claim is just a number of tricks then normal lines will be lines that might achieve that number of tricks; otherwise, if there is no stated number of tricks or no normal line that might achieve a stated number of tricks, then normal lines will be an attempt to achieve a reasonable outcome on the hand.
It can be inferior (and hence normal) to play for one off even if the odds favour playing for a chance of making. Equally, it can be inferior (and hence normal) to risk two off for a chance of making, even if the odds suggest playing safe for one off.