[lamford]

The hand does not matter, and this DID occur at the North London Club on Tuesday. Declarer claimed at trick 7 when he had 5 cards remaining and everyone else had 6. Declarer, significantly stronger than RR, had bid and played the hand with only 12 cards! The claim was accepted and, as the players were about to move for the next round, one of the moving players about to sit at the table said "there's a card on the floor". I was called, and established that there had been no revoke. If the card had been present in the hand, it would have been possible for the declarer to win the remaining tricks if the opponent now did not lead the suit of the card on the floor, although they would clearly lead it if the card had been picked up before the claim! I ruled no adjustment, as the claim had been accepted, but I wonder if I was right?

[pescetom]

If I understand correctly:
- at the time the claim was made and accepted neither Declarer nor the defenders had noticed that Declarer was a card short
- had Declarer correctly counted and held his cards so as to have six cards at trick 7 he would no longer have claimed all the tricks
- had he nevertheless made such a claim it would have been rejected because opponents would recognise that they had a trick.
If so then I doubt you were right.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-October-31, 07:30, said:

If I understand correctly:
- at the time the claim was made and accepted neither Declarer nor the defenders had noticed that Declarer was a card short
- had Declarer correctly counted and held his cards so as to have six cards at trick 7 he would no longer have claimed all the tricks
- had he nevertheless made such a claim it would have been rejected because opponents would recognise that they had a trick.
If so then I doubt you were right.

Pretty much. Had the card on the floor been in his hand, he would have discarded it on one of dummy's winners earlier, however. I don't think it is at all relevant what would have happened had he not dropped the card on the floor. It was found after the hands had been returned to the slots. The relevant law is:
B. Withdrawal of Established Agreement
Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under
Law 79C:
1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.

Had play continued, the defence might have played any card, as they had not noticed declarer was a card short, and they thought all leads were hopeless. If the declarer had found the card earlier he would indeed not have claimed (but would have discarded the "floor-card" on one of dummy's winners).

The card and the floor and the claim should not, I believe, be concatenated. How would you have ruled, then?

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-October-31, 09:23, said:

Pretty much. Had the card on the floor been in his hand, he would have discarded it on one of dummy's winners earlier, however. I don't think it is at all relevant what would have happened had he not dropped the card on the floor. It was found after the hands had been returned to the slots. The relevant law is:
B. Withdrawal of Established Agreement
Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under
Law 79C:
1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.

Had play continued, the defence might have played any card, as they had noticed declarer was a card short, and they thought all leads were hopeless. If the declarer had found the card earlier he would indeed not have claimed (but would have discarded the "floor-card" on one of dummy's winners).

The card and the floor and the claim should not, I believe, be concatenated. How would you have ruled, then?

This is a more difficult one and I'm no expert, so happy to hear what Gordon or Sven have to say. But as you ask, I think I would rule that the claimed score stands, although not with your same logic.

It looks to me as if the Agreement was NOT established, as the claim was contested at the end of the last board and before moving for the next round:
A. Establishment of Agreement
Agreement is established when a side assents to an opponent’s claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before making a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play.

Not that this makes much difference, as we still have to apply Law 70 which does not discuss this specific case but does say:
A. General Objective
In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.
I do not see this as forbidding me to take into account what would have happened had the card been correctly in his hand, so long as I am equitable and respect the spirit of the rest of the law which addresses more common cases. So if he could indeed have discarded the missing card and no damage to the other side was evident I would score the hand as if he had taken all six remaining tricks.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-October-31, 10:58, said:

I do not see this as forbidding me to take into account what would have happened had the card been correctly in his hand, so long as I am equitable and respect the spirit of the rest of the law which addresses more common cases. So if he could indeed have discarded the missing card and no damage to the other side was evident I would score the hand as if he had taken all six remaining tricks.

I did so rule. The Laws are silent on claims with a card on the floor, and I tend to think that restoring equity is the right approach. He thus made the same number of tricks he would have made if he had always had the card. And the non-claimers did not "raise an objection". They moved on to the next table and left me to sort it out! And the claim was NOT contested.

[weejonnie]

I am going to allow the defence the extra trick.

Declarer (with only 5 cards in his hand) has only made a claim for five tricks! he is welcome to have them. If there is any doubt as to this then again I rule against the declarer.

Declarer is unaware that he is missing a card - so there seems no reason why he can't play the cards and end up in his hand at the 'end of the hand' i.e. after 5 tricks (when he finds he then has to lead the missing card!)

If we aren't careful players may accidentally drop a losing card on the floor and then claim the rest of the tricks pointing out they have no losers. If the missing card IS found then they are no worse off!

I am trying very hard to get law 72C into play with this event. the question is: can we find declarer has committed an irregularity by claiming with a missing card?

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2019-October-31, 17:38, said:

I am going to allow the defence the extra trick.

Declarer (with only 5 cards in his hand) has only made a claim for five tricks! he is welcome to have them. If there is any doubt as to this then again I rule against the declarer.

Declarer is unaware that he is missing a card - so there seems no reason why he can't play the cards and end up in his hand at the 'end of the hand' i.e. after 5 tricks (when he finds he then has to lead the missing card!)

If we aren't careful players may accidentally drop a losing card on the floor and then claim the rest of the tricks pointing out they have no losers. If the missing card IS found then they are no worse off!

I am trying very hard to get law 72C into play with this event. the question is: can we find declarer has committed an irregularity by claiming with a missing card?

Declarer did not claim 5 tricks. He claimed "the remainder", as most people normally do. And that claim was accepted and the score entered as 4S+2. It is now on our website as the following board:
https://www.bridgewe...&club=woodberry
It was one of Pavlicek's instant matchpoint events. From 1999. It appears that NS only reached 4S, and the 5D was on the floor. I cannot tell of course when it was dropped, or if it fell out when the board was passed. The opening lead was a club. Declarer won, drew trumps, and crossed to the ace of hearts and discarded a heart on the king of clubs and then took the heart finesse, and claimed the remainder after it lost. It would seem to be a 7-card ending, where South had six cards, although of course he might have drawn an extra round of trumps. I don't think 4S+1 is adjudicating the claim as equitably as possible. If he found the missing card just after the claim then the the defence would obviously cash the ace of diamonds. If he found it earlier, he would discard it on the king of clubs. The table score was 87% to EW, although that is not so relevant of course. I don't think the Laws adequately cover a claim with a card on the floor, and perhaps I should not have put this in simple rulings!

[blackshoe]

Hm.

Quote

Law 14B: When one or more hands are found to contain fewer than 13 cards, with no hand having more than 13, at any time after the opening lead is faced (until the end of the Correction Period), the Director makes a search for any missing card, and:
1. if the card is found among the played cards, Law 67 applies.
2. if the card is found elsewhere, it is restored to the deficient hand. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see B4 following).
3. if the card cannot be found, the deal is reconstructed using another pack. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see B4 following).
4. a card restored to a hand under the provisions of Section B of this Law is deemed to have belonged continuously to the deficient hand. It may become a penalty card, and failure to have played it may constitute a revoke.

1 does not apply, nor 3. So...

At the time the claim was made, where was the lead? What was the claimer's line of play statement (okay, silly question, but maybe somebody actually made one for once).

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-31, 18:30, said:

At the time the claim was made, where was the lead? What was the claimer's line of play statement (okay, silly question, but maybe somebody actually made one for once).

The claim was silent, as many claims are when there are just trumps and winners (seemingly) left. The lead was with the defender that won the queen of hearts. There was no revoke; I established that. The opponents did not "contest the claim" before starting the next board on the next table, nor at all. I did establish that declarer had bid and played the hand with only 12 cards!

[blackshoe]

I think that agreement to the claim was established (Law 69A). So you score the board as for a valid claim. If, before the correction period expires, either defender raises an objection to the claim, I think you have to decide whether the defense would likely have won a trick. If so, you rescore the board (Law 69B). I don't think the director should "stir the pot" by telling the defenders that the card that was on the floor was such that they could have got another trick. If the correction period has expired, then they're out of luck in any case.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-31, 20:53, said:

I think that agreement to the claim was established (Law 69A). So you score the board as for a valid claim. If, before the correction period expires, either defender raises an objection to the claim, I think you have to decide whether the defense would likely have won a trick. If so, you rescore the board (Law 69B). I don't think the director should "stir the pot" by telling the defenders that the card that was on the floor was such that they could have got another trick. If the correction period has expired, then they're out of luck in any case.

Pretty much exactly as I did.

[axman]

lamford, on 2019-October-31, 07:12, said:

The hand does not matter, and this DID occur at the North London Club on Tuesday. Declarer claimed at trick 7 when he had 5 cards remaining and everyone else had 6.

Last time I checked, at T7 most players start with 7 cards????

[barmar]

axman, on 2019-November-01, 13:54, said:

Last time I checked, at T7 most players start with 7 cards????

I guess he meant when T7 was being quitted.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2019-November-02, 11:02, said:

I guess he meant when T7 was being quitted.

Indeed, I would have written "before trick seven" if I had meant that. "At trick seven" was intended to convey that players had contributed their cards to trick seven but not quitted them, but clearly one person did not understand that, or he might belong to the larger sub-class of players that cannot add up to 13.

[barmar]

Not that it really matters, as the specificity was not really important. At some point declarer claimed the remainder of the tricks, the claim was accepted, but it turned out he had 1 fewer cards than everyone else, and this wasn't discovered until they were moving for the next round.