[lamford]

pran, on 2015-August-24, 09:37, said:

I haven't bothered to go further back than 1987 from which Law 70C ("There is an outstanding trump") is unchanged, and I cannot see how this law is applicable in the current situation.

Maybe you had in mind the current

which is also essentially unchanged ???

No, I recall a very old rule where declarer could be required to draw or not draw a trump he may have overlooked. A long time ago.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-August-24, 15:33, said:

No, I recall a very old rule where declarer could be required to draw or not draw a trump he may have overlooked. A long time ago.

Well, now I looked up the 1935 laws and found nothing like that.

But I do wonder if you remember a law that I believe may have been in force in Whist, Auction or Contract, something like: If a player claims tricks without an exhaustive claim statement and the claim is contested then he must face his cards and play them as directed by his opponents so long as such directions are not in conflict with the claim statement.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-August-24, 17:19, said:

Well, now I looked up the 1935 laws and found nothing like that.

But I do wonder if you remember a law that I believe may have been in force in Whist, Auction or Contract, something like: If a player claims tricks without an exhaustive claim statement and the claim is contested then he must face his cards and play them as directed by his opponents so long as such directions are not in conflict with the claim statement.

You could be right, and I think there may have been some Mollo hands like that; perhaps I recall some rules for Rubber Bridge. But as barmar states, it is wrong to decide that declarer could have overlooked a trump when there are four out, although I thought it could be argued that he had overlooked the fourth of the four trumps.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-August-24, 07:37, said:

The old Laws (and Pran can help here) had something about declarer being required to draw or not draw any outstanding trumps. That should be the benchmark applied.

Why should that be the benchmark? After all, the law was changed.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-25, 08:52, said:

Why should that be the benchmark? After all, the law was changed.

I am not sure it ever was the law, but the principle was that declarer could not benefit from miscounting trumps. I think that this was a poor decision by the TD, but it has been discussed enough.