I was kibbing in a Swiss team game. Top A players sitting N/S. On one hand, N who is declarer faces and claims hand. Opponent tells declarer that declarer didn't follow suit on the last played trick which has been turned over by all players. Declarer says, "It doesn't matter, I have all the tricks!" The opponents allowed the claim to stand but I was wondering.... when declarer claims, isn't he essentially playing to the next trick and thus establishing a revoke? Or can he just correct the trick he didn't follow to?
Page 1 of 1
revoke established? not following suit then claiming
#2
Posted 2012-October-09, 14:51
Law 63 A 3. The claim establishes the revoke.
"I suggest a chapter on "strongest dummy opposite my free bids." For example, someone might wonder how I once put this hand down as dummy in a spade contract: AQ10xxx void AKQxx KQ. Did I start with Michaels? Did I cuebid until partner was forced to pick one of my suits? No, I was just playing with Brian (6S made when the trump king dropped singleton)." David Wright
#3
Posted 2012-October-09, 15:05
Thanks! :-)) For the life of me.... couldn't find it but thought it was there.
#4
Posted 2012-October-09, 15:07
It does matter. The claim establishes the revoke, so there will usually be a transfer of one or two tricks to the defending side.
As a kibitzer, you did the right thing in saying nothing.
As a kibitzer, you did the right thing in saying nothing.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Page 1 of 1