[shyams]

---

Click "play" to see the play to the first seven tricks.

After the 4-1 diamond split is discovered, South mumbles "One off" & leads the ♦Q. What happens next is that West discards a spade, dummy starts gathering all his cards, West begins to do the same, and East briefly exposes the ♦9 before picking up all his cards.
The other three players are shuffling their hands to return to the board; however, South now claims he's made 11 tricks.

How do you rule?

[sfi]

A claim was made so play stops at that point. The play afterwards is simply not relevant, so -1.

[blackshoe]

"One off" is a claim. Or a concession. Or both. IAC, I agree with sfi, he's one off.

[billw55]

So .. declarer is trying to claim that east followed to the ♦Q with the 9, and hence that the K now drops?

No way. Claimed down one, reasonable play is down one, so result is down one.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2015-November-22, 07:23, said:

A claim was made so play stops at that point. The play afterwards is simply not relevant, so -1.

But any play that does take place is taken into account. Why did East expose the card?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-23, 01:55, said:

But any play that does take place is taken into account. Why did East expose the card?

That's only for the purpose of clarifying the claim statement.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-23, 01:55, said:

But any play that does take place is may be taken into account.

FYP

[ggwhiz]

Something like a deliberate attempt to deceive and a severe sanction against south for this "act" is no doubt not allowed by law but I would like to bluff considering it before ruling down 1 to let them know what I think of this.

[nige1]

shyams, on 2015-November-22, 07:01, said:

Click "play" to see the play to the first seven tricks.
After the 4-1 diamond split is discovered, South mumbles "One off" & leads the ♦Q. What happens next is that West discards a spade, dummy starts gathering all his cards, West begins to do the same, and East briefly exposes the ♦9 before picking up all his cards.
The other three players are shuffling their hands to return to the board; however, South now claims he's made 11 tricks.
How do you rule?

---

IMO the director should run with gordontd's "Play subsequent to the claim may be taken into account". He should judge to decline that option, decide that normal play results in one-down, and hence rule one-down.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-November-23, 10:37, said:

But any play that does take place may be taken into account.

Does exposing a card after a claim constitute play? We are not told that dummy played to this trick, so it is not clear that East was following to the queen of diamonds. In any case, awarding anything other than 1 down does not seem to follow "<snip> the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides <snip>"

[wank]

what a tosser

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2015-November-23, 09:42, said:

That's only for the purpose of clarifying the claim statement.

Yes we will have to assume that unless we have evidence that he really intended to play ♦9.

[nige1]

wank, on 2015-November-24, 00:32, said:

what a tosser

Who would know better?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-23, 01:55, said:

Why did East expose the card?

He probably assumed declarer was showing his ♦A when he claimed. Once his partner shows out and declarer claims, I think he can be forgiven for not watching the cards carefully.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-23, 01:55, said:

But any play that does take place is taken into account. Why did East expose the card?

Who knows? Maybe because play was over and are confirming to partner that they really did have another diamond as well as the king. Maybe because dummy helped confuse the situation by gathering up the cards. Whatever the reason, the chance they were going to play the D9 on the actual trick had play continued is, shall we say, small.

To summarise the original post, declarer claims, people pick up cards, East shows a small diamond as part of the process. How South can try to claim an extra trick is beyond belief.

[sanst]

I'm not so certain that mumbling "one off" constitutes a claim. Besides, South leads the diamond queen, which he wouldn't, or shouldn't, do when he claims. And why does East show the nine instead of the king? I don't think this is a clear cut case and to make a ruling, I would need to hear the players. Based on the information given, I would rule in favour of NS.

[sfi]

sanst, on 2015-November-26, 16:37, said:

I'm not so certain that mumbling "one off" constitutes a claim.

Dummy certainly took it as a claim, which is pretty solid evidence that South's actions are within the expected range of claiming for this player.

If you want the legal justification, Law 68A states:

Quote

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

Nothing about how elaborate or clear it needs to be. Given that North picked up dummy's cards I wouldn't buy the argument that it was simply muttered under declarer's breath.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2015-November-26, 16:59, said:

Given that North picked up dummy's cards I wouldn't buy the argument that it was simply muttered under declarer's breath.

Mumbled or not, North pretty clearly understood what South said.

[gnasher]

sanst, on 2015-November-26, 16:37, said:

I'm not so certain that mumbling "one off" constitutes a claim. Besides, South leads the diamond queen, which he wouldn't, or shouldn't, do when he claims. And why does East show the nine instead of the king? I don't think this is a clear cut case and to make a ruling, I would need to hear the players. Based on the information given, I would rule in favour of NS.

Even if you rule that it wasn't a claim, you still have to deal with NS's irregularities and the effects of those.

If South had kept his mouth shut and North had left his cards alone, do you think East would have showed his ♦9, or would he just have taken his king? I think it's pretty obvious that NS's antics caused East to do what he did, and they certainly could have been aware that they might have such an effect.

Hence, if you rule that it wasn't a claim and that the contract made, you should then adjust it back to done one under Law 23.