Claim advice
In a position where ruling needed and no pollees or e-mails available.
N: S AK H AT D 3 C QT765432
E: S T98532 H: J9754 D 4 C 8
S: S QJ4 H KQ6 D KT7 C AKJ9
W: S 76: H 832: D AQJ98652 C -
Clubs are trumps, East leads a Diamond to West's Ace whereupon declarer claims (no statement)
East now says "It depends on how you play".
(If it isn't clear, East can ruff West's diamond return which would win the trick if North discarded or ruffed low.) North is a pretty good player AD)
Director now gets called.
Allow 12 tricks or 11?
Comments
What was the auction?
W dealer: 3D - 4C - P - 4N - P - 5S - P - 6C - AP
It may help that declarer did not play the KD at trick 1.
I can't see declarer discarding or ruffing low.
Well trumps are solid to the nine. Might have been interesting if West had won the first diamond with the Ace and returned the Jack. (As if missing the Queen) - but they didn't.
I'd expect most good players will ruff the diamond flamboyantly with the highest trump they can find. I'm rather annoyed at North for making a bad claim and I've known even good players carelessly ruff small here. But same as Gordon I don't really see declarer getting this wrong.
Yes, it's a bad claim. Declarer has been careless enough to make a bad claim and not acknowledge the danger of an over-ruff in case West had actually started with eight diamonds. The evidence of the careless bad claim suggests to me that declarer might well have been careless enough to fail to ruff high had he not claimed. Players graded Ace of Diamonds are not exempt from occasional carelessness. The examples of claims rulings in the Club TD training course include such rulings against Grand Masters or world experts.
My thanks to weejonnie for starting this thread. I'd have wanted to consult too, so I'm also interested in the replies to tune my own judgement. Our declarer has already exhibited how careless he can be! :)
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I am inclined to agree with Barrie....unless North said something iabout ruffing high, immediately (even after the claim was questioned), I would rule one off.
Any comment about ruffing high after the claim has been made and contested should be ignored. IMO if declarer meant to ruff high he should say so and the fact he didn't means he has been (very) careless but that is his misfortune and I would rule -1 and await the storm.