[mink]

Discarding the ♦K is a no-brainer for any decent player provided that he is aware that of King still being present in his hand. The claim statement suggests he is not aware of that. The reason might be that he had planned the discard of the K long ago and being mentally ahead thinks it has been already done. And as the dummy is high there is no need to really look in the hand and realize the K is still there. Even if he does look, maybe the King is hidden behind some other card.

So not allowing the claim does not mean that the TD thinks that declarer is a bad bridge player, but on the contrary the TD assumes declarer is a good player who would certainly state the unblocking if he was aware of the King.

Karl

[barmar]

mink, on 2015-November-18, 11:28, said:

So not allowing the claim does not mean that the TD thinks that declarer is a bad bridge player, but on the contrary the TD assumes declarer is a good player who would certainly state the unblocking if he was aware of the King.

Indeed -- not noticing that the ♦K is still there and blocking the suit is the kind of thing that falls under "careless", not "irrational".

These types of errors are more likely when the relevant card was in a defender's hand, not visible to everyone in dummy, but players do have mental lapses like this.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2015-November-14, 04:01, said:

I don't think anyone who has failed to mention a blockage can be assumed to notice it in time and recover from it. The failure to mention it is evidence of a mental block in noticing it.

pran, on 2015-November-17, 09:27, said:

So long as we allow claims such situations are bound to come up, and we need laws to specify what to accept and what not to accept from the claimer. IMHO the only way it is possible to change the laws for the better (???) is to ban all claims, a change that obviously is out of question.The statement "dummy is high" is itself no guarantee that the claimer observes the need to discard his ♦K in time. However the situation here is so transparent that I would normally accept the claim.

blackshoe, on 2015-November-17, 14:13, said:

The is nothing woolly about the requirement to state a line of play. Things become woolly when players ignore their obligations under the law.

Current law is woolly in its attempts to cater for claims that aren't comprehensive e.g. the OP case. Even in the simplest cases, different directors interpret it differently e.g. gordontd and pran. Current law also discourages claims when the claimer is a foreigner or finds it hard to express himself succinctly. IMO much simpler and better would be the protocol often used at Rubber bridge and on-line

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-November-19, 18:52, said:

IMO much simpler and better would be the protocol often used at Rubber bridge and on-line

The problem with this is that the simple act of objecting to the claim alerts declarer to the problem, and he's likely to work it out when playing out the hand. The defenders do get the benefit of playing double dummy, but that may not be enough to save them.

The rubber bridge protocol exists out of necessity -- there's generally no director available to adjudicate.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2015-November-19, 18:52, said:

Current law is woolly in its attempts to cater for claims that aren't comprehensive e.g. the OP case. Even in the simplest cases, different directors interpret it differently e.g. gordontd and pran. Current law also discourages claims when the claimer is a foreigner or finds it hard to express himself succinctly. IMO much simpler and better would be the protocol often used at Rubber bridge and on-line

In several places the Law attempts to "cater" for players who frequently break the law. That's not woolly.

barmar, on 2015-November-20, 10:37, said:

The rubber bridge protocol exists out of necessity -- there's generally no director available to adjudicate.

IIRC, when there is an arbiter (equivalent of the director) available at rubber bridge, the protocol is the same as at duplicate.