I have three heart tricks

[Pict]

I am genuinely puzzled that I should routinely (in tempo presumably) find a false card that relies on:

 

- declarer misplaying a card combination

- immediately distinguishing AT8x from ATxx

- reliably knowing what is in the unseen hand

- reliably knowing how many tricks declarer needs from the suit

 

It is a very interesting false card that will reinforce my inclination to take the double finesse, but routine, in my face, I don't think so.

[lamford]

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.

Ah, I understand now; he persuaded you (either by sign language or by writing on a piece of paper) that he was playing you for the jack of hearts.

 

And when I wrote that "he must have stated he intended to repeat the finesse", you correctly picked me up on this error.

 

I am pleased that is "cleared up", as no dout you were pleased that it was "cleared up" at the table "whether declarer knew he needed to finesse again."

[gnasher]

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make.

 

If you're trying to show that I misunderstood one of your earlier posts and should be sorry about having done so, then you're correct. That is why I began my previous post with "Sorry, I misunderstood ..."

[lamford]

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make.

 

If you're trying to show that I misunderstood one of your earlier posts and should be sorry about having done so, then you're correct.  That is why I began my previous post with "Sorry, I misunderstood ..."

No, that doesn't matter at all. What I was interested in finding out was how you were persuaded at the table that this particular declarer "knew" that you had the jack of hearts, and intended to play you for it. If you are saying that you assumed that from the timing of his claim, then I understand.

[jallerton]

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.

 

No, given that declarer claimed immediately after the first round of hearts had been played (in fact the only hearts played so far by the opponents were probably still face up on the table) it is irrational for declarer to think that ♥J had been played, or for him to decide he knows that the ♥J must be dropping on the 2nd or 3rd round.

 

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"?

 

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.

 

In my view, the finesse against East's ♥J line has been implicity stated by the claim statement (taken in the context of the timing of the claim) and hence this is not "unstated". If you look at context of Law 70E, coming as it does after Law 70D, I think the word "unstated" is intended to be shorthand for "not embraced in the original clarification statement".

 

Are you suggesting that it is not possible to implicity state something? Well, for example, Bluejak has stated that he is in Iceland this week. It would be overly pedantic to say that the fact that he is not in England is "unstated".

 

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.

 

You are confusing knowledge with belief. Your analysis of how you think this suit combination ought to be played is a complete red herring. All that it relevant for adjudicating this claim is what lines of play are normal* in the context of the claim statement. It had plainly not occured to this particular declarer that West could possibly hold ♥J when he produced the K on the first round; declarer's belief that he had 3 hearts tricks must have been based on his belief that East must hold ♥J and we should rule on that basis.

 

That is why Gnasher accepted the claim, and presumably why even Paul would have accepted the claim. That is also why Fred believes the claim would have been accepted in any strong game; although many strong players do not know the Laws, they know enough to call the TD when they believe that an opponent might have gained an advantage through a dubious claim.

[lamford]

In my view, the finesse against East's ♥J line has been implicity stated by the claim statement (taken in the context of the timing of the claim) and hence this is not "unstated".  If you look at context of Law 70E, coming as it does after Law 70D, I think the word "unstated" is intended to be shorthand for "not embraced in the original clarification statement".  

 

Are you suggesting that it is not possible to implicity state something?  Well, for example, Bluejak has stated that he is in Iceland this week.  It would be overly pedantic to say that the fact that he is not in England is "unstated".

This is the area of disagreement. You are deeming the repeated heart finesse to be an implicit statement. The example you quote does not, in my view, support your argument. If bluejak states he is in Iceland (all) this week, then we can conclude he is not in any other country. So yes, we can imply something, if it is the negative of what we have stated.

 

But let us look at the statement "I have three heart tricks." This has to be a true statement, as there is no arrangement of the opposing cards which guarantees a trick for them. Let us say that it implies that declarer is repeating the finesse, which I can accept. Not good enough, I am afraid, as the Laws clearly prevent an unstated finesse. They do not allow for an implied statement.

 

However, if the heart finesse was the only rational line, as in other examples quoted, then it should indeed be permitted. You regard rational as what the declarer was overwhelmingly likely to do if play had proceeded. But even if we accept that, we still disallow the claim, as the other lines are not even careless, and one of them is best. It is the evaluation of the other lines that is relevant, not the evaluation of repeating the finesse. "Unless not to take the finesse is irrational", say the laws.

 

If a claim was contested on, say, OKbridge, I could well imagine a declarer thinking, "Oh dear, West might have the jack of hearts after all." Perhaps I had better rethink this whole thing and play the best line of cashing the queen. In this cyberworld, with its different method of settling claims, the declarer gets his contract, or loses it, depending on where the JH is.

[jdonn]

When jallerton says he disagrees with your interpretation of "unstated", it's fine to disagree on the basis of what you believe "unstated" should mean. But it's quite pointless to insist you are right because "the Laws clearly prevent an unstated finesse" as he just said in his opinion "this [the finesse] is not "unstated"."

[lamford]

When jallerton says he disagrees with your interpretation of "unstated", it's fine to disagree on the basis of what you believe "unstated" should mean. But it's quite pointless to insist you are right because "the Laws clearly prevent an unstated finesse" as he just said in his opinion "this [the finesse] is not "unstated"."

No, there are two points that I am making - different ones. One, as you observe, is a disagreement on what unstated means. I think this is simple; either the claimer did state that he would take the finesse or he didn't. If he didn't, it is unstated.

 

The other is that when a finesse is unstated, it could be implied, which I think it can be in certain situations - when not to finesse is irrational. In my opinion, this situation falls far short of that criterion as well.

 

And I did not insist I was right; I offered my opinion

[jallerton]

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I am still curious as to why, if you consider the claim should not be decided in declarer's favour, you would not have contested the claim as a defender. You are not known for being shy in calling the TD!

 

By the way, I have just found that there is authoritative support for Gnasher's and my view that the timing of claim is relevant:

 

Law 70: Validity of claims [Ton]

When judging the validity of a claim it is important to follow and understand the reasons for the claim at that specific moment.

[lamford]

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I am still curious as to why, if you consider the claim should not be decided in declarer's favour, you would not have contested the claim as a defender.  You are not known for being shy in calling the TD!

Personal choice. It is up to all defenders whether they accept a claim or not, and I think the claim rules are too harsh. I am usually arguing for the claimant, as some have commented. I was quite suprised not to see woubit commenting on this one - he is usually draconian on faulty claims; and jeremy69 confirmed my view of the correct TD action, and he has a similar "zero-tolerance" approach!

 

And I don't disagree that the timing of the claim is relevant. If declarer is cold if trumps are not 4-0 and draws one round and immediately claims, that indicates that he will draw trumps.

[Pict]

There is no fundamental problem about claims.

 

If (hypothetically) claims were not part of the Laws, Fred and everyone strong or not, could get on with their game with pleasure and impunity.

 

But the Laws talk about claims for better or worse.

 

So they have to be dealt with sensibly.

 

There is room for disagreement but Lamford seems extreme and JAllerton seems a bit offensive.

[dburn]

What follows is long and not especially interesting, but someone expressed surprise that I had not given an opinion on this case. I plead both ignorance and laziness, and ask for 203,478 similar offenses to be taken into consideration.

 

I am not sure exactly what took place here - if I read correctly, the players came to a decision at the table that declarer would indeed make three heart tricks, so the claim was not referred to a Director. The question appears to be: what would have happened if it had been?

 

Well, the Director applies these Laws in order:

 

Law 70A

 

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.

 

This raises the unfortunate question of what "equitably" means; since no one knows, any given ruling is likely to generate more heat than light, but we cannot help that. For the moment we note only that "any doubtful point... shall be resolved against the claimer".

 

Law 70B

 

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

 

2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).

 

3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

 

In this case, the "clarification statement" appeared to be "I have three heart tricks." I assume in what follows that the defenders did not (as it appears that they actually did at the table) inquire as to how declarer proposed to make those tricks; I assume that either defender merely objected to the claim.

 

See Law 70D3 below for guidance on what should be done if, for example, East had conceded the claim at the table after declarer had said that he would run ♥10 next, but West had objected on the grounds that he might have false-carded from ♥KJ(+) and wanted a Director's ruling at this point. Of course, no one would ever play with such a West again, but at least under the 2007 Laws it is far easier than it was under the 1997 Laws to rule against him as well as ostracizing him.

 

Law 70D

 

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.

 

[...2...]

 

3. In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim.

 

Here, one might take the view that the successful line of play at the table is "embraced in the original clarification statement"; declarer thinks he knows which opponent holds ♥J and will play accordingly to make the three heart tricks he has claimed. Unfortunately...

 

Law 70E

 

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 [...] failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

It is clear that the original clarification statement contained no indication that declarer would play so as to find East and not West with ♥J. A suggestion has been made (if I read correctly) that this has been implied by declarer but not stated, so should be treated as if it had been stated; I can find no basis in language or in Law for such a procedure. Declarer has not stated that he will run the ten next, so it is open to the Director to adjudicate on the basis that he would not.

 

The question is, then, whether it would be "irrational" for declarer to lose a trick to East's remaining ♥Jxx by catering for West's holding the jack despite having won the nine with the king. The Laws provide no definition of either "rational" or "irrational", so the Director must make his own judgment; he may, of course, be guided by local regulation as to the meaning of those terms, by works of reference, or by common sense (though if he had any of that, he would have delegated the question to a junior Director forthwith).

 

The many posts on this question so far have indicated no more than that there is a wide variety of opinion as to what might be an irrational course for a declarer of this particular class to adopt. It has been inferred that declarer cannot be all that strong a player, or he would not have played in this fashion to begin with. But such deductions are flimsy at best on the basis of such scanty evidence; it is true that a technician would play the suit by leading the queen, but a psychologist who as a player is as strong as or stronger than the technician might decide to gauge East's reaction to the play of a low card from dummy, since the difference in percentage chance of success between the two lines is very small.

 

The word "irrational" means "contrary to reason", but this is capable of (at least) two interpretations in this context. On the one hand, we may say that to lose a trick to ♥Jxx is "rational" because there is a good reason for it: West might have false-carded, and if he would do so whenever he should do so, a "rational" declarer should lose the trick. On the other hand, we may say that a player who is convinced from West's play of the king that East holds the jack would have no reason to play the queen next; to do so would for this player be "contrary to reason". This dual meaning of the term "irrational" has led to much grief and anguish in the adjudication of claims, and this case is one of many examples of why.

 

For myself, I imagine that I would incline to the second interpretation and allow the claim, all other things being equal. But I would have sympathy with a Director who inclined to the first interpretation and disallowed the claim, or even with a Director who took the view that declarer might have forgotten about the jack having successfully finessed against it, and believed the remainder of his cards to be high. I have, as always, no sympathy whatsoever with the current Laws relating to claims.

[bluejak]

Why is a repeating finesse not implicit in the claim?

Because the law tells us quite clearly that no unstated line of play is ever "implicit" in a claim statement if there are alternative ways of making fewer tricks that are either rational lines of play, or result from mere carelessness. And because the law tells us quite clearly a finesse is not marked for the purposes of a claim unless a player shows out.

 

If you think that obviously the player will never do anything other than repeat the finesse, and don't want to be awarded a trick for it, then the thing to do is not dispute the claim. If the claim is disputed by someone, the TD has to follow the laws. The lesson is, make adequate claim statements, it's what the law tells you to do.

I think you have missed the main point of the claim Laws, which is to decide as equitably as possible. Your [and others] presumption that the Laws get to silly results is not correct. Most claims are accepted anyway, and when a claim has an obvious meaning - such as th ridiculous quoted JT9 opposite AQxx after two successful finesses - that is how it is ruled.

[Codo]

.. and when a claim has an obvious meaning - such as th ridiculous quoted JT9 opposite AQxx after two successful finesses - that is how it is ruled.

So where is your borderline between ridiculous and to be disputed?

 

In the given scenario (AT8x opps. Q9x) you play one finesse and claim and this could be disputed. In the "ridiculous" example you finesse twice.

And this should be the difference?

[jallerton]

I am still curious as to why, if you consider the claim should not be decided in declarer's favour, you would not have contested the claim as a defender.  You are not known for being shy in calling the TD!

Personal choice. It is up to all defenders whether they accept a claim or not, and I think the claim rules are too harsh. I am usually arguing for the claimant, as some have commented.

So as a defender, would you choose to accept the claim because:

 

(a) you judge that, given the claim statement and the timing of the claim, declarer was virtually certain to make it; or

 

although there was a significant chance that declarer would have gone off, this chance was under 50% and on balance of probabilities you will allow declarer to have the extra trick?

[bluejak]

Some of the regular posters to the various Laws-related Forums have suggested that posts to these Forums by bridge experts who are not Laws experts are appreciated and welcome here. So if I think I have something to add to the discussion, I will occasionally do so.

The policy of these forums is to accept posts from anyone within reasonable limits, and Ed and I [plus an overall BBO moderator] decide what reasonable limits are. In general posts are accepted so long as they do not demean people, whether posters here or otherwise, and are not rude. In fact we allow a certain latitude even in this.

 

So we are very happy to see posts from people who are not experts in the Laws.

 

If, in the future, it is made clear that my posts are not welcome here, I will be more than happy to stop gracing you with my presence.

While this seems wildly unlikely to me, it would only be relevant if a moderator suggested it, not another poster.

 

:blink:

 

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

Yes.

 

:ph34r:

 

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.

While no doubt true, surely a player contesting the claim would point out this possibility?

 

:ph34r:

 

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.

 

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

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.

PROCEDURAL PENALTIES

 

A. Director’s Authority

 

The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or ....... inconveniences other contestants .......

 

B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty

 

The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these):

 

2. unduly slow play by a contestant.

 

:ph34r:

 

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.

I do not actually agree with either of these statements.

 

:ph34r:

 

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.

What a strange idea, issuing DPs to players who do not claim! :ph34r:

 

I hope that was meant as a joke, but I think it in very poor taste.

 

If anyone really thought I meant that [incredibly :ph34r: ] of course I meant DPs for the people who intimidate people who do claim by always contesting claims even when they know them to be perfectly valid.

 

Clubs where players are afraid of TD calls by opponents do not seem to me to be great clubs.

[bluejak]

.. and when a claim has an obvious meaning - such as th ridiculous quoted JT9 opposite AQxx after two successful finesses - that is how it is ruled.

So where is your borderline between ridiculous and to be disputed?

Commonsense, I suppose.

 

In the given scenario (AT8x opps. Q9x) you play one finesse and claim and this could be disputed. In the "ridiculous" example you finesse twice.

And this should be the difference?

No, in one case it is obvious, in the other it is not. That is the difference.

[Vampyr]

.. and when a claim has an obvious meaning - such as th ridiculous quoted JT9 opposite AQxx after two successful finesses - that is how it is ruled.

So where is your borderline between ridiculous and to be disputed?

Commonsense, I suppose.

 

In the given scenario (AT8x opps. Q9x) you play one finesse and claim and this could be disputed. In the "ridiculous" example you finesse twice.

And this should be the difference?

No, in one case it is obvious, in the other it is not. That is the difference.

OK, I'll bite. They look the same to me. What is different?

[bluejak]

You think that someone who finesses twice and will obviously finesse again is the same as someone who finesses once in a position where there are going to be hundreds of posts because half the people think it obvious to finesse again, and half do not? Really?