[VixTD]

All the judgement rulings I made in a National Pairs regional final a few weeks ago were claims. Here's the first:

.......♠7
.......♦KJ
♠5
♣95
.......♦Q7
.......♣Q

South is declarer, on lead in a club contract. She claims, saying: "Drawing the last trump, and two diamonds".

East's cards are immaterial (no spades, no clubs and no ace of diamonds).
,
How many of the tricks are you giving EW?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-April-01, 07:09, said:

All the judgement rulings I made in a National Pairs regional final a few weeks ago were claims. Here's the first:

.......♠7
.......♦KJ
♠5
♣95
.......♦Q7
.......♣Q

South is declarer, on lead in a club contract. She claims, saying: "Drawing the last trump, and two diamonds".

East's cards are immaterial (no spades, no clubs and no ace of diamonds).
,
How many of the tricks are you giving EW?

What is the problem? The ♠7 is discarded on the ♣Q by declarer's own statement.

[blackshoe]

Two tricks to the defense. It's not the TD's job to screw the claimer (see other thread) — but it's not his job to screw the opponents either. :-)

[campboy]

Two, unless declarer claimed the beer

[barmar]

campboy, on 2014-April-01, 08:49, said:

Two, unless declarer claimed the beer

Shouldn't there be a penalty for misclaiming the beer? Maybe declarer gets the tricks, but HE has to buy a beer for everyone else at the table, and the TD who has to deal with the misclaim.

[Cyberyeti]

I can see the appeals committee now. "Our partnership is widely known for playing with the beer card, it should simply have been assumed I was discarding K♦".

[RMB1]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-01, 09:44, said:

I can see the appeals committee now. "Our partnership is widely known for playing with the beer card, it should simply have been assumed I was discarding K♦".

If East had ♦9x, the AC might give him a trick but fine him beers for the other 3 players, the TD and the AC.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2014-April-01, 09:54, said:

If East had ♦9x, the AC might give him a trick but fine him beers for the other 3 players, the TD and the AC.

I would also fine VixTD a beer for not putting this in Simple Rulings, and blackshoe a beer for not moving it!

[billw55]

I suppose we could consider a ruling of ave+ beer / ave- beer. Perhaps Bass for director, and maybe Leinenkugel for declarer?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-April-01, 10:23, said:

I would also fine VixTD a beer for not putting this in Simple Rulings, and blackshoe a beer for not moving it!

I wanted to wait and see if there was any controversy. I didn't expect any, but last time I felt that way, somebody noticed something I missed.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2014-April-01, 09:12, said:

Shouldn't there be a penalty for misclaiming the beer? Maybe declarer gets the tricks, but HE has to buy a beer for everyone else at the table, and the TD who has to deal with the misclaim.

Indeed a quick declarer on realising the misclaim would quickly say, I was going to claim a beer now I have to shout thereby saving himself one trick.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2014-April-01, 10:23, said:

I would also fine VixTD a beer for not putting this in Simple Rulings, and blackshoe a beer for not moving it!

The "simple rulings" forum is not for rulings that people find easy, but for those that don't involve application of bridge judgement. Don't insult Blackshoe by implying he doesn't know this. Of course he knows better than to try to move it.

South (of course) claimed that to discard the spade made no sense as he knew it was a winner and he could safely keep winners in both suits.

Of course we rule against him and give the defence two tricks. Let's move on.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2014-April-02, 05:47, said:

The "simple rulings" forum is not for rulings that people find easy, but for those that don't involve application of bridge judgement. Don't insult Blackshoe by implying he doesn't know this. Of course he knows better than to try to move it.

Then why are the two headings not "judgemental rulings" and "non-judgemental rulings"? Then blackshoe will not make the mistake of moving it as he has now done. I think the 26-0-0-0 poll score indicates that this was as "simple" as it gets. Let's move on.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2014-April-02, 06:25, said:

Then why are the two headings not "judgemental rulings" and "non-judgemental rulings"? Then blackshoe will not make the mistake of moving it as he has now done. I think the 26-0-0-0 poll score indicates that this was as "simple" as it gets. Let's move on.

Don't ask me, I don't make the forum rules. I was just doing my best to follow them:

Quote

This particular forum is for book ruling-type queries...

which I understand to mean simple application of law, i.e. problems of determining which law fits which situation.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2014-April-02, 07:37, said:

which I understand to mean simple application of law, i.e. problems of determining which law fits which situation.

A claim in a 3-card ending with an overlooked trump is about as simple an application of law as it gets.

[blackshoe]

There is no problem with putting this in either forum — this is a judgment ruling, true, but the judgment is so clear cut that I think it could well belong here - which is why I moved it. But Vix was correct, given that this forum is "for book rulings", to put it in the other.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-02, 12:26, said:

There is no problem with putting this in either forum — this is a judgment ruling, true, but the judgment is so clear cut that I think it could well belong here - which is why I moved it. But Vix was correct, given that this forum is "for book rulings", to put it in the other.

This is not a judgement ruling?

Declarer stated that he will hold on to his two Diamonds for the last two tricks. How can he do that without discarding Dummy's spade on his trump?

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2014-April-01, 09:54, said:

If East had ♦9x, the AC might give him a trick but fine him beers for the other 3 players, the TD and the AC.

How about Appeal Without Merit pints?

[VixTD]

pran, on 2014-April-02, 15:13, said:

Declarer stated that he will hold on to his two Diamonds for the last two tricks. How can he do that without discarding Dummy's spade on his trump?

It's possible there were either one or no diamonds in the East hand (so his holding was more relevant than I had first intimated) so declarer could have discarded ♦K and made the last two tricks with ♦Q7. He tried to argue that discarding the spade would be irrational. I don't think it makes any difference to the ruling.

[mycroft]

So, if East is "irrelevant" (no ♦A, per the OP), then two tricks to defence - the long trump and the spade.
If East is irrelevant (no ♦8 or higher), it's an interesting question. If I claim, I'll say "pull the last trump, two diamonds in my hand" - which makes it clear the ♦K is pitched on the trump - or "pull the last trump, pitching the ♦K", then I save a trick. If it's obvious from play that the diamonds are *all* good and so is the spade, I might be subject to the argument that "I'm not pitching a winner (even if I'm not going to take it) when I don't have to". But I'd still probably say the spade gets pitched because claim says it's irrelevant.