June 2012 - 38

Ruling the Game
Declarer won the trump exit
with the ace, cashed the trump
king, and then crossed to dummy
with the 6. After cashing one
more trump, this was the ending:
-
987
Q8
A

Mike Flader

Associate National
Tournament Director
rulings@acbl.org

What's your take on this
problem?

Dlr: East  9 7 2
Vul: E-W  Q J 9 8 7 5 4
Q8
A
 10 5
AKQJ3
N
 10 2
3
W E
 10 9 7
KJ53
S
 Q 10 7 5 3 2
K94
864
AK6
A642
J86
West

North

1(2) 4(3)
Pass Pass

East
1(1)
Pass
Dbl

South
Pass
4
All Pass

(1) Strong, artificial, forcing.
(2) 0-7 HCP.
(3) Transfer to hearts.
West led the 10 to East's ace.
East cashed two more high spades,
West discarding the 10 (upsidedown count and attitude) on the
third round of the suit.
38 Bridge Bulletin June 2012

-
N
-
W E
97
S
 Q 10 7 5
-
-
A64
J86

-
-
KJ5
K94

Declarer intended to keep running the trumps, but at that point,
East faced his hand, stating he
would hold the K J. South then
demanded that West discard three
clubs, making declarer's J good
at the end.
East-West objected, stating that
pitching the clubs merely to hold
the 9 7 was not rational.

If the director ruled that the
defense was entitled to one
trick, he ruled correctly. It
would be irrational for West
to discard three or four clubs.
There are, of course, layouts in
which a defender's choice of discards
is not so clear cut. In those situations,
the director must rule against the
claimer.
Law 70 (Contested Claim or Concession) covers this matter, and in
particular, 70D2 which says, "The
director shall not accept any part of a
defender's claim that depends on his
partner's selecting a particular play
from among alternative normal plays."

The key word is "normal," which the
footnote in the Laws explains as encompassing careless or inferior play
for the class of player involved. To
discard clubs in this ending, however,
and keep two low diamonds would
be worse than careless or inferior: It
would be suicidal, and West cannot be
compelled to defend in this manner
simply because his partner claimed.

I picked up the following hand at a local game
yesterday:

J 7 5 8 Q 10 9 8 7 6 4 3 2
At favorable vulnerability, my
left-hand opponent opened 1NT
(15-17 HCP) and my partner bid
2. RHO doubled.
We play DONT, so 2 should
show five or more clubs and a
higher suit. Well, I know my partner made a mistake: With his five
clubs and my nine clubs, this deck
would have at least 14 clubs.
I was at a loss as what to do, so
I tried 5. That is the bid I would
have made if I didn't know my
partner made a mistake.
What would have been the ethical position to take? Could I have
passed or am I required to believe
partner and raise clubs?

You are entitled to take
inferences from the auction
and the cards you hold, thus
you are aware that someone
doesn't have his bid (probably partner), and you came by this information in a manner which is authorized.
You may make whatever call you
choose. You are not limited by unauthorized information, because you
have none.
r

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2012