[bluejak]

The reason I put this case to you is this. When we discuss claims we start with the claim statement, and it is often presumed that we follow the claim statement as far as possible. But note that the Law does not say that.

Consider a hand where declarer has a few high trumps, a couple of winners and a loser. In dummy he has ♥AK and he claims saying "I shall take the heart winners them my hand is high". Unfortunately he has forgotten a trump. The TD realises that the second round of hearts will get ruffed. If it is ruffed by LHO then a trick is given to the defence, but if by RHO it is assumed declarer will over-ruff and then, luckily for him, his hand is good.

The point is that while the claim statement is a guide, we do not automatically follow it. We apply Laws 70A to 70E, which, while mentioning the statement certainly do not say it is always followed.

In this case I think it is clear that declarer had failed to notice the effect of the heart blockage when he claimed. If he had played the hand out, and a heart had been returned, then I think there is little doubt he would have reconsidered, not necessarily deciding to play it as he originally planned, and nothing in Law 70 says he has to.

So after a heart return he basically has two choices. He can cash the clubs from the top, resulting in anything between making and several down. He can play a club to the king, playing for a safe guaranteed one off.

Now, the difference between pairs and teams becomes interesting. Surely, in game at teams, you go for the contract, so we rule on the basis he leads the clubs from the top.

However, at pairs, playing for a safe one down has certainly got some appeal. So would he play from the top at pairs, or play a club to the king? In effect he has to make a decision based on what the defensive hands are - and surely that is where Law 70E1 comes in. So at pairs, if the clubs run, we give the defence one trick: if they do not run we give the defence one or more tricks, dependent on the actual distribution.

What do you think of that as a ruling?

[mfa1010]

Agree fully with your approach.

My initial thought was to rule him to cash out for -1 also at imps (when the ♣J would have dropped). Cashing out for -1 may be a bad risk/reward judgement, but "normal" play does include something that is quite bad. But maybe that is too harsh. At mps it does seem like the right ruling, though.