[One Short]

---

As time was pressing, declarer, having drawn trumps and a long way out, claimed the small slam in Clubs. He says that he plays A♦ and also says that if the K♦ falls then there is an overtrick. On a "normal" distribution it is unlikely that the K♦ does drop but in this instance it obviously does. There is no doubt that if the hand had been played out the overtrick would have been made.
However, opposition say mistakenly that the K♦ does not fall and declarer accepts their word with the score entered without the overtrick.
At the end of the session, the hand records are examined whereupon the mistake is noticed and the opposition now agree that the K♦ does fall to be ruffed thereby making the Q♦ good. The director has not yet closed the scoring as other adjustments are being made.
The question is whether the score can now be adjusted to reflect the overtrick.

[Rossoneri]

I may be wrong, but until the correction period is over, the score should be adjusted to reflect the correct claim.

[barmar]

69B says that declarer can withdraw his concession of the diamond trick within the correction period. And 71.2 says that the TD can cancel the concession of a trick that wouldn't be lost by any normal play.

79C says the correction ceriod expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection, unless the tournament organizer has specified a later time. Since the TD hasn't even finished scoring, we're clearly within the correction period.

[ggwhiz]

I would certainly think so.

At NABC's I believe the correction period is at least a few hours after the event if not until the next morning and the opponents agreeing to the facts make it a slam dunk.

[Phil]

What was the opening lead? If it is a spade or a trump, a normal line is to draw trump, cross to a heart and take a diamond finesse. Once trump are 3 1, this is far superior that trying to ruff out the KD.

On a heart lead, I would understand this claim.

I´d like to be at the table, but I´d be surprised if this is what declarer´s claim statement really was. Once declarer sees the hand records, its easy to see that ruffing out the diamond is the only line that makes 7.

[Echognome]

I don't understand the relevance of the question Phil. Declarer stated a clear line. If the ♦K falls then he claims an overtrick. It may have confused the opponents initially (that it needs to be Kx or K rather than just K singleton), but they agreed to it afterwards. Seems pretty straightforward to adjust.

[gnasher]

Declarermay have meant either:
(1) I cash the ace of diamonds. If the king falls under the ace I make an overtrick; otherwise I concede a diamond and ruff a diamond in dummy.
(2) I cash the ace of diamonds and the top spades, then ruff a diamond. If the king falls I make an overtrick.

The wording of the claim suggests to me that he hadn't seen the possibility of (2). Why did he say that he "plays A♦" if he really meant that he'd play the A♦ and the spade winners?

[shyams]

gnasher, on 2011-September-01, 02:11, said:

Declarermay have meant either:
(1) I cash the ace of diamonds. If the king falls under the ace I make an overtrick; otherwise I concede a diamond and ruff a diamond in dummy.
(2) I cash the ace of diamonds and the top spades, then ruff a diamond. If the king falls I make an overtrick.

The wording of the claim suggests to me that he hadn't seen the possibility of (2). Why did he say that he "plays A♦" if he really meant that he'd play the A♦ and the spade winners?

I agree with this. I realise the actual claim statement could be clearer as required by Law 68C.

However, I think a strong advanced or expert could be construed to have meant (2) -- it is far too obvious. Views?

[pran]

shyams, on 2011-September-01, 02:57, said:

gnasher, on 2011-September-01, 02:11, said:

Declarermay have meant either:
(1) I cash the ace of diamonds. If the king falls under the ace I make an overtrick; otherwise I concede a diamond and ruff a diamond in dummy.
(2) I cash the ace of diamonds and the top spades, then ruff a diamond. If the king falls I make an overtrick.

The wording of the claim suggests to me that he hadn't seen the possibility of (2). Why did he say that he "plays A♦" if he really meant that he'd play the A♦ and the spade winners?

I agree with this. I realise the actual claim statement could be clearer as required by Law 68C.

However, I think a strong advanced or expert could be construed to have meant (2) -- it is far too obvious. Views?

So long as I just tried the claim statement alone I couldn't figure out how the ♦K could fall. Only when I returned to the diagram and ignored the claim statement I saw the variant of cashing four spades before playing Diamonds.

I would not have awarded the twelfth trick.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-September-01, 04:05, said:

I would not have awarded the twelfth trick.

If he just put the hand down without stating a line of play and the opposition called the director, that may be true. But they have conceded 12, presumably on the basis that ruffing a diamond at some point is utterly obvious, so you will have difficulty insisting that they withdraw the concession. Perhaps you meant the 13th.

It seems to me that Declarer has conceded the 13th. I think it is not possible to unconceded it under L71.2 (any normal play). His only chance is to unconceded it under L71.1 (trick in fact won). It is a trick in fact won if the claim was perfectly valid and the defender's (presumably unintended) false information misled him temporarily to think otherwise. I think we can only rule this way if declarer made it abundantly clear to the opponent he enquired of that he meant "falls in 2 rounds". But that is far from clear from OP's description. In fact OP's wording looks distinctly like meaning "falls in 1 round".

[lamford]

pran, on 2011-September-01, 04:05, said:

I would not have awarded the twelfth trick.

Neither would Mr Burn or Scrooge. Both would force declarer to draw a fourth round of trumps and then play the ace and queen of diamonds.

I would force declarer to play ace and another diamond after drawing trumps, about the worst line that is careless. So I would not award the thirteenth trick.

[blackshoe]

If I were the declarer, Paul, the only way you would force me to do anything is to put a gun to my head.

"Having drawn trumps and a long way out". I know what the first part of that means, I have no idea what the second part means. What is the position at the time of the claim? What was the opening lead?

"it is unlikely that the ♦K does drop, but in this instance it obviously does". It's not obvious. There is only one line where it does drop, and while that line may be obvious to an expert, or even to me once it's pointed out, that does not mean other lines are not "normal". I would not rule he would take the finesse, as his line of play statement precludes that, but it is not clear that he would not carelessly pitch a heart on the fourth spade. "No overtrick (Law 69, Law 71). You have the right to appeal (Law 83)". That's based on the facts as presented. If it turns out the facts are somewhat different (e.g., the claim statement was a bit more clear, or the position at the time of claim made the line "obvious" — say he'd already both drawn trumps and played the spades, pitching a diamond) my ruling would likely be different.

[barmar]

I think "a long way out" means early in the play, i.e. a long way to go to finish the hand. And they said that they were running behind on time, which explains (but doesn't necessarily excuse) both the early claim and the rushed statement of it.

I'd want to know declarer's expertise to decide whether to assume he's likely to pitch dummy's diamond on spades before ruffing the diamond. However, it seems like the opponents feel that he's good enough to find that line when they withdrew their claim to a diamond trick.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-01, 06:07, said:

Perhaps you meant the 13th.

Sorry. Of course I meant the thirteenth trick. (That's the trick it is all about)

[Echognome]

We are obviously not given the claim verbatim. Although I understand the possible interpretations of the claim statement as presented by the OP, the opponents, who were there, agreed that the ♦K does indeed fall. I fail to see why a TD should not accept the now agreed number of tricks.

Isn't the OP's question whether the score can be corrected, not whether the opponents were right or wrong in agreeing that the trick would be won or lost?

I personally think many posters cannot see the forest for the trees.

[barmar]

Yes, it seemed that the OP's question was about the timing of the correction. But the Laws that cover withdrawing correcting a claim or concession say that you can only do so if the tricks wouldn't be lost through normal play.

[gnasher]

Echognome, on 2011-September-01, 23:55, said:

Isn't the OP's question whether the score can be corrected, not whether the opponents were right or wrong in agreeing that the trick would be won or lost?

Hasn't it already been answered, by Barmar's first post?

[barmar]

In fact, when I was first answering, I was tempted to suggest that this was a "WTP" type question, and perhaps belonged in Simple Rulings.

[Echognome]

gnasher, on 2011-September-02, 02:49, said:

Hasn't it already been answered, by Barmar's first post?

I agree. My question is then what are the rest of the posts about?

It seems as though the opponents agreed that the claimer's statement was indeed correct. What more is there to it?

[lamford]

Echognome, on 2011-September-02, 16:57, said:

I agree. My question is then what are the rest of the posts about?

It seems as though the opponents agreed that the claimer's statement was indeed correct. What more is there to it?

They did not agree before a call was made on the next board, and under 69B2 it now becomes a "director's decision", not theirs, and the director only awards a trick to the declarer if it is likely that he would have won it had play continued. So, the director does need to make this judgement.