Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-03, 04:07, said:
You ask him the question, it's the first one you ask.
No you don't. You follow the procedure outlined in the Laws (from 70B):
1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.
2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).
3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.
In this case, we have the clarification statement repeated. The objection of SB is given, and the cards are face up. The TD does not ask South how many trumps he thought were out, or how he proposed to ruff a diamond if four rounds were drawn, or any other rubbish. He just follows the clarification statement and when it breaks down he selects the least favourable "normal" line. He takes into account SB's objection, but also any other potential objection to the claim which he observes.
The interesting aspect of this claim is that South can actually make the contract by drawing four rounds of trumps. East gets squeezed out of his third heart, and then declarer plays the ace of hearts and ruffs a heart to isolate the heart menace for the double squeeze. So, it can hardly be said that declarer's line, successful with good card-reading, was worse than careless. Now we cannot give him this double squeeze of course!
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar