[kvar]

---

South is in 3NT. West has just won the third trick for the defense with the ♥K, when South faces his hand and claims saying "The rest are mine." West objects and wants down one. Ruling?

[jdonn]

It seems plausible declarer thought his small heart was good. If west exits club then declarer might win and play 2 rounds of hearts so I'm inclined to rule down 1. Still I would at least want to know the play to that point or find out what declarer was thinking.

[bluejak]

There seem to me three things that declarer could have been thinking.

"Three plus one plus one plus one is seven", ie he has miscounted. The problem with that is that he is not going to go off: He will cash his six top tricks and find to his disappointment that there is no overtrick.

"The ♥8 is good". This, of course, always leads to long arguments as to whether cashing the♣A followed by the ♥A followed by the ♥9 is irrational. I do not think so.

"The ♣4 is good". While considerably less likely it leads to the same effect as the previous paragraph.

So unless the TD is convinced it is a trick miscount he should rule one off: but if he is convinced he should rule making.



I had not noticed that West was on lead: it does not really affect it much, except that West playing a club and then an attempt to cash the ♥8 looks more reasonable.

[mrdct]

If the extent of his claim statement was limited to "the rest are mine" that would imply a belief that he has seven top tricks so he either believes the ♥8 is coming good or that the ♣4 is coming good. I'm going to ignore the ♣4 possibility as a bit far-fetched.

The ♥8 coming good could be based on a assumption that the remaining two ♥s are breaking 1-1 due to his perceived count on the hand or could be based on a miscounting of ♥ played thus far. In the former case the layout will become evident when the ♥A is cashed and he will make his contract, but in the latter case he will attempt to cash the ♥8 and if he does so before cashing everything else he will go one down.

Law 70E:

Quote

E. Unstated Line of Play
1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

Declarer could argue that his unstated line of play could only have been predicated on finding ♥ 1-1 and the subsequent failure of east to follow suit when the ♥A is cashed will clarify the ♥ layout after which it would be irrational to attempt to cash the ♥8.

As a director some attempt needs to be made to ascertain what was one declarer's mind at the time of the claim and discounting, if necessary, any self-serving statements once declarer has had a chance to work out what's going on. The rest of the hand and some info as to the general skill level of declarer could also be relevant here. Has west made an inspired falsecard winning the previous trick with the K rather than the 9 to make declarer think the 8 is good? Did east follow to the trick won by the ♥K and, if so, was it with an honour?

If in the course of my enquiries I get some unsolicited indication from declarer that he was aware that there were two outstanding ♥ and east had not already shown-out, I'm going to let him make his contract, but otherwise it will become a Law 70A situation of resolving doubtful points against the claimer and he goes one down.