August 2019 - 36

Ruling the Game
rulings@acbl.org
MODERATOR: MATT SMITH | NATIONAL TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR

At a recent regional
pairs event, my partner
and I were defending a 4♠
contract when declarer, who was
on lead, claimed all the remaining
tricks with six tricks remaining. My
partner rejected the claim and we
called the director.
The position was as follows:

♠-
♥J
♦ K Q 10 9 3
♣-

♠9
♥K
♦862
♣ 10

♠-
♥-
♦J75
♣AJ9

♠76
♥-
♦A4
♣K6

Declarer stated that his spades
were good (they were not, as North
had a high spade), and that he would
pitch his two losing clubs on the
diamonds, which of course can only
be done if diamonds are 3-3. Now, I
understand that normally declarer is
not permitted to play trumps following a claim unless there is no choice.
The director ruled that declarer
would have no need to touch spades
and must play diamonds. When diamonds broke 3-3, declarer made the
contract.
We asked the director why we
couldn't ask declarer to play a spade.
Had declarer been forced to play
a spade, we would have won three
tricks and declarer would be down
two. The director ruled that there

36 Bridge Bulletin August 2019

was no reason for declarer to play
his trumps if he believed that they
were good. He did not wish to hear
my argument that a good declarer
would indeed want to play his remaining trumps setting up a potential squeeze should either opponent
hold the ♣A and four diamonds to
the jack. In such a situation, that opponent would be forced to part with
either his fourth diamond (setting
up dummy's diamonds) or pitch his
♣A, setting up declarer's ♣K.
My partner and I felt that we were
wronged with this ruling. Declarer
was able to choose an "inferior" line
of play that benefitted him in this
situation. Did the director make
the correct ruling? If so, would the
ruling apply at all levels of play or
would it depend on the flight category? (Ours was a "mid-flight" event
with flight cutoffs of 2000 and 4000
masterpoints.)

First of all, it is always a
good habit for the director to
learn the bidding and complete play before making a contested
claim ruling. Sometimes doing so will
provide important facts and clues to
guide how the ruling should proceed.
However, that does not seem likely to
have been important in this case.
At the Spring 2019 NABC, the ACBL
Laws Commission updated some
guidelines for dealing with claims
where there is a trump outstanding.
One in particular applies here:
"It is not considered a normal play
for declarer to take a safety check with
a 'high' trump, nor to play trump to put

pressure on a defender."
When ruling on claims, we follow
the declarer's (claimer's) stated line
of play until it breaks down. Declarer
stated that his trumps are good, but not
that he was going to play them first. He
stated that he would play his diamonds
discarding clubs. The fact that this
line fails if diamonds don't break 3-3
(or if the jack doesn't fall earlier from
the hand without the trump) does
not mean we reject that stated line of
play. We follow it until it falls apart.
We don't go back to the beginning just
because it might fall apart later.
The law doesn't allow defenders to
"ask" that declarer follow a line of play.
They can suggest to the director how
play might go if declarer doesn't state
a line, or if that line does, in fact, break
down. Why should the director reject
declarer playing a spade in your case?
Because that is contrary to his stated
line of play.
Might a good declarer play for the
squeeze rather than the 3-3 break? Indeed, other declarers who did not claim
might have. But this declarer apparently did not have any intention of doing
that or he would have done so before he
claimed. The guideline quoted above
recognizes that point.
So this ruling is fine, and I would
say so regardless of the level of players
involved. Declarers are supposed to
choose a line of play and state it when
they claim. That it is theoretically
inferior does not mean we reject it. We
don't impose a better one. If the stated
line works, fine. If it falls apart in midstream, we deal with it from that point
forward.
◾

August 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of August 2019