Key to Abbreviations
MI: misinformation
UI: unauthorised information
TD: tournament director
LA: logical alternative
Other bridgetalk forums
Polling Booth
The Bridge Table
Bridge Issues
Ask an Expert
Information
Click here for Code Guide
Click here for Emoticon Key
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF
bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: Claim, Suit Didn't Run

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message.
Please specify your country in your query where indicated.
Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations.

Welcome, Register :: Log in 

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ][ Print ][ Send ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

Shuffler

7 posts
bridgetalk member
Reply
Claim, Suit Didn't Run ( 02:47:18 SatNov 2 2002 )
Contract 6S by W

dummy: Q1064 A752 none AQJ87
declarer: AK983 K6 Q864 K6

North led A, trumped in dummy. AK pulled opponents trumps, 2/2. Declarer claimed with the following statement:
The rest are mine. I have AK, K then over to dummy's clubs pitching three diamonds on the clubs.

RHO has 96532. Because of the statement, "pitching the three diamonds on dummy's clubs," must declarer pitch the last diamond on RHO's 9 instead of ruffing? The last diamond could then be ruffed in dummy to score 6S+1.

Thank you so much for your help.
Shuffler

  
bluejak

428 posts
Forum Host
Reply
Re: Claim, Suit Didn't Run ( 15:24:21 SunNov 3 2002 )
People will argue about these type of claims for ever! :sad:

Fortunately, this one is easy. When the last club is led from dummy, declarer would see it is a loser because RHO covers it and it would be irratioonal not to overruff. The he would find he could ruff his last diamond in the dummy. So the claim is allowed. :smile:

More interesting, and more contentious, would be if LHO had the five clubs. Now the question is whether declarer would automatically realise the last club in dummy is not good. Some people would argue either way, but in my view anyone who is casual enough to assume Kx opposite AQJ8x is running is also casual enough not necessarily to realise that it is not. So if LHO had the fifth club I would not allow the claim. :ohwell:



---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm
 		 

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ][ Print ][ Send ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

 Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

 Register :: Log in

The time is now 00:44:20 Wed Aug 27 2003

Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
top up
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF

Legend :: Read Topic :: Unread Topic

Email Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status