[mycroft]

I feel a bit uncomfortable that:

a) declarer doesn't remember how many trump are out, or
b) won't notice that they're 4-0 when the Q is played, and
c) if 4 are out and he thinks only 3, would play 4 rounds of trump to "pull trump".

After 3 rounds, "all the trump are out", and while it shouldn't matter which way he takes his tricks, I am not sure that cashing the trump first instead of last is merely "careless". On the other hand, I believe there is case law on that point saying it is (but I can't remember it), so.

If he convinces me that he knew 4 trump were out (and the play doesn't lend me to believe a forget, not that that's the same thing), then we adjust based on SQ, showout, claim statement breaks down. Now even careless play leads to one trick (if South had 9xxx xx -- xx such that the trump coup worked, I'm not giving him that, but he doesn't) - two requires playing to lose to a known high trump. If he can't convince me, well then, pull all the trumps, cash winners starting from the left, two down, I guess. Ick.

[bluejak]

The TD concerned decided to consult with three TDs who have a top reputation for understanding rulings - and all three agreed that only one trick went to the defence. So the TD ruled that way. But I am not sure he was 100% convinced!

Note that in England/Wales the final decision in any ruling is that of the TD who went to the table. He is required to consult but is not required to follow the advice given.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Aug 21 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

Note that in England/Wales the final decision in any ruling is that of the TD who went to the table. He is required to consult but is not required to follow the advice given.

Hm. I wonder what the position is in North America. In particular, I wonder if, in tournaments where there is a DIC and subordinate TDs, the DIC can overrule the table TD, absent an appeal.