Appeal No. 16
Belgium v England
Appeals Committee:
John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Richard Colker (Scribe, USA), Jens
Auken (Denmark), Jeffrey Polisner (USA)
Open Teams Round of 16
Board 30. Dealer East. Nobody Vulnerable.
3
K Q 10 9 8
A 5 4
K J 5 4
4 Q J 9 8 5
7 4 2 A 5
K Q J 8 7 6 3 2
A 9 7 6 3 Q 10
A K 10 7 6 2
J 6 3
10 9
8 2
West North East South
Engel Hallberg v.Middelem Simpson
2S (1) Pass
2NT 3H Pass 4H
All Pass
Comments:
(1) 5 spades and 4+ of a minor
Contract: Four hearts, played by North.
Lead: The CQ.
Result: 9 tricks, NS -50
TD's statement of Facts: North claimed at the following position :
3
Q 9
A 5
K J 5
4 Q J 9 8
- -
K Q 8 7 6 2
9 7 6 3 10
A K 10 7 6 2
-
9
2
North stated he would make the contract on a double squeeze, provided that
the information about the opening bid was accurate.
At the time of the claim, East/West requested North to play the hand out.
North now played and misplayed the final two cards. This table was open on
Vu-graph.
The Director:
Ruled that the claim was okay. According to Law 68D, all play subsequent to
a claim is voided and the Director adjudicates the claim based on the
claimer's statement.
Ruling:
Score adjusted to 4H making, NS +420 to both sides.
Relevant Laws: Laws 68D, 70A, 70B
East/West appealed.
Present: All players.
The Players:
East/West stated that declarer's statement did not contain enough detail for
them to understand how the squeeze would operate, so they asked him to play
it out. Had they known that by law they could not ask declarer to play the
board out, they would have called the Director to get declarer to make a
clarifying statement.
North/South said that declarer stated that if the information he had been
given about the opening bid were accurate (i.e., East had 5 spades and 4+ of
a minor) he would make the hand on a double squeeze.
Both pairs indicated that they were unaware of the requirement in the laws
that once a claim is made, play must cease. North agreed to play the hand
out but was somewhat upset that his claim had been contested (although this
was not personal against the East/West players). He cashed his two top
hearts and two top clubs and East was forced to come down to three spades
and a singleton diamond. He then crossed to dummy with a spade and cashed
the second top spade in the 3-card ending, squeezing West between the
minors. However, because he was unsettled about having to play out what he
considered an obvious claim situation he lost his mental focus and discarded
the wrong card from his hand, thus failing by one trick.
As North/South were leaving the playing area they saw a Director and
inquired about North being "forced" to play out the hand.
The Committee:
The Committee found that by law any play following a claim was void and the
Director (or a Committee) is to adjudicate the claim based only on the
claimer's statement. Had North been properly asked to elaborate on his
statement of "double squeeze" he would have explained that he would cash his
top hearts and clubs (as he did), forcing East to save three spades and
unguard diamonds. The two top spades would then force West to unguard one of
the minors, after which North would pitch the minor West kept. In effect,
this would have prevented North from having the opportunity to commit the
careless error he ultimately made. Since his error could not by law
prejudice the adjudication of the claim, this was essentially a book ruling
and the Committee had no reason to reverse it, nor indeed can they change
the law.
The Committee's decision:
Director's ruling upheld.
Score adjusted to 4H made four, NS +420, for both pairs.
Deposit: Returned.
Dissenting Opinion (Jeffrey Polisner): Since the law assumes careless play
in determining whether a claim without a stated line of play (which actually
occurred at the table in the part of the play which was cancelled) should be
allowed, I believe a player should not be awarded a score which he could not
actually achieve at the table. Players must be educated to state a complete
line of play at the time of their claim or be subject to assumptions of
careless play.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.twbbs.org)
◆ From: ms10.hinet.net