I have three heart tricks

[lamford]

I agree. They are identical for 3 tricks, but running the queen is better for max tricks. Apologies.

[gnasher]

On the actual hand there was no alternative source of tricks

I'd better nitpick this before somebody else does.

 

That was almost certainly incorrect. The hand with Q93 must have a potential loser somewhere. Any potential loser is also a potential winner, so if Paul found singleton king on the left he'd have twelve tricks without losing one, and RHO would be a candidate for a squeeze (if necessary a criss-cross).

 

We could know that was impossible only if we had something like Ax A1082 Qxx AKxx opposite Kxx Q93 AKx QJxx, and had seen RHO follow to three minor-suit cards. Or, I suppose, 1444 opposite 2344, with the spade communication having been removed at trick one.

[jdonn]

On the chosen line, West has an obligatory falsecard from both KJx and KJxx which should be pretty obvious even for an intermediate player.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Let's trade addresses and if anyone can think of a way to prove it, I bet you $5,000 that either

- we give a defensive problem with that answer to 100 intermediate players and no more than 3 get it right.

- we give a defensive problem with that answer to 100 experts and no more than 25 get it right.

You can choose which. At the table it would be more like 0 and 5 than 3 and 25, but obviously when given the hand as a problem people do a lot better.

[gnasher]

Can I (a) choose the experts and (b) have a piece of the action?

[lamford]

- we give a defensive problem with that answer to 100 experts and no more than 25 get it right.

I would certainly be happy to back the experts there. For the problem to be realistic, there would need to be some reason for declarer to play low to the nine in the suit early on, and that would almost certainly be only one entry to the Q9x hand. I would want to choose the experts, but I can see no practical way of not presenting it as a problem, without great expense.

 

My estimate would be that 75%+ of the experts would get it right over the table, and 100% if presented as a problem. I recall the one and only time asking the late and great Paul Soloway an opinion. I wondered whether my line in 6NT was the right one in the nationals in Hawaii - he was two tables away in the same polarity. He replied "probably not, as I played the same line." So we cannot ask the experts if they would get it right over the table - they are too modest. "An expert", said woubit, "is someone who knows what he should have done just after he does the wrong thing."

 

But we don't care whether the player would or would not find the false card in practice; we are only interested in what lines are rational and which aren't. And cashing the queen and running the ten are both rational on the second round.

[lamford]

On the actual hand there was no alternative source of tricks

I'd better nitpick this before somebody else does.

 

That was almost certainly incorrect. The hand with Q93 must have a potential loser somewhere. Any potential loser is also a potential winner, so if Paul found singleton king on the left he'd have twelve tricks without losing one, and RHO would be a candidate for a squeeze (if necessary a criss-cross).

 

We could know that was impossible only if we had something like Ax A1082 Qxx AKxx opposite Kxx Q93 AKx QJxx, and had seen RHO follow to three minor-suit cards. Or, I suppose, 1444 opposite 2344, with the spade communication having been removed at trick one.

My database suggests low to the ten is better if it is the trump suit, for max tricks. Running the queen costs when the next person shows out. If it was no-trumps, then your line of running the queen is still best, even without the information that there were no potential tricks elsewhere. You make four tricks immediately when you pin the jack, while I just avoid a loser by playing low to the ten when the stiff king appears, so I only save part of a trick, depending on the rest of the hand.

 

But I feel we are getting sidetracked from the main theme of the hand. I am astonished that anybody would allow this claim.

[Pict]

I'd assume that playing toward Q9x expected to gain from the psychological pressure on East, rather than being ignorant of the obvious double finesse.

[lamford]

I'd assume that playing toward Q9x expected to gain from the psychological pressure on East, rather than being ignorant of the obvious double finesse.

Indeed. If East will always play the king when he has it, and West will never win with the king when the jack will do, which would be the case with most beginners, then the line is narrowly best. You lose no constituencies, and pick up the previously safe KJx with East.

[gnasher]

Indeed. If East will always play the king when he has it, and West will never win with the king when the jack will do, which would be the case with most beginners, then the line is narrowly best. You lose no constituencies, and pick up the previously safe KJx with East.

It was probably the right line then: I was East.

[Pict]

A final thought.

 

If the Director judges that the most likely interpretation was a mental blind spot on declarer's part, where he thinks he can cash out - then declarer pays a heavy price for carelessness in the play or in his claim.

 

As Director I would feel very uncomfortable in that situation if West then showed me his expert Jack of Hearts. I don't see how I could change my judgement to give West what he might well deserve.

[lamford]

A final thought.

 

If the Director judges that the most likely interpretation was a mental blind spot on declarer's part, where he thinks he can cash out - then declarer pays a heavy price for carelessness in the play or in his claim.

 

As Director I would feel very uncomfortable in that situation if West then showed me his expert Jack of Hearts. I don't see how I could change my judgement to give West what he might well deserve.

I was proposing to award a trick to the jack of hearts wherever it was located, so that West would be awarded a trick if he began with KJ doubleton. I think also, on reflection, that I would award a trick to East if he began with Jx, as playing low to the ten on the second round is inferior, not irrational (i.e. inferior to cashing the queen). So, bizarrely, as a TD, I do not need to see the layout of the suit to rule; I just need to establish which cards were played to the first round of the suit, and I award a trick to the jack wherever it is and whether or not it is dropping. That must be unique.

[jdonn]

Why don't you also award a trick to the jack of hearts if the opponents already discarded it? Good grief...

 

I mean maybe I just need to brush up on the definition of irrational. Now you are saying that plays which are completely nullo (finessing the ten coming back) are rational. I don't buy that at all.

[lamford]

Why don't you also award a trick to the jack of hearts if the opponents already discarded it? Good grief...

 

I mean maybe I just need to brush up on the definition of irrational. Now you are saying that plays which are completely nullo (finessing the ten coming back) are rational. I don't buy that at all.

On the first point, because a trick cannot be won by discarding the jack of hearts.

 

44F. Tricks Not Containing Trumps

A trick that does not contain a trump is won by the player who has contributed to it the highest card of the suit led.

 

If the jack of hearts was discarded, it could not therefore have won that trick.

 

I think you do need to brush up on the definition of "irrational". And "inferior" while you are about it. There are several good dictionaries available at Amazon. After the first round of this suit had been played, the respective chances of each line are as follows:

 

Q then A 0.581

Q + Fin 0.562

Run 10 0.547

Cash ace 0.534

Low to 10 0.500

 

It is clear to me that the last line is inferior, or careless. But none is irrational. Playing the ace and putting the queen on it would be, however. And even that comes in at 0.124, a distant last.

[fred]

If this claim had been made in a "strong game" it would 1000% obvious that declarer meant to finesse against the Jack of hearts again. It is hard for me to imagine anyone even calling the TD for this (in a strong game).

 

If someone called the TD against me for this I suspect I would have trouble not laughing. I would hope many TDs, if called, would find this laughable as well.

 

Of course it would be a good idea to call the TD if the Jack of hearts is actually offside :rolleyes:

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[StevenG]

How much of this is relevant? The claim statement was that declarer now had three heart tricks. Only lines of play where declarer expects to make three tricks without any further thinking should be considered. That means either that he will repeat the finesse (and go off to KJ doubleton), or that he has forgotten that some card (but what?) is out.

 

Lines where declarer knows that he might not have three tricks, and plays the odds accordingly, are not consistent with the claim statement.

[shyams]

May I ask a question in all earnestness: Are there any penalties for not claiming?

 

After reading some of the suggested rulings (not just this one), I the sensible players are the ones who play out all 13 cards one by one (and often at slow pace) so that they do not have to claim.

 

Even in my last club game (a couple of days ago), I saw opps / partner refuse to claim (possibly because they had one loser -- which they eventually lost at trick 13; or because they are too scared that opps will call TDs on every claim

 

I have also seen absurd situations where partner planned to play out all cards in dummy even when I (dummy) knew dummy was high (absolutely no way to lose a trick). After 2 tricks, I could not take it... and was told off by RHO when I claimed as dummy (surely this is an invitation for more)

[lamford]

If this claim had been made in a "strong game" it would 1000% obvious that declarer meant to finesse against the Jack of hearts again. It is hard for me to imagine anyone even calling the TD for this (in a strong game).

Normally I have the highest respect for your opinions, particularly when it involves suit combinations, but I beg to differ here.

 

Are you telling me that it almost certain that, in a strong game - you say, declarer selected a line that was theoretically 26% worse than best play, then claimed when his best line was down to 58%, and you think, just from the comment "I have three heart tricks" that he was going to run the 10?

 

I think that is the most likely line, but this is exactly why the Laws specify that we state any finesse that should be taken. The laughing would indeed be done by the TD, but at the incompetence of the declarer.

[fred]

Are you telling me that it almost certain that, in a strong game - you say, declarer selected a line that was theoretically 26% worse than best play, then claimed when his best line was down to 58%, and you think, just from the comment "I have three heart tricks" that he was going to run the 10?

More than almost certain - it is 1000% :P

 

In a strong game, when declarer wins a heart finesse and claims "I have 3 heart tricks", the implication to all players is that he will repeat the finesse.

 

Assuming the finesse was going to win a second time, none of the players would get involved in thinking about post-claim alternative lines or percentages. If it occurred to one of the players that the Jack of hearts might still be offside, that player would only say something for the purposes of amusement.

 

Really - the players would have a very strong tendency just to put their cards away and save their energy for the next board.

 

Of course I can't argue with the notion that declarer should be more specific when stating a claim. Nor can I argue with not claiming at all if it occurs to declarer that the finesse might not win again.

 

However, in a game where all the players are very strong, I would be shocked if it mattered.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[lamford]

Are you telling me that it almost certain that, in a strong game - you say, declarer selected a line that was theoretically 26% worse than best play, then claimed when his best line was down to 58%, and you think, just from the comment "I have three heart tricks" that he was going to run the 10?

More than almost certain - it is 1000% :P

 

In a strong game, when declarer wins a heart finesse and claims "I have 3 heart tricks", the implication to all players is that he will repeat the finesse.

 

Assuming the finesse was going to win a second time, none of the players would get involved in thinking about post-claim alternative lines or percentages. If it occurred to one of the players that the Jack of hearts might still be offside, that player would only say something for the purposes of amusement.

 

Really - the players would have a very strong tendency just to put their cards away and save their energy for the next board.

 

Of course I can't argue with the notion that declarer should be more specific when stating a claim. Nor can I argue with not claiming at all if it occurs to declarer that the finesse might not win again.

 

However, in a game where all the players are very strong, I would be shocked if it mattered.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Which one of these three scenarios would cause you the shock?

 

a) that declarer had played low to the nine in the first place

b ) that a strong defender had found the completely obligatory false card from ANY of KJ, KJx or KJxx

c) that declarer had intended to run the 10 but carelessly did not state it.

 

You thought that it was 1000% that he would have intended to run the 10. I take this to be like the sports player giving 110% effort, but what percentage chance would you give to the other two outcomes?

 

My estimates:

a) I would expect it be less than 25% that a strong declarer would select this line

b ) I would expect a strong defender to find the king false card over half the time, probably nearer 75%

c) I think it is maybe 75% that a strong declarer intended to run the 10 on the next round; the other 25% made up of all sorts of misreading or miscounting.

[fred]

Which one of these three scenarios would cause you the shock?

 

a) that declarer had played low to the nine in the first place

b ) that a strong defender had found the completely obligatory false card from ANY of KJ, KJx or KJxx

c) that declarer had intended to run the 10 but carelessly did not state it.

d) none of the above

 

I would be shocked if the TD was called (assuming the Jack of hearts was actually onside).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Finessing the ten coming back without cashing the queen first is a play 0% of bridge players would make. That alone should be enough to make it irrational even without considering that it sometimes loses and never gains over cashing the queen first, another reason it's irrational. Saying a play works x% of the time does not make it rational. Is it rational with no count on the hand to finesse the first round with AKQTx opposite xxxxx since it will win half the time?

 

Your assumptions are so far off it's not even funny. Almost no stronger players would find this falsecard, not even near 75%! Take it for whatever it's worth that I have never ever once seen that play at the table, though I can recall one hand in a book where it was once found by one of the top players in the world. I believe that hand occured in 1980.

 

The fact your (original) point is not only ridiculous but then you throw on something even more ridiculous on top (you won't let them cash the queen even if they play LHO for the jack) make it difficult to have this discussion other than to say things like "your points are ridiculous".

 

Seriously Iamford you are missing the boat and you just don't see it, I don't know what else to say. I mean read what Fred is saying. Good players would be laughing at you.

[iviehoff]

It appears that at a high level of bridge it is custom and practice to allow claims without players dotting i's and crossing t's in their claim statements. It's a kind of gentleman's agreement: both sides allow each other this latitude and save time. If the director was called for such a claim, for example by some person not aware of this custom and practice, many of these claims would not succeed by strict application of the laws. (Occasionally a story emerges of a wrong claim being assented to - I'm not talking about those, I'm taking about claims that would almost certainly be fine if a full statement were given.)

 

So the fact that Fred tells us that in a strong game this claim would not be disputed is irrelevant. We are discussing the correct application of the laws. What happens in practice in the handling of claims between players in a high level game is not the same as the correct application of the laws.

 

Some people might dislike the fact that the director was called for this claim, because to them it is "obvious" what the player was going to do. But if the director is called, then what the player was "obviously" going to do is not the correct way to adjudicate a claim. The strict application of the law does not allow this claim. The law tells us not to allow finesses that aren't stated, with the exception only of finesses that are "marked" by someone showing out. The law tells us to consider any alterative line that is rational or merely careless. This contract can fail both due to carelessness, and also by following apparently rational lines. So the director cannot allow the claim. That is different from what is custom and practice in claiming in high level games.

[shyams]

Why is a repeating finesse not implicit in the claim?

[lamford]

Finessing the ten coming back without cashing the queen first is a play 0% of bridge players would make. That alone should be enough to make it irrational even without considering that it sometimes loses and never gains over cashing the queen first, another reason it's irrational. Saying a play works x% of the time does not make it rational. Is it rational with no count on the hand to finesse the first round with AKQTx opposite xxxxx since it will win half the time?

 

Your assumptions are so far off it's not even funny. Almost no stronger players would find this falsecard, not even near 75%! Take it for whatever it's worth that I have never ever once seen that play at the table, though I can recall one hand in a book where it was once found by one of the top players in the world. I believe that hand occured in 1980.

 

The fact your (original) point is not only ridiculous but then you throw on something even more ridiculous on top (you won't let them cash the queen even if they play LHO for the jack) make it difficult to have this discussion other than to say things like "your points are ridiculous".

 

Seriously Iamford you are missing the boat and you just don't see it, I don't know what else to say. I mean read what Fred is saying. Good players would be laughing at you.

I argued at first that it was possibly irrational not to cash the queen first, after playing low to the 10, and I would have no problem with deciding that it was and giving declarer the contract if there were Jx on his right. I suspect Jeremy69 would award a trick to the opponents in all situations as he is certainly more draconian on claims than me, and I think he would be right on this hand.

 

We do not need to decide on how often good players would or would not find the falsecard, and I am assuming that A108 are remaining visibly in dummy else that estimate might be different. All we are seeking to do is find which lines are rational and which aren't.

 

If the TD is of the opinion that the only rational line for declarer, considering his statement, is to run the ten, then he decides on that. The limited evidence suggested that while this was likely, it was not certain.

 

For what it is worth I tried five players of below county standard (they have never represented London) and all five found the king when presented it as a problem. It is no more or less routine than dropping the queen from Q10x after declarer has finessed dummy's jack from AJx and then cashed the ace opposite a known four-card suit.

 

And for what it is worth, I would let the claim stand as a defender, but that is a personal choice. As iviehoff said, we are discussing the Laws of Bridge, not what ethics should be among strong players.

[Codo]

1. Where in the Laws do you read that a winning finesse is not allowed to be done again?

 

2. What do you think matters more? The ethics of the games or the laws?

 

 

My point:

1. Nowhere- so the claim is valid as long as East did not falsecard.

2. The ethics, so if there is more then one possible interpretation of a §, you should use the one which helps the game most. I do not see this in your way of handling the laws in this case.

 

But your opinion may differ....