[lmilne]

Scoring: MP

---

It is very possible you will not agree with the bidding, nor the defense.

1♦-4♥-X-P;
4♠-5♥-X-AP.

1. A♠, 4, 2, 7.
2. J♣, 5, 7, A.
3. A♥, 5, 4, 2♦.
4. K♥, J, 6, 5♦.
5. 2♣, 6, Q, 3.
6. K♣, 4, 6♠, 8.

At this point, declarer faces his hand and claims "conceding two diamonds".
North agrees "one down", all players shuffle their hands, before the player who was dummy says "you're ruffing that second diamond!".

The director is called. The bidding and the play up to the claim are undisputed. Your ruling?

[barmar]

The law says you can't concede a trick that would not be lost through any normal line of play. This includes plays that would be careless or inferior for the player, but not irrational.

If the player was careless enough not to realize he could ruff the diamond at the time he made the claim, why should we expect him to be more careful if he were actually playing it out?

[Mbodell]

I'd expect him to always trump the second diamond if dummy still had a heart (it is irrational to not do so imo). But his claim line is consistent with just running hearts first and then giving up two diamonds, so I think that is what should be ruled to happen.

[Phil]

The fact East didn't contest "one down" is consistent with his claim statement of "conceding two diamonds". East obviously had a mental block (maybe he 'saw' a 2nd diamond in dummy) and I do not think the class of the player matters as does (the former) dummy's attempted clarification of getting declarer to ruff the diamond.

This reminds me of a claim I had in a matchpoint game that I think I posted on here several years ago before IBLF was added. Declarer was a Grand LM and declared 4♥ and was annoyed at missing a cold grand due to our preemption. When dummy came down, he simply had to ruff a club in dummy prior to drawing trump, but he said "making 6". We agreed and put our cards away. The dummy said, "aren't you going to try to ruff a club before a trump?" and HE called the director who agreed that the claim stood.