Tournament Rules

[xx1943]

A question to all experts in rules:

Is it allowed for declarer to take an finesses after his claim was rejected.

:rolleyes:

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s86h109d6c6&w=s32hd87c87&e=sq754hd10c9&s=sakj109h8dc]399|300|Scoring: MP

S is playing 4♥ and has already lost 3 tricks. the lead is in dummy an he claims all tricks, without saying anything how he would play. When the claim is rejected he finesses in ♠.

My opinion is: After a claim it isn't allowed to take an finesse.

Besides, other things beeing equal the odds favor to play ♠ for 3:2 than East for ♠ Queen.

TD decided against us: "4 HE is always made".[/hv]

[spwdo]

A question to all experts in rules:

Is it allowed for declarer to take an finesses after his claim was rejected.

:rolleyes:

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s86h109d6c6&w=s32hd87c87&e=sq754hd10c9&s=sakj109h8dc]399|300|Scoring: MP

S is playing 4♥ and has already lost 3 tricks. the lead is in dummy an he claims all tricks, without saying anything how he would play. When the claim is rejected he finesses in ♠.

My opinion is: After a claim it isn't allowed to take an finesse.

Besides, other things beeing equal the odds favor to play ♠ for 3:2 than East for ♠ Queen.

TD decided against us: "4 HE is always made".[/hv]

hi

 

irl after claim have to play from top, in online tourneys where a td can see the line of play he sees/takes in to account the previuos tricks to see how player was playing before he makes adjusts.

 

But this is imho not a good adjust, if he plays from top he cannot get back twice into south , needs too since East is holding 4♠ so if it was me down one if i had to adjust after roundchange and unfinisched, if i was on table coud be that player said to me "i take finess" then i ruled to made .

 

But personally i dont like these kind of claims, woud at the very least say to player that he had to make his keyplay before claiming rest.

 

 

BBO TD FRIENDS

[McBruce]

Any competant Director would quickly rule down one and let South protest. You might go back to +620 in some circumstances. If, for example, East had opened a 15-17 1NT and had so far only shown up with 13 HCP (with only the Q♠ still missing), AND South is clearly a good enough player to consider this to be obvious, I would let him get away with only a warning.

 

It isn't quite true to say you cannot take a finesse after a claim. Actually, you are not allowed to play at all after a claim! Most online bridge allows the defense to choose to continue double-dummy while declarer is stuck in single dummy.

 

TD decided against us: "4 HE is always made".

 

There's nothing in the Laws that says that the other results on a board should affect a ruling. If someone muffs a claim you can't say "forget it, everyone else made it." You have to actually read the book and follow its instructions.

[the hog]

"If, for example, East had opened a 15-17 1NT and had so far only shown up with 13 HCP (with only the Q♠ still missing), AND South is clearly a good enough player to consider this to be obvious, I would let him get away with only a warning."

 

In ftf Bridge regardless of the above, the contract is ruled "off"; the finesse is not allowed. It is allowed only if it is proven, one player has shown out.

[mikestar]

The complete text of the relevant law:

 

 

LAW 70

CONTESTED CLAIMS

A. General Objective

In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows.

 

B. Clarification Statement Repeated

1. Require Claimer to Repeat Statement

The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.

2. Require All Hands to Be Faced

Next, the Director requires all players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

3. Hear Objections

The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim.

 

 

C. There Is an Outstanding Trump

When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if:

1. Failed to Mention Trump

claimer made no statement about that trump, and

2. Was Probably Unaware of Trump

it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and

3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump

a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play.

 

 

D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play

The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful.

 

E. Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)

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 normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational.

[Fluffy]

The claim seems a missclick, on a real-life tournament the rules are applied: no fineses, I am not sure if 1 or 2 off after that.

 

On online bridge there is a difference, declarer can´t explain how will he play before claiming (at least BBO doesn´t let while claiming, just chatting), for getting time I think he just claimed because it was kinda obvious who held the ♠Q, or 4 cards, when you rejected of course he finesed, he 'knew' (or maybe he just was too sure while it wasn´t really obvious) where it lied from the start.

 

I love online bridge for 1 reason: you don´t have to lose your time waiting for the rest to finnish, trying to punnish a player for claiming fast is a mistake, he has demostrated he was going to find the♠Q tournament director though the same.

 

You missed to post the full deal and the bidding (on purpose?), looks to me it would be quite obvious from the play& the bidding what was the winning line.

[EricK]

The claim seems a missclick, on a real-life tournament the rules are applied: no fineses, I am not sure if 1 or 2 off after that.

 

On online bridge there is a difference, declarer can´t explain how will he play before claiming (at least BBO doesn´t let while claiming, just chatting), for getting time I think he just claimed because it was kinda obvious who held the ♠Q, or 4 cards, when you rejected of course he finesed, he 'knew' (or maybe he just was too sure while it wasn´t really obvious) where it lied from the start.

 

I love online bridge for 1 reason: you don´t have to lose your time waiting for the rest to finnish, trying to punnish a player for claiming fast is a mistake, he has demostrated he was going to find the♠Q tournament director though the same.

 

You missed to post the full deal and the bidding (on purpose?), looks to me it would be quite obvious from the play& the bidding what was the winning line.

If declarer knew that the finesse would win, then he also knew that if he played a small card from dummy without claiming, then that trick would take only a few seconds. So trying to get the hand over with quickly is hardly a valid defense.

 

There really is no legitimate excuse for claiming when there is still some play left in the hand.

 

Eric

[1eyedjack]

Well, as a defender I would reject the claim with Qx sitting over the AKJT9, so the fact of rejection does not itself indicate a line of play. All that it indicates is that there is at least one line of play that fails. That line may involve taking a finesse or it may involve playing for a drop.

 

Strictly, play ceases on the occasion of a claim, and the ability of the software to permit continuation of play is an anacronysm when considered in conjunction with the laws of the game, but a practical expediency that seems reasonable when considering alternatives.

 

It is not inconceivable that the auction and play to date may mark East with Q, but we are not told that. The laws do not forbid a finesse after a claim. The stated line may include a finesse. In the absence of a stated line a finesse is permitted provided that there is compelling evidence that it is the only reasonable line.

 

That said, I cannot see how this contract can possibly make, even double dummy.

Declarer cannot finesse and retain the lead in North to repeat the finesse, nor can he cross to dummy in H to repeat the finesse without East ruffing H. A single finessed followed by AK does not drop the Q so there is always one and only one trump loser however he plays it.

[spwdo]

The claim seems a missclick, on a real-life tournament the rules are applied: no fineses, I am not sure if 1 or 2 off after that.

 

On online bridge there is a difference, declarer can´t explain how will he play before claiming (at least BBO doesn´t let while claiming, just chatting), for getting time I think he just claimed because it was kinda obvious who held the ♠Q, or 4 cards, when you rejected of course he finesed, he 'knew' (or maybe he just was too sure while it wasn´t really obvious) where it lied from the start.

 

I love online bridge for 1 reason: you don´t have to lose your time waiting for the rest to finnish, trying to punnish a player for claiming fast is a mistake, he has demostrated he was going to find the♠Q tournament director though the same.

 

You missed to post the full deal and the bidding (on purpose?), looks to me it would be quite obvious from the play& the bidding what was the winning line.

hi time no argument here since there was time to play after the claim was rejected, finess one time and ok i woud have given benefit of the dougbht to declarer in all other situtaions not , rules are obvuiosly correct and fair and ajust one down woud be fair to here, other tablesresults dont matter or al.

 

Secondly how can u know anything about ♠ when none are played, wrong decision from td(hope it wasnt me).

 

One reason i mentioned earlier was if td was informed in private that player was going to finess, it happens(happend in fact to me personally couple of days ago)

 

Only other posible excuse for doing this adjust is the 1 nt missing some points but still, then the player shoud take it into his claim. "i finnesse !S " was enough here so no excuse , contract down

 

Can be td was in hectic tournament with not enough help causing him to take a dicision without beeing careful enough (didnt check movie, only acting on what he saw on othe tables) or if he took time for this and discussion went on for longer he probaly missed some mentoring and isnt ready to host tourneys(this dont need expertise to know)only a little sense of tablefairness.

 

 

BBO TD FRIENDS

[Cascade]

On online bridge there is a difference, declarer can´t explain how will he play before claiming (at least BBO doesn´t let while claiming, just chatting), for getting time I think he just claimed because it was kinda obvious who held the ♠Q, or 4 cards, when you rejected of course he finesed, he 'knew' (or maybe he just was too sure while it wasn´t really obvious) where it lied from the start.

You can make a statement when you claim on BBO and of course that is always the proper method for making a claim.

 

It is sloppy to not make a statement.

[JRG]

The claim seems a missclick, on a real-life tournament the rules are applied: no fineses, I am not sure if 1 or 2 off after that.

 

On online bridge there is a difference, declarer can´t explain how will he play before claiming (at least BBO doesn´t let while claiming, just chatting), for getting time I think he just claimed because it was kinda obvious who held the ♠Q, or 4 cards, when you rejected of course he finesed, he 'knew' (or maybe he just was too sure while it wasn´t really obvious) where it lied from the start.

 

I love online bridge for 1 reason: you don´t have to lose your time waiting for the rest to finnish, trying to punnish a player for claiming fast is a mistake, he has demostrated he was going to find the♠Q tournament director though the same.

 

You missed to post the full deal and the bidding (on purpose?), looks to me it would be quite obvious from the play& the bidding what was the winning line.

I disagree on two counts:

 

1. Why is it at all obvious that declarer "knew" where the Queen of Spades was? Regardless, it doesn't matter. If the finesse was not indicated in the statement of claim, then the finesse cannot be taken (subject to being "proven" as mentioned in another post).

 

2. There is absolutely no problem making a statement of claim with the BBO software. The claim dialog has space for text. If you don't think it is enough space, then simply say - "See chat for full statement." and make a full statement of claim. In this case, there is plenty of room to say "finesse in spades".

[JRG]

Well, as a defender I would reject the claim with Qx sitting over the AKJT9, so the fact of rejection does not itself indicate a line of play. All that it indicates is that there is at least one line of play that fails. That line may involve taking a finesse or it may involve playing for a drop.

 

Strictly, play ceases on the occasion of a claim, and the ability of the software to permit continuation of play is an anacronysm when considered in conjunction with the laws of the game, but a practical expediency that seems reasonable when considering alternatives.

 

It is not inconceivable that the auction and play to date may mark East with Q, but we are not told that. The laws do not forbid a finesse after a claim. The stated line may include a finesse. In the absence of a stated line a finesse is permitted provided that there is compelling evidence that it is the only reasonable line.

 

That said, I cannot see how this contract can possibly make, even double dummy.

Declarer cannot finesse and retain the lead in North to repeat the finesse, nor can he cross to dummy in H to repeat the finesse without East ruffing H. A single finessed followed by AK does not drop the Q so there is always one and only one trump loser however he plays it.

The contract was stated to be 4♥ not 4♠. Therefore declarer can cross back to dummy using trumps as communication. (Or finesse once, cash AK and then ruff out the Q and ruff back to his hand).

[Free]

I don't think finessing is the most obvious line of play, and if you don't say you will finesse, then you just don't do it... Imo there are 4 ways of play:

- finesse

- cash AK and hope the Q drops

- cash AK and play for 3-3

- cash AK and let the J run (covers Qxxx by west)

 

So my guess is with cashing AK you can have a slightly better % play, but I'm not so good in these percentages.

 

Anyway, if you claim without explanation, you deserve to go down in a laydown contract over a finesse that works... Being lazy shouldn't pay off!

[inquiry]

Is this a hypothetical ending or real world. There are ways, south can legitametly know EAST has the ♠Q say WEST dealt and failed to open, but so far won all three tricks for the defense with AK in on suit and Ace in another, and has shown up with a two jacks to boot. South will know that EAST has the spade Q.

 

Say EAST opened 1NT, with any defined range, and so far is two points short of the minimum for that range?

 

This also assumes that south is both good enough to count the hands out and that everyone (director included), knows this. In this case I would allow claim. I will add as a caveat if you are this "clever" to count these types hand so you know the location of a key card, simply state in your claim, playing East for ♠Q. Of course if they disallow this, you are not allowed to play for the drop... (a psychic disallow would be to reject when the queen was in fact with EAST I guess, but no benefit gained from that of course, and the disadvantage of slowing the game down).

 

As an aside, I would always reject this claim with the ♠Q out unless it was falling on the first round or second round of the suit IN FRONT OF the AK. So, for insntance, I would reject any time the spade Q was with WEST or it was 3+ with EAST (caveat against players who I know will count me out, even with four to the queen here, I would accept the claim... no need to insult bridge players I know are good enough for such a routine play).

 

Ben

[Fluffy]

If declarer knew that the finesse would win, then he also knew that if he played a small card from dummy without claiming, then that trick would take only a few seconds. So trying to get the hand over with quickly is hardly a valid defense.

 

There really is no legitimate excuse for claiming when there is still some play left in the hand.

 

Eric

hi time no argument here since there was time to play after the claim was rejected, finess one time and ok i woud have given benefit of the dougbht to declarer in all other situtaions not , rules are obvuiosly correct and fair and ajust one down woud be fair to here, other tablesresults dont matter or al.

 

 

Why lose a few seconds when you are in need of them to do whatever, online bridge is for FUN, if I need to go to toilet, or go to kitchen and make a sandwich, or chat with my friends about last/next weekend (or post something stupid in some forums I know :D ), a few seconds are more than enough, I want them for my own purpose, and I am giving my opponent enough credit to beleive I am good enough, and also that I beleive he is good enough to see what is going on. On other situations (obvious) doig otherwise I consider an insult not to claim, we all know what is going on and I like my time.

 

You can make a statement when you claim on BBO and of course that is always the proper method for making a claim.

 

It is sloppy to not make a statement

 

You can make when you know english properly, I know it is no excuse because you should play then if unable to explain, from my point of view its faster and better to claim and let opponents see you have reason (makes them think a bit wich can improve their play), but then... I supose you know better than me what we are suposed to do on BBO :) .

 

If you are looking for punish players for fast claiming, wich can sometimes be a missclik (maybe willed to undo?) , is kind of teh same than(ok not so, but still has something in common) letting players making revokes on onlie bridge so you can punish them for the same. But you don´t because we play online bridge for fun, that´s why you let people claim when they think the deal is over.

[mikestar]

Just as a matter of personal preference to avoid this kind of hassle, I never claim if there are any outstanding potential winners. In this hand, knowing the location of the spade Queen, I pick it up and then claim.

[mink]

There is another aspect not mentioned yet:

 

South might think by himself: "If the claim is accepted, this will be likely because the finesse is working. If it is rejected, this will be likely because West has the ♠Q. So in case of reject I play for the drop, and if it not drops, give it to West and let the J run." Just in order to make a reasoning like this impossible the director should adjust to -1, no matter where the Q is located, except for Q or Qx with East.

 

However, because in online bridge at BBO playing after a rejection is legal, the claimer cannot be forced to follow a certain line of play if he did not say anything. If the director cannot think of any conclusion the claimer might have drawn from the fact that opps did reject, there should be no adjustment.

 

I would not punish anybody for the fact that a line of play was not stated though there were more than one possible lines of play. Maybe he did only see one possible line of play.

 

Karl

[1eyedjack]

Just as a matter of personal preference to avoid this kind of hassle, I never claim if there are any outstanding potential winners. In this hand, knowing the location of the spade Queen, I pick it up and then claim.

In a serious event I adopt the following policy:

 

If it is obvious to the opponents that I have the rest, I will claim, to avoid an inadvertent slip in the play by me.

 

If it is obvious to me but not to the opponents that I have the rest, I will play them out. Forcing the opponents to think about the defence when I do not have to think about the play contributes to wearing them down more than me, which may pay dividends in a later hand, and give partner (dummy) a slightly longer rest.

[EricK]

Just as a matter of personal preference to avoid this kind of hassle, I never claim if there are any outstanding potential winners. In this hand, knowing the location of the spade Queen, I pick it up and then claim.

In a serious event I adopt the following policy:

 

If it is obvious to the opponents that I have the rest, I will claim, to avoid an inadvertent slip in the play by me.

 

If it is obvious to me but not to the opponents that I have the rest, I will play them out. Forcing the opponents to think about the defence when I do not have to think about the play contributes to wearing them down more than me, which may pay dividends in a later hand, and give partner (dummy) a slightly longer rest.

I believe that this is considered unethical.

 

Eric

[mikestar]

Alan Sontag advocates an even more restrictive policy in Power Precision:

"Always play a hand out." If my understanding is correct, he will accept an opponent's correct claim or concession but never claims or concedes.

[1eyedjack]

Just as a matter of personal preference to avoid this kind of hassle, I never claim if there are any outstanding potential winners. In this hand, knowing the location of the spade Queen, I pick it up and then claim.

In a serious event I adopt the following policy:

 

If it is obvious to the opponents that I have the rest, I will claim, to avoid an inadvertent slip in the play by me.

 

If it is obvious to me but not to the opponents that I have the rest, I will play them out. Forcing the opponents to think about the defence when I do not have to think about the play contributes to wearing them down more than me, which may pay dividends in a later hand, and give partner (dummy) a slightly longer rest.

I believe that this is considered unethical.

 

Eric

Where is this published, please? Anyone else agree with Erick? What are the underlying principles that bring the ethics of this practice into doubt?

[EricK]

Just as a matter of personal preference to avoid this kind of hassle, I never claim if there are any outstanding potential winners. In this hand, knowing the location of the spade Queen, I pick it up and then claim.

In a serious event I adopt the following policy:

 

If it is obvious to the opponents that I have the rest, I will claim, to avoid an inadvertent slip in the play by me.

 

If it is obvious to me but not to the opponents that I have the rest, I will play them out. Forcing the opponents to think about the defence when I do not have to think about the play contributes to wearing them down more than me, which may pay dividends in a later hand, and give partner (dummy) a slightly longer rest.

I believe that this is considered unethical.

 

Eric

Where is this published, please? Anyone else agree with Erick? What are the underlying principles that bring the ethics of this practice into doubt?

Law 74 - Conduct and Etiquette

 

B. Etiquette

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he

knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of

disconcerting an opponent.

 

Eric

[1eyedjack]

Alan Sontag advocates an even more restrictive policy in Power Precision:

"Always play a hand out." If my understanding is correct, he will accept an opponent's correct claim or concession but never claims or concedes.

Indeed, the story behind that quote is rather strange. His policy derived from an incident in which he had claimed a contract that involved the concession of a trick yet to be lost, for one down. The opponents rejected his claim, in the hope of taking it two off. The hand was played out and the opponents misdefended to allow the contract to make. They then claimed a score of one-off on the grounds that Sontag had conceded one-off.

 

I cannot remember what the final ruling was (I think he was allowed to make), but what strikes me as odd is that the hand was allowed to be played out at all.

 

It now appears, as pointed out by Erick, that Sontag's policy is in breach of the proprieties.

[EricK]

Alan Sontag advocates an even more restrictive policy in Power Precision:

"Always play a hand out." If my understanding is correct, he will accept an opponent's correct claim or concession but never claims or concedes.

Indeed, the story behind that quote is rather strange. His policy derived from an incident in which he had claimed a contract that involved the concession of a trick yet to be lost, for one down. The opponents rejected his claim, in the hope of taking it two off. The hand was played out and the opponents misdefended to allow the contract to make. They then claimed a score of one-off on the grounds that Sontag had conceded one-off.

 

I cannot remember what the final ruling was (I think he was allowed to make), but what strikes me as odd is that the hand was allowed to be played out at all.

 

It now appears, as pointed out by Erick, that Sontag's policy is in breach of the proprieties.

I don't think so.

 

You are allowed to not claim if the opponents still have some tricks to come (they may, after all, misdefend). But you shouldn't play on if you have all the tricks.

 

Eric

[1eyedjack]

Just as a matter of personal preference to avoid this kind of hassle, I never claim if there are any outstanding potential winners. In this hand, knowing the location of the spade Queen, I pick it up and then claim.

In a serious event I adopt the following policy:

 

If it is obvious to the opponents that I have the rest, I will claim, to avoid an inadvertent slip in the play by me.

 

If it is obvious to me but not to the opponents that I have the rest, I will play them out. Forcing the opponents to think about the defence when I do not have to think about the play contributes to wearing them down more than me, which may pay dividends in a later hand, and give partner (dummy) a slightly longer rest.

I believe that this is considered unethical.

 

Eric

Where is this published, please? Anyone else agree with Erick? What are the underlying principles that bring the ethics of this practice into doubt?

Law 74 - Conduct and Etiquette

 

B. Etiquette

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he

knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of

disconcerting an opponent.

 

Eric

So, the purpose of deferring the claim appears to be critical. If it is to "disconcert the opponents" then it is a breach of etiquette. Does the motive of exhausting the opponents' supply of stamina fall within the definition of "disconcerting" the opponents?

 

I was not aware of this law and will change my policy forthwith. I am not convinced that it applies to my situation but it is not so important to me that I am prepared to provoke contrary opinion.

 

I have to say, however, that I believe it to be bad law.

 

At the very least its application is highly subjective. If (for example) a declarer through a lapse of concentration fails to notice that he has the rest of the tricks, he stands open to an accusation of unethical conduct if he continues to play.

 

More importantly, stamina is a valuable but consumable commodity. The ability to maintain a high level of concentration over a prolonged session is a skill that commands respect and is worthy of reward. A technique that tests an opponent's stamina should be no less laudable than a technique that places an opponent with any other losing option.