I have three heart tricks

[lamford]

The only opinion I have been dogmatic about is my opinion that, in a strong game, nobody would even call the TD in this situation.

 

Once does not need any knowledge or opinions about the Laws in order to offer this opinion with confidence.

I know the original poster to be a strong player, and it would be interesting to learn whether the director was called, and what the ruling was.

[lamford]

This is a laws thread, not an ethics thread, and your suggestion that if I had the pleasure of playing against you it should be a "no-smile" zone is unfounded, and, as far as I know, would be unfounded against campboy as well, and I would be very pleased if you withdrew this.

Withdrawn!

 

:angry::):):)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Thanks. And I withdraw any suggestion that your opinions on this case are not immensely valuable. The reverse is true.

[fred]

Thanks. And I withdraw any suggestion that your opinions on this case are not immensely valuable. The reverse is true.

Thanks. I am glad I could contribute.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Interesting. Directly out of the bridge bulletin that arrived today. Ruling the Game by Mike Flader.

   My partner, South, was declaring 6NT in an afternoon club duplicate game. Declarer won the first seven tricks. This was the six-card ending:

 

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ KJT ♥ [space] ♦ AK5 ♣ [space] ♠ 86 ♥ A ♦ J43 ♣ [space]

Partner, who had already run the club suit, then went after spades (a suit that had not been played yet) by leading a low spade to dummy's 10. Right-hand opponent won the ace and returned a heart. (Yes, a spade return locking declarer on the board looks better, but this is a ruling question.) Declarer won the ace and said "I have the rest," as she tabled her hand and played a spade towards dummy.

   RHO screamed for the director. She said that a claim had been made and declarer could no longer take a second spade finesse. The club director ruled that 6NT would be down one (at first), but after consulting the club owner/director, changed it to 6NT making.

   Personally, I was stunned the director was called. Yes, the laws say declarer must state a line of play and that a finesse cannot be taken. But surely, this one was 100% marked. I don't believe you should be forced to take an irrational line and not be allowed to repeat a finesse that had just won.

   What Law 70E says (Contested Claim; Unstated Line of Play) is that the director should not accept from the claimer any statement not embodied in the original claim unless the failure to adopt the line of play would be irrational. Clearly it is correct to finesse in spades, and the director should allow it. (The phrasing in the laws that would have disallowed this went out some editions ago.)

[gnasher]

it would be interesting to learn whether the director was called, and what the ruling was.

The director wasn't called. Rightly or wrongly, I had some doubt about whether declarer knew he needed to finesse again, but once that was cleared up we accepted the claim.

 

I posted this only because I was interested in how the possibliity of a falsecard affects things. If I'd thought about it a bit harder, I could have answered that for myself: since declarer was obviously unaware of this possibility, it would be irrational for him to play for it.

[gwnn]

if I somehow will play in a top level pairs event some day I will remember this thread and might get lots of % edge (well Fred thinks no TD would give me anything but maybe I would get lucky once in a while). of course everybody would consider me a nobody, but I would not play in the same event ever again anyway :)

[lamford]

Interesting. Directly out of the bridge bulletin that arrived today. Ruling the Game by Mike Flader.

   My partner, South, was declaring 6NT in an afternoon club duplicate game. Declarer won the first seven tricks. This was the six-card ending:

<hand cut as not being reproduced correctly - see earlier post>

Partner, who had already run the club suit, then went after spades (a suit that had not been played yet) by leading a low spade to dummy's 10. Right-hand opponent won the ace and returned a heart. (Yes, a spade return locking declarer on the board looks better, but this is a ruling question.) Declarer won the ace and said "I have the rest," as she tabled her hand and played a spade towards dummy.

   RHO screamed for the director. She said that a claim had been made and declarer could no longer take a second spade finesse. The club director ruled that 6NT would be down one (at first), but after consulting the club owner/director, changed it to 6NT making.

   Personally, I was stunned the director was called. Yes, the laws say declarer must state a line of play and that a finesse cannot be taken. But surely, this one was 100% marked. I don't believe you should be forced to take an irrational line and not be allowed to repeat a finesse that had just won.

   What Law 70E says (Contested Claim; Unstated Line of Play) is that the director should not accept from the claimer any statement not embodied in the original claim unless the failure to adopt the line of play would be irrational. Clearly it is correct to finesse in spades, and the director should allow it. (The phrasing in the laws that would have disallowed this went out some editions ago.)

Again, very different. This time the finesse is marked, as East would have defeated the contract immediately by winning with the queen of spades on the first round, and then cashing the ace, so the second finesse is the only rational line.

 

The second TD was right by a big margin.

[cherdanno]

When determining whether a play is irrational, does the level of the players matter?

[axman]

Interesting. Directly out of the bridge bulletin that arrived today. Ruling the Game by Mike Flader.

   My partner, South, was declaring 6NT in an afternoon club duplicate game. Declarer won the first seven tricks. This was the six-card ending:

<hand cut as not being reproduced correctly - see earlier post>

Partner, who had already run the club suit, then went after spades (a suit that had not been played yet) by leading a low spade to dummy's 10. Right-hand opponent won the ace and returned a heart. (Yes, a spade return locking declarer on the board looks better, but this is a ruling question.) Declarer won the ace and said "I have the rest," as she tabled her hand and played a spade towards dummy.

   RHO screamed for the director. She said that a claim had been made and declarer could no longer take a second spade finesse. The club director ruled that 6NT would be down one (at first), but after consulting the club owner/director, changed it to 6NT making.

   Personally, I was stunned the director was called. Yes, the laws say declarer must state a line of play and that a finesse cannot be taken. But surely, this one was 100% marked. I don't believe you should be forced to take an irrational line and not be allowed to repeat a finesse that had just won.

   What Law 70E says (Contested Claim; Unstated Line of Play) is that the director should not accept from the claimer any statement not embodied in the original claim unless the failure to adopt the line of play would be irrational. Clearly it is correct to finesse in spades, and the director should allow it. (The phrasing in the laws that would have disallowed this went out some editions ago.)

Again, very different. This time the finesse is marked, as East would have defeated the contract immediately by winning with the queen of spades on the first round, and then cashing the ace, so the second finesse is the only rational line.

 

The second TD was right by a big margin.

My good friend Grosvenor has been known to say <g> that the cards are not necessarily where the opponents purport them. For instance a couple days ago I took a 'losing' diamond hook where the Q instead held. The opponent's failure to win the K lost them the opportunity to take three tricks they could otherwise have won- as I didn't repeat the hook.

[jdonn]

I agree it's not identical to the given example, I just thought it was interesting that article came up since obviously there is some similarity as well.

 

Having thought a few days about the original problem now it's interesting that the ruling may apparently depend on the level of play of the director. I'm sure there are directors to whom it wouldn't even occur that west might win the K from KJ.

[jeremy69]

I'm sure there are directors to whom it wouldn't even occur that west might win the K from KJ.

 

And not only directors. Before the days of matches being shown on BBO there was a Ladies International in England where there was someone to call the cards so that vugraph could be updated. In just such a situation the player produced a deceptive King only to hear the operator say HJ, oops, sorry I mean the King rather defeating the point of the deception. That got the board cancelled with some imps to each side and the other teams competing in the round robin a bit fed up that both sides could be plus!

[bluejak]

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

Yes, delaying the game unnecessarily is an infraction, and subject to penalty.

 

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.

A player makes 400 claims. One is contested because he is silly. One is contested because the opponents are silly. One is contested until it is clarified. One is of the sort that might interest a forum. The remainder pass unnoticed and without comment. Just think of the time saved.

 

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.

It sounds a dreadful club. If the TD is competent then it is time he started issuing DPs to get the players to behave. In a decent club calling the TD implies no slur and players accept that, and calls are reasonable and accepted without problem.

 

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).

Dummy claims tend to be very annoying. They are made when dummy is good, but does declarer know this? Perhaps he might have ruffed a winner!

 

If there really is no way to lose a trick, while technically you are wrong it seems acceptable. Of course, RHO telling you off is a disciplinary offence.

[axman]

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

Yes, delaying the game unnecessarily is an infraction, and subject to penalty.

This is wrong.

 

A player that takes so long to solve a hand where his side uses so much more of the time apportioned to his side that the time allotted to the round is exceeded is certainly subject to penalty.

 

However, under no circumstances is a player ever compelled to solve a hand via a claim. As in NEVER.

 

To put things into perspective. Some players are skillful enough that they know when they can control the outcome perfectly and being able to do so proceed to describe how to do it rather than play out the tricks. The rules of the game [L1,41,44,45 primarily] are such that there are occasions when it can be done successfully- so it is prudent for the rules to further delineate what to do if it happens [not that the rules are appropriately constructed]. This is borne out because players also get claims wrong- they take short cuts that do not, as well as cannot work perfectly thereby creating issues as to what score was earned.

 

So, while rules are provided that deal with claims there is no requirement to claim. It could be that a claim that is perfect may well prevent a slow play violation, but that is no valid reason to censure a player for not claiming and it is reprehensible to suggest it.

[blackshoe]

I think you're a little harsh on David. What he said was that unduly slow play is subject to penalty — and he's right (see Law 90B2). In investigating whether the evident slow play was "undue" he may find that the slow player was aware that he might have claimed or conceded sometime before the last couple of tricks. If so, then the TD should find out why the player did not claim or concede. If the TD deems that the player's reason is not sufficient to override the putative "undue" nature of the slow play, then it is certainly appropriate, and far from reprehensible, to award a penalty for the infraction.

 

I was once asked, by an expert opponent, why I didn't claim at trick nine. I responded "because I didn't see it until trick twelve". No one called the TD, but I would hope that had she been called, she would not have given me a penalty for unduly slow play, even had we not finished the board, and the round, well before the next round was called.

 

There is also Law 74B4. If a player is sure the rest are his, but does not claim because he wishes to disconcert (or 'tire out') opponents]/i] then he has violated this law, and is subject to penalty. Again, the TD investigates and makes a judgment call.

[barmar]

Two comments. One is that the line of play is an implicit part of the claim. Running the J from JT9 opposite AQxx then claiming is an implicit statement the finesse is being repeated. Because it's obvious that's what they were doing, because everyone would do it, because if he wasn't going to then he wouldn't claim at all, give it whatever reason you want. Likewise cherdanno's example.

To expand on that, if someone claims but their intended line of play is not the obvious one, they will almost certainly include that detail in their claim statement. E.g. after repeating the finesse holding JT9 opposite AQxx, if they don't intend to finesse again, they'll say that they're cashing the King hoping that either opponent held Kxx.

 

Players don't make implicit claims when there's anything complicated to the play.

 

However, one of the issues in the claim that started this thread was whether declarer might be under the mistaken impression that there were no high cards outstanding that required a repeated of the finesse. I.e. he might have been claiming on a cash-out rather than an assumed to be marked finesse. Omitting the claim statement allows this ambiguity, so players are cautioned against it.

[lamford]

Having thought a few days about the original problem now it's interesting that the ruling may apparently depend on the level of play of the director. I'm sure there are directors to whom it wouldn't even occur that west might win the K from KJ.

Indeed, directors are not required to be strong players which is why they are supposed to consult. And even when they spot that it is an obligatory falsecard, they can still decide that the second finesse is the only rational line for a declarer who had not considered this.

 

The vast majority of disputed claims involve disagreement over what is rational and what is not (about the only other issue is to decide whether declarer may have overlooked some stray trump). WBFLC guidelines, as I understand them, are to take into account the previous play, but not the ability of the claimant. It does seem that finesses that have held should be assumed to be repeated, but this is not what the Laws say; in fact they tend to say the opposite.

[gordontd]

Indeed, directors are not required to be strong players which is why they are supposed to consult.

Even strong players can find something new about a problem when they consult.

[gordontd]

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.

It sounds a dreadful club. If the TD is competent then it is time he started issuing DPs to get the players to behave. In a decent club calling the TD implies no slur and players accept that, and calls are reasonable and accepted without problem.

What an odd little outburst, that doesn't seem justified by the post which provoked it.

 

No, it's not a dreadful club, and there's a consistent stance there of encouraging TD calls (without any implied slur) whenever it would be helpful. But it would be a dreadful club if the TDs started issuing DPs to those who are reluctant to claim, rather than explaining to them in a friendly manner when and why to claim.

[jallerton]

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.

OK, let's consider the relevant Laws:

 

. Clarification Required for Claim

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

 

- CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION

A. General Objective

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

B. Clarification Statement Repeated

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

 

. Director’s Considerations

1. 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.

 

. Unstated Line of Play

1. 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.

2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

 

In this case, declarer's claim statement as required by Law 68C was "I have 3 heart tricks". Given the timing of this claim (as soon as declarer saw his 1st round finesse of the 9 fetch the king) it is implicit from the claim statement that he was going to repeat the finesse against East's presumed jack. How else would he believe that "I now have 3 heart tricks"?

 

Law 70D talks about alternative normal* plays. Logically, this must be interpreted to mean "alternative normal* plays consistent with the claim statement" or else there would be no point in anybody making a claim statement!

 

As the claim statement implies that declarer will play East for ♥J, there are no alternative normal plays in the heart suit. [if West had happened to have started with ♥KJ(x)(x) then the contract would of course be ruled as going off.]

 

Law 70E1 does not apply because the finesse against East's presumed ♥J was implied and therefore not "an unstated line of play".

 

Therefore the claim should be allowed. If anyone is still in any doubt, have a look at Law 70A. Given the timing of the claim, is it really a doubtful point how declarer planned to make 3 heart tricks? Is it really being "as equitable as possible to both sides" to assume that declarer will suddenly switch to a totally inconsistent line of play?

[axman]

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.

OK, let's consider the relevant Laws:

 

 

. Director’s Considerations

1. 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.

 

 

Law 70D talks about alternative normal* plays. Logically, this must be interpreted to mean "alternative normal* plays consistent with the claim statement" or else there would be no point in anybody making a claim statement!

 

As the claim statement implies that declarer will play East for ♥J, there are no alternative normal plays in the heart suit. [if West had happened to have started with ♥KJ(x)(x) then the contract would of course be ruled as going off.]

 

Law 70E1 does not apply because the finesse against East's presumed ♥J was implied and therefore not "an unstated line of play".

 

Therefore the claim should be allowed. If anyone is still in any doubt, have a look at Law 70A. Given the timing of the claim, is it really a doubtful point how declarer planned to make 3 heart tricks? Is it really being "as equitable as possible to both sides" to assume that declarer will suddenly switch to a totally inconsistent line of play?

Some care is needed here.

 

Reading what 70D says can be translated as follows:

 

70D instructs the TD as to what he may not do. It give no provision as what to do; nor does it say to do something with those things that other laws [such as they might be] say he should accept.

 

As such 70D is of little help when remedying disputed claims as it only tells what to not do.

 

I am reminded of an anecdote illustrating the non sequitar surrounding an unhelpful claim. After a player opened 2H a game contract by an opponent ensued. Early in the play the opponent claimed using only the statement 'I take X tricks if he has what he promised'.

 

Just as 70D is unhelpful in remedying claims, so was this claim statement unhelpful even if the 2H bidder had what he promised [it being known that he often didn't]. But, as you anticipated, the 2H bedder in fact did not have what he promised. Yet claimer had not stated how many tricks in that event.

[lamford]

Law 70E1 does not apply because the finesse against East's presumed ♥J was implied and therefore not "an unstated line of play".

I am not sure whether I agree with your well-argued case up to this point. I would agree that "alternative normal* plays" takes into account the claim statement. In this case, however, the player's knowledge that he had three heart tricks actually diminished when the nine lost to the king. The only event which would have given him any certainty that he had three heart tricks would have been the fall of the jack on the first round from East.

 

I don't find any reference to an "implicit" line in the claim law, so I agree with axman, iviehoff and campboy that a strict interpretation of the Law should mean the TD rejecting the claim. Gnasher believed that the only rational line for declarer was to repeat the finesse, presumably because he stated when asked that this what he intended to do, and gnasher's decision was to accept the claim; I think I would have adopted the same approach. However, the laws only allow such a supplementary statement if alternatives are irrational, and I cannot agree that cashing the queen on the second round is - after all it is the new best line!

 

You argue that Law 70E1 does not apply because the finesse was implied, and therefore not "an unstated line of play". Surely it was just that, an implied line of play and also an unstated one.

[gnasher]

Gnasher believed that the only rational line for declarer was to repeat the finesse, presumably because he stated when asked that this what he intended to do

No, I think it the only rational line for a player who played a heart to the 9 and then claimed (and who knew that the jack was out). For such a player, cashing the queen is irrational, because he isn't good enough to consider that the jack might be on his left.

[iviehoff]

In this case, declarer's claim statement as required by Law 68C was "I have 3 heart tricks". Given the timing of this claim (as soon as declarer saw his 1st round finesse of the 9 fetch the king) it is implicit from the claim statement that he was going to repeat the finesse against East's presumed jack. How else would he believe that "I now have 3 heart tricks"?

The law explicitly says that careless plays are included in normal plays. So if the player is careless, there might be other reasons why he thinks he has 3 heart tricks. Declarer might think it now suffices to play hearts from the top, because it is a reasonably frequent piece of carelessness to think that the card you successfully finessed against is no longer held in the opponent's hand. This is a piece of carelessness I occasionally fall into. Or maybe he thinks that he has a sufficient count on the hand that he "knows" that the J is now dropping in two rounds.

 

The law, which you quote, clearly says at 70E1 that a player may not rely on a finesse that is "unstated", unless the finesse is marked by a player showing out. Surely a finesse that is merely implied (and I don't mean in the strict mathematical sense) is precisely one that is "unstated"?

[lamford]

Gnasher believed that the only rational line for declarer was to repeat the finesse, presumably because he stated when asked that this what he intended to do

No, I think it the only rational line for a player who played a heart to the 9 and then claimed (and who knew that the jack was out). For such a player, cashing the queen is irrational, because he isn't good enough to consider that the jack might be on his left.

Sorry, I concluded from this exchange that there was some response from the claimer:

 

it would be interesting to learn whether the director was called, and what the ruling was.

The director wasn't called. Rightly or wrongly, I had some doubt about whether declarer knew he needed to finesse again, but once that was cleared up we accepted the claim.

It would be interesting to find out how you "cleared up" whether declarer knew he needed to finesse again; was that by asking him whether he was good enough to recognise a false card if it jumped up and punched him on the nose, or was it from some other aspect of his demeanour, as he did not answer in the affirmative?

 

This seems particularly relevant as Fred is of the opinion that it is in a strong game that the director would not even be called, whereas you seem of the opinion that the fact that he did not seem that strong was the factor that influenced you to believe that he would repeat the finesse.

[gnasher]

Sorry, I misunderstood which of my conclusions you were discussing.

 

At the table, I was persuaded that this particular declarer was aware that the jack was missing and believed that I held it. I therefore concluded that he intended to finesse again.

 

Subsequently, in fact after I'd started this thread, I concluded that for any declarer who had played like this and then claimed like this, and knew that ♥J was still out, it would be irrational to do anything but take another heart finesse against his RHO.