[gordontd]

With four tricks to go, in a spade contract with the trumps drawn, dummy holds

♠A
♥
♦KQx
♣

Declarer is on lead and says "OK?". RHO says "No", so declarer leads a diamond and LHO hops up with the Ace, after which declarer has the remaining three tricks. Had LHO played low, declarer would have lost two diamond tricks.

What is the status of the "OK?" question? Do you think declarer had claimed? If not, do you think there is any problem with declarer having said this?

[WellSpyder]

"OK?" sounds to me like a suggestion that play be curtailed, so yes I think declarer claimed - though it is not entirely clear how many tricks were claimed!

[mrdct]

I agree with WellSpyder that the comment "OK?" could only be taken as a suggestion that play be curtailed which constitutes a claim under Law 68A. The claim appears to translate to something like "I'll make three more tricks if the ♦A is onside stiff or doubleton but otherwise it will be two more tricks". As play did continue after the "OK?" comment, under Law 70D3 the TD can use this as evidence as to what would likely have occurred subsequent to the claim so I'm going to rule that declarer's LHO would still have made same defensive error of flying with the ♦A and let declarer take three of the remaining tricks.

[Pig Trader]

I agree that it sounds like a claim under 68A, but if it isn't, then I'd look at 73D2 for dealing with the "OK?" as a remark. I wouldn't put much weight on LHO's going up with ♦A if I decide to rule as a claim as LHO may well not have treated the remark as a claim because, after all, he did continue play.

I'd ask declarer why he said "OK?" and seek what the opponents understood by "OK?", in particular to what was RHO replying "No", and that would guide me, but either road looks to me like giving defenders two tricks.

Barrie

[barmar]

I'd definitely want to know if the remark is what caused LHO to pop up with the ace, for a 73D2 ruling.