Join Bridge Winners
Bad Claim Case from San Francisco


Page 7, Appeals Case 1


I'm sorry if there is a better way to show the hand.

The ruling, while it went 'against' the player who made the bad claim, was incorrect.  None of the Directors, Panel or those polled seems to have realized that declarer, who was having the aberration that the contract was 6, might very well stop playing diamonds after pitching two hearts and a club.  He might well cash club Q and 'ruff' a heart.  So the correct ruling is down 4 - losing 4 heart tricks.  It might be deemed that East 'likely would' have discarded a heart on the fourth diamond - then it's only down 3.  But it's never down only two.

When ruling on 'aberration claims', it should always be assumed that the aberration will continue.

The panel was also wrong, in my opinion, to rule that this not an Appeal without Merit.  

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top