Search MSO Worldwide

The Maastricht Appeals

Appeal No 16

Open Teams Round of 16
Belgium v England

Board 30.
Dealer East.
None vul.

			3
			K Q 10 9 8
			A 5 4
			K J 5 4
	4	N W E S			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
...	...	2(1)	Pass
2NT	3	Pass	4
All Pass	...	...	...
(1) 5 spades and 4+ of a minor

Lead: The Q.
Result: 9 tricks, N/S -50

The Facts: North claimed at the following position:

			3
			Q 9
			A 5
			K J 5
	4	N W E S			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 Vugraph.

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 4 making, N/S +420 to both sides.

East/West appealed.

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 three-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 4 made four, N/S +420, for both pairs.

Relevant Laws: Law 68D, Law 70A&B.

Deposit: Returned.