Dummy "helps out" with the claim
This happened a while ago but since I still ponder it occasionally I thought I'd seek opinions.
Declarer claims with 4 tricks to go. The claim is vaguely stated. The defence object along the lines of "if you didn't do the obvious thing (cross to dummy and play all your winners) you would lose a trick" - really just asking declarer to clarify rather than a serious objection.
The declarer is of a standard and the play so obvious that I would ordinarily allow the claim.
BUT... after the defence object, dummy helpfully points out the obvious line of play before declarer gets a chance to.
I rule against the claim (for the objection) because of dummy's action.
Did I get it right?
Comments
The white book states that if declarer's play was "blatantly obvious" then any other play falls below the "careless or inferior" test for law 70 and 71. See the white book:
8.70.2 ‘Blatantly obvious’
An Appeals Committee thought the winning line was ‘blatantly obvious’ yet ruled against the claimer. The L&EC believed that if a line was blatantly obvious then all other lines would presumably not be ‘normal’, as defined by the footnote to Law 70C3. If so the Appeals Committee should have held that, in effect, the line should be permitted.
Dummy's action (IMHO) has not changed the facts (declarer makes a vague claim), the position of the cards, whether any other play is merely "careless or inferior", or the a priori probability of declarer not making the suggested line. In fact if dummy finds the same play then that would be additional evidence that the play was "blatantly obvious".
You may, if you wish, admonish dummy for 'participating in play or communicating anything about the play to declarer' but that is a different infraction.