Claiming - Is this a fair claim?

[Dwingo]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sjt9864hj76dct832&w=sk53ht43dajt5cq76&e=sq2hak2d743caj954&s=sa7hq985dkq9862ck]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

Contract : 3NT by W

 

 

Trick 1: SJ S2 S7 S3

Trick 2: ST SQ SA S5

Trick 3: DK DA S4 D3

Trick 4: CQ C2 C4 CK

Trick 5: DQ D5 S6 D4

Trick 6: D2 DJ S8 D7

Trick 7: DT S9 H2 D6

Trick 8: SK H6 C5 D8

 

At the end of 8 tricks, West claimed all remaing tricks when the 5 card end position was:

 

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sjt9864hj76dct832&w=sk53ht43dajt5cq76&e=sq2hak2d743caj954&s=sa7hq985dkq9862ck]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

 

Though North was an Odds On favourite to hold the remaining clubs from the bidding and play so far, it was not a 100% certainity.

 

Now a claim is made without stating the line of play. Naturally this was rejected by the Opps. Now the declarer knows the exact location of C10 because of the claim rejection and finesses the C10 correctly.

 

Now the Director was called and position explained. The play carried on as the Director was not English speaking and it was difficult to explain this situation.

 

 

 

Trick 9: C6 C3 C9 H5

Trick 10: CA H8 C7 C8

Trick 11: HA

 

9 Tricks Claimed +400.

 

Now the questions :

 

1) Is this type of claim fair? ( Or is the online version of the Alcatraz Coup?)

2) Can the Director rule in favour of NS due to the UI available to EW based on claim rejection? ( Provided there was another logical play available )

[Rado]

Hi Dwingo and all

 

According to the laws when claiming whithout explaining any plan, declarer is supposed to play from top so at the given exmple TD must rule 4 tricks for declarer only and down 1. Finessing the 10 of !C after claim was reject will result in marking that tricky declarer as "enemy" If it happens when I'm playing.

 

P.S. of course the Laws do not let declare to play unreasonably or stupid for example:

A10xx against KQ9xx declarer plays the K and one of the opps shows off, now if he claims it's self evident that finesse of the Jxxx is normal line

 

Kind regards

Rado

[Cascade]

Of course even with A10xx against KQ9xx it hurts declarer none to state that he is taking the marked finesse.

 

This is the statement from the laws

 

L70E

"The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal20 line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational."

 

Finesses are certainly plays that depend on one player rather than another having a particular card.

 

My suggestion is that you should make a counter claim for your tricks when an erroneous claim is made. After all it is proper for play to cease once a claim has been made.

 

Wayne

[Free]

These kind of claims are really awful! They don't explain how they'll play, so they should lose the trick whenever a director is called. You can't even ask "how will you play", because you give the same information away like you don't accept the claim. It should be obligated to give the line of play imo.

 

If you claim and finesse the ♣10 after the claim is rejected, you're making use of unauthorized information, and you're playing unethical. Enemy!

[inquiry]

A claim on line that doesn't require a finessee etc, lke all trumps or just playing high cards and keeping low cards, can be made simple. But when a finesse, even if it is obvious, is required should be made in the claim.

 

For instance, you didn't give the auction nor the caliber of players. Let me give you a theoretical auction for this play....

P-1♣-1NT*-DBL

P-P-2♦-DBl

2♠-P-P-2NT

P-3NT-All pass

 

Where 1NT was raptor showing 5+♦ and a four card major. Now, on this line of play, WEST knows South distribution was 2-4-6-1, so a claim taking the "marked" finessee if fine. However, even in this case, a statement of taking ♣T hook should be required.

 

Ben

[luis]

Should be adjusted to down 1 automatically.

There's nothing to even think about it.

[badderzboy]

I think that making a simple statement of how you are going to play the hand is

(i) polite

(ii) prevents any unauthorised info to be recieved.

 

The easiest way to do this on BBO is to reject any claim with no info immediately unless blatently obvious and ask the opp politely how he intends to make the hand explaining it may be laydown but in the real world you have to explain how anyway and online is just a logical extension of live bridge just manners are more abused.

 

If the claim is incorrect then opp needs to reclaim with the adjusted number, playing the hand out is against the rules of the game is it not.

 

One issue is you cannot type in a long explanation in the initial claim but can always explain better in CHAT.

 

I as a rule of thumb add brief notes to any claim as a matter of courtesy even when obvious (like all masters or run H and last spade etc...)!

 

The hand above should be -1 as it was possible and likely opp would lose a trick and he gained unauthorised info by the rejection as he COULD interpret it as he needs to finesse.

 

Steve

[Free]

This also raises another question, it's a tricky one! Say you're in this end position (just slightly different from the one above):

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=shj75dc83&w=sht43dc76&e=shakdcaj9&s=shq98d9ct]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

And your opponent claims without explanation.

 

Now the south hand can make it really dirty and reject the claim (as far as I know he's allowed to because when there is a line of play which goes down the claim should be rejected). What happens next is that West might finesse ♣9 now, and still lose a trick he wasn't supposed to lose (plus a ♦)!

 

What will happen in this situation??? West made use of unauthorized information (which isn't correct), so he'd still lose the trick right?

 

(claiming without explanation is always a wrong claim imo, only gives troubles with director calls) B)

[TimC1982]

My general feeling in these situations is to reject all claims of this nature outright. If the opponent is unethical enough to finesse the 10C based on the rejection of the claim they lose more often than they win.

[helium]

I though it was a low that say: after a rejected claim all the card must be played from the top, decelarer have lost hes righ to take finness ect.

[Cascade]

I though it was a low that say: after a rejected claim all the card must be played from the top, decelarer have lost hes righ to take finness ect.

This is not strictly true.

 

Declarer can take finesses that are already proven or that will become proven in the subsequent play.

 

What the law says is that you may not make a play that requires one opponent rather than the other to hold a specific card.

 

For example, I think this means when the suit lies like this:

 

[hv=n=sakjx&w=sxxx&e=sqx&s=sxxxx]399|300|[/hv]

 

You would be forced to take the losing finesse;

 

and when it lies like this:

 

[hv=n=sakjx&w=sxxx&e=sqx&s=sxxxx]399|300|[/hv]

 

you are forced to play for the drop.

 

Of course all of this assumes that you did not make a statement in your claim.

 

If you made a statement then you are bound by the statement that you made.

[telecine]

Cascade is right on the last post. The claimer is not allowed to play one specific opponent for a given card without a (very) strong reason from the bidding and play, caliber of the player being taken into account. If the Q is dropping the claimer finesses, if the finesse is on the claimer plays for the drop; In a two-way finesse if the Q is in East the claimer plays through West, and vice-versa.

 

In the first case, without the bidding, and the level of players, dont be too hasty on saying "One trick to North"... One thing I´ve learned in a number of occasions, is that when somethjing is missing from the story, it is the most relevant part generally...

 

Rui Marques (Portugal)

[Trpltrbl]

Basically when you claim you have to state a line.

 

Mike :D

[telecine]

of course, but we are dealing with a case where you didnt, and how it is dealt with(without unduly benefiting the other pair).

 

Claims (or any irregularities) should not be used as a means to profit without merit (as a general principle; I don´t want to start arguing about revokes and such).

[1eyedjack]

As Free said: I am not convinced that rejecting the claim pinpoints the finesse. If it does then I would reject with a dropping CT in the South seat, which then makes on failing finesse.

 

Even so, I think perhaps a higher standard is required in tourneys than in main play area. The original question shows that this was a tourney (existence of TD). That simplifies the response to the question: Clearcut. Adjust one-off. Just unfortunate that TD unable to do so for want of language.

 

I think that the question is of some interest if transported to the general play area. I have to confess that I frequently claim without stating a line in that arena, and I will normally accept a claim if I would expect a good player to make the right play. It is just in the interests of playing as fast as possible mingled with a modicum of professional respect. Most of the time rejecting the claim does not pinpoint opponents' cards or suggest a line of play.

 

On this particular hand I might even reject the claim in the main play area, but would be happy to change my mind if oppo assures me in chat that he is always finessing.