I have three heart tricks

[gnasher]

This is the heart suit:

      A1082

K4            J765

      Q93

Declarer is in 6NT. He needs three tricks from the suit. He has plenty of entries to each hand.

 

He leads the 2 to the 9, which loses to the king. Now he claims, saying "I have three heart tricks."

 

How do you rule, and does it depend upon the ability of any of the players?

 

If it matters, this is the EBU.

 

(Edited to include the complete layout and contract.)

Edited January 20, 2010 by gnasher

[CamHenry]

This is a Law 70E1 case: 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 that line of play would be irrational.

 

The key here is whether failing to take the heart finesse is irrational or not. For a world-class player, I think it is irrational. For a novice/intermediate, I'd probably rule it's careless but not irrational - the finesse is somewhat marked, but not in big glowing neon letters.

 

Of course, this is why I always say which finesses I'm claiming on :-)

 

If declarer is truly world-class, I give him 3 tricks; if he isn't, I give him 2. Jurisdiction does not affect my decision.

[WellSpyder]

Which card do you think west should play from KJ doubleton when declarer leads to H9? Playing HK is the only chance to make 2 tricks.

 

I don't think the finesse against HJ is marked and I am not convinced this is what declarer had in mind. I think it is quite likely that he carelessly thought now that his finesse had worked that he could play the rest of the suit from the top.

[Codo]

I give him three tricks. He finessed against the jack and succeed. Why should he now try to play for something else?

 

If West had the jack of heart and made a big play from KJx, I would give him a trick after the claim, but not now.

[campboy]

I would not give him the tricks. How hard is it to say "with the finesse"? As WellSpyder says, West should play the king even if he also has the jack.

[iviehoff]

The truth is that the second finesse is not marked at all. On this N/S holding, if W holds KJ he should win the first round with the K in order to give declarer a losing choice for the second finesse - if he won with the J, declarer would have no choice but to get it right. On top of that, "marked" finesses are never 100% marked until a player shows out, because defenders can hold up, make mistakes, play the wrong card, etc.

 

Did declarer claim because he thought he thought the finesse was now marked, in which case even though it isn't marked, in practice he was going to get it right? And because he thought it "obviously" marked he thought he didn't need to mention it? Or did he claim because he thought his heart suit is now solid? Unfortunately he didn't tell us. Forgetting the defenders still hold a card you successfully finessed against is a common piece of carelessness.

 

But I think the law tells us quite clearly that claimers can't rely even on "marked" finesses without telling us about them in their claim statement. And given the additional uncertainties, I think it is clear that the ruling is 2 tricks.

[bluejak]

Interestingly enough, CamHenry has got it the wrong way round: a poor player will assume the finesse is marked, a world class player will not.

 

But this is as ever a judgement: do you really think that declarer is claiming on a 'marked' finesse, or because he failed to realise it still needed a finesse?

[gnasher]

Interestingly enough, CamHenry has got it the wrong way round: a poor player will assume the finesse is marked, a world class player will not.

Yes, that's what I think too.

 

But this is as ever a judgement: do you really think that declarer is claiming on a 'marked' finesse, or because he failed to realise it still needed a finesse?

So, suppose that you judge that declarer is good enough to know that he needs another finesse against ♥J, but not good enough to realise that the jack may be on his left. Are you saying that his claim is allowed because he's not a good enough player to go off?

[shyams]

I think the repeating finesse is implicit when the claim was made. If declarer was good enough to realise the HJ can be with West, he would not claim in the first place.

[jdonn]

But this is as ever a judgement: do you really think that declarer is claiming on a 'marked' finesse, or because he failed to realise it still needed a finesse?

So, suppose that you judge that declarer is good enough to know that he needs another finesse against ♥J, but not good enough to realise that the jack may be on his left. Are you saying that his claim is allowed because he's not a good enough player to go off?

Let's, simply for easy reference, call those players 'advanced' and 'expert'.

 

The advanced or worse player gets the rest of the tricks because he isn't good enough to realize the finesse might be losing again.

 

The expert gets the tricks because he knows when you take a finesse, it wins, you claim, and you don't have the rest in top tricks, it's because you intend to repeat the finesse.

 

A director who doesn't give declarer the rest of the tricks here is being (this is the nicest way I can put it) far too creative conjuring up a play that, easy as it seems laid out here on the forums, is rarely found at the table. I myself might well just lay my hand down at that point as well, fully expecting to concede one more trick if west has the jack of hearts because NO ONE will (at least not without some kind of count) play west to have won the K from KJ there so the director would have to be a *(@$& to force me to do so!

[iviehoff]

[A director who doesn't give declarer the rest of the tricks here is being (this is the nicest way I can put it) far too creative conjuring up a play that, easy as it seems laid out here on the forums, is rarely found at the table.

Such a director is allowing for the possibility that Declarer has forgotten the HJ is still out, thinks his hearts are all cashing, and would just cash the hearts from the top. Forgetting that a card I have successfully finessed against is still in the opponent's hand is the kind of thing I must confess to having done more often than rarely.

[jdonn]

[A director who doesn't give declarer the rest of the tricks here is being (this is the nicest way I can put it) far too creative conjuring up a play that, easy as it seems laid out here on the forums, is rarely found at the table.

Such a director is allowing for the possibility that Declarer has forgotten the HJ is still out, thinks his hearts are all cashing, and would just cash the hearts from the top. Forgetting that a card I have successfully finessed against is still in the opponent's hand is the kind of thing I must confess to having done more often than rarely.

In fairness, that's a much better argument than that declarer might play west for KJ. But I still think it's quite a stretch to require declarer to lose a trick because he might have forgotten about the card he finessed for on that very trick...

[gnasher]

I think the repeating finesse is implicit when the claim was made. If declarer was good enough to realise the HJ can be with West, he would not claim in the first place.

Actually, if declarer was good enough to realise that HJ could be with West, he wouldn't play the hearts this way in the first place. Without the possibility of the falsecard, his line would only be slightly inferior to running the queen; with it, his line is about 50% instead of about 75%.

[barmar]

I think the repeating finesse is implicit when the claim was made. If declarer was good enough to realise the HJ can be with West, he would not claim in the first place.

Actually, if declarer was good enough to realise that HJ could be with West, he wouldn't play the hearts this way in the first place. Without the possibility of the falsecard, his line would only be slightly inferior to running the queen; with it, his line is about 50% instead of about 75%.

That may be true if you just look at this suit in isolation, but there may have been other reasons or clues that made this the appropriate way to play the heart suit (think of Lawrence's Card Combinations book, where each chapter has several hands where you have the same card combination, but have to play it differently because of other factors).

 

The advanced player might play it this way, but still wouldn't make the incomplete claim. He would probably include the fact that he's going to try the finesse again, and take 2 or 3 more tricks depending on its success.

 

With a less advanced player, I think the director has to use his judgement to determine whether he was implying that he would repeat the finesse or that he forgot the Jack was still out. The difficulty is that you can't ask a leading question like "What are you going to do about the Jack?", because that could wake him up to his error. Although you may be able to tell from how he answers; if he has to take a moment to think, it's pretty obvious that he forgot about it. But perhaps it was the opponents disputing the claim that woke him up, so by the time the director arrives, he has his "clarification" all worked out. The director would have to rely on the opponents' description of his manner.

[MFA]

I would give him 12 tricks since he should be allowed to take the 'marked' finesse.

[campboy]

There are a lot of responses in this thread, but very few refer to what the laws actually say, despite Henry quoting them early on. The opponent has not shown out; it is not irrational to play for the drop now as there are plausible layouts on which that is necessary. So 70E1 says that the director shall not accept the (unstated) finesse.

[jdonn]

There are a lot of responses in this thread, but very few refer to what the laws actually say, despite Henry quoting them early on. The opponent has not shown out; it is not irrational to play for the drop now as there are plausible layouts on which that is necessary. So 70E1 says that the director shall not accept the (unstated) finesse.

Sorry if I'm repeating, but in the context of what you just wrote:

- For 99% of bridge players, it's irrational since that possibility would never occur to them.

- For 1% of bridge players, it's irrational for two reasons. If they intended to play west for both cards they would play hearts from hand to begin with. And no one will play their opponent to be making an excellent falsecard like that at the table!

 

What good does it do to claim you are going by the law, but take a word (irrational) from the law and give it your own definition that clearly has no common sense behind it? After all, by your definition isn't it "rational" to play the ace first from AQx opposite xx when needing 2 tricks?

[McBruce]

I think I would need considerable evidence to decide that declarer was going to play to drop the jack here after finessing the nine. It sounds to me as though this is not a faulty claim, but simply a poorly-stated claim. However, declarer would certainly get a warning about claiming on an assumed finesse.

 

If the defenders have not shown their cards, you take declarer away from the table and ask him how he will play the hearts. When he says "running the ten from the board" you tell him that LHO has king-jack doubleton and he is down one and watch his reaction. If he agrees down one, he gets to make his contract. If he tries to change his line, down one! :)

[kenrexford]

I think I would need considerable evidence to decide that declarer was going to play to drop the jack here after finessing the nine. It sounds to me as though this is not a faulty claim, but simply a poorly-stated claim. However, declarer would certainly get a warning about claiming on an assumed finesse.

 

If the defenders have not shown their cards, you take declarer away from the table and ask him how he will play the hearts. When he says "running the ten from the board" you tell him that LHO has king-jack doubleton and he is down one and watch his reaction. If he agrees down one, he gets to make his contract. If he tries to change his line, down one! :)

I like this. Mostly because it sounds fun.

[campboy]

Admittedly, when I wrote "plausible" I should have said "plausible and reasonably likely". But I think the rest of my post is fine. My dictionary defines "irrational" as "inconsisent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd". I don't think any of that applies to this play.

[Pict]

Declarer has, of course, been extremely unwise - demonstrated by the fact that he would have lost his slam (subject to appeal!) if several of the posters were the TD called.

 

I would take the view that the repeat of the finesse is implied in his statement and that 70E1 does not apply.

 

I don't think, by the way, that weak players finesse the nine in this position.

[barmar]

I don't think, by the way, that weak players finesse the nine in this position.

True, novices don't play card combinations well.

 

So the implication is that they're good enough to finesse the 9, but not good enough to consider that an expert LHO would falsecard with KJ doubleton.

[lamford]

The right line in the suit at this point is to cash the queen and then play for the drop (unless East shows out)! Gnasher is correct that low to the ten or eight at the start (around 76%) was right. On the chosen line, West has an obligatory falsecard from both KJx and KJxx which should be pretty obvious even for an intermediate player. I would be mortified if I did not find it (though Stefanie says she would be amazed if I did).

 

But all sensible lines are rational, and I would award a trick to the jack even when East began with Jxx. If there is Jx with East, the decision gets close, as low to the ten on the second round might be irrational. In the case in question it seems a trivial award of one more trick in this suit to the defenders.

[jeremy69]

I think it is,at least, possible that declarer has miscounted and believes he can cash from the top now he has lost a trick to the King so I would not allow him to gain 3 tricks here. His claim is careless because he did not state any line.

I don't think others should have to bend over backwards to decide what line he would have taken. If he can't be bothered he will, as a consequence, surrender a trick.

[gnasher]

Gnasher is correct that low to the ten or eight at the start (around 76%) was right.

I actually said that running the queen was correct. From the point of view of winning three tricks, the two are, I think, equivalent.

 

On the actual hand there was no alternative source of tricks, so it would be better to run the queen, making an overtrick against singleton jack offside.