I have three heart tricks

[campboy]

1. Of course a winning finesse is allowed to be repeated. The player merely has to state that that is what he is doing to get all the tricks. However, if he does not state that he is taking a finesse then we are in law 70E1 territory; a finesse is not "marked" unless someone has shown out of that suit (or will do so before we have to decide whether to take it).

 

2. I do not see the distinction. The ethics of any game derive from the rules; what is ethical in one game may be unethical in another.

[Codo]

So you play NT and the crutial suit is

North South

JT9 AQ76

You play the jack 263

Ten 475

9 8

now you claim the rest of the tricks.

Better not if Campboy or Lamford is your TD. The evil West may had hold back the King and duck twice to cut down communication.

So they rule: You must now play the ace to catter for that possibility. Damn.. surprinsingly West was not such a genius. He did not hold the king. But according to the laws like they read them, he could have hold it.

 

Beancounters who call the TD will get a trick out of nothing.

So don't claim, or explain in full length and best with words even a baby understand:

I will take the queen. If the King does not appear, I will win the last trick with the ace. But if the queen lose to the king,you win the trick.

 

So do not claim....because if you would talk this way with me as your opponent, I may well call the TD, because I find it offending if you think that I may not be able to understand this claim while you just say: The rest is mine.

I may well call the TD about it... :angry:

[iviehoff]

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.

[fred]

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.

Correct and I strongly believe that this is a good thing. Perhaps it should be noted that I don't recall every hearing anyone openly making such an "agreement" - it is just the way it is.

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.

Agree. I was not trying to make any claims (haha) about what the Laws actually say (I have no idea) or what I think they *should* say (I am not really qualified to offer a meaningful opinion).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Actually I'll concede one thing, the king play isn't that hard when given as a problem. I bother you to take time out of your day and say "you have xxx xxx KJxx xxx...." gee I wonder where the problem will be.

[Pict]

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.

 

Would they have falsecarded if North had A10xx, or they couldn't see North's hand.

[blackshoe]

So they rule: You must now play the ace to cater for that possibility.

No, they don't. They rule that the law requires that when a finesse is not marked, one defender having shown out, the line of play statement required to accompany a claim must include that the finesse will be taken or, if not taking the finesse is "normal", then if that line fails, the TD awards a trick (or more) to the defenders. FWIW, I don't think it's "normal" to take two finesses on this lie of the cards, and then play the ace. I think the finesse is marked, although it might depend on the level of play of the defenders. There is also the question whether declarer has a count on the hand. If he knows the opponents are 3-3 in this suit, there's no need for a third round finesse.

 

So do not claim....because if you would talk this way with me as your opponent, I may well call the TD, because I find it offending if you think that I may not be able to understand this claim while you just say: The rest is mine.

 

That's just childish. :(

 

I may well call the TD about it...

 

To which my mildest response would be "get a life". :P

[blackshoe]

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.

Correct and I strongly believe that this is a good thing. Perhaps it should be noted that I don't recall every hearing anyone openly making such an "agreement" - it is just the way it is.

Speaking as both a (not nearly at that level) player and as a director, I have no problem with that - provided that everyone at the table is of the appropriate level. We have a very good player here who likes to intimidate his opponents by doing this. One of these days I'm going to get called to the table when it happens, instead of finding out about it three days after the fact, and then I'm going to hit him with some serious penalties.

 

In cases where one or more defenders is not quite up to the standard of "high level bridge", I expect everybody to follow the rules, including the one which says they should accept gracefully any ruling of the TD (subject of course to their right to appeal), and including the one which says a claim should be accompanied by a clear line of play statement.

[Jlall]

+1 that if you take a finesse and it wins then you claim it is implied you are taking the finesse again

[barmar]

Definitely agree with that. When I claim against novices, I generally go overboard in the claim statement, since I have no expectation that they will see what would be obvious to more experienced players.

 

In the situation in this thread, I fully agree with Fred. If it were played by experts, it would be obvious that he intended to repeat the finesse. If West falsecarded, he would simply point out that the finesse was losing, and declarer would agree that he only gets 2 tricks. They might call the TD just as a formality (some players are sticklers to the rule that you should call the TD in any dubious situation), but I suspect in most cases they wouldn't bother. The same thing if someone finesses twice, and the opponent was holding up the offside honor; he'd point out that the third finesse would have lost, and declarer would agree that he doesn't get all the tricks.

[campboy]

So do not claim....because if you would talk this way with me as your opponent, I may well call the TD, because I find it offending if you think that I may not be able to understand this claim while you just say: The rest is mine.

I may well call the TD about it... :angry:

Please note that when directing I am obliged to rule according to the laws, and this may include awarding tricks to the defence in claims that I would not myself have contested.

 

However, as TD I would take a dim view of any attempt to bully opponents out of calling me.

[lamford]

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.

Agree. I was not trying to make any claims (haha) about what the Laws actually say (I have no idea) or what I think they *should* say (I am not really qualified to offer a meaningful opinion).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

So what is the purpose of your commenting on a laws forum on a subject in which you are not qualified to offer an opinion, although I find this hard to believe, as I would expect you to have at least a basic knowledge of the Laws? Especially when you preface two of your postings with 1000%?

 

We all agree that there are many people who would accept the claim here. The purpose of this forum is to decide what the correct ruling is if the TD is called. And I would submit that is one more trick to the defenders. And I am certain that is 1000%. And, like campboy, I take a dim view of someone who would laugh at the opponents for calling the director.

[lamford]

So you play NT and the crutial suit is

North       South

JT9          AQ76

You play the jack 263

                   Ten 475

                   9 8

now you claim the rest of the tricks.

Better not if Campboy or Lamford is your TD. The evil West may had hold back the King and duck twice to cut down communication.

So they rule: You must now play the ace to catter for that possibility. Damn.. surprinsingly West was not such a genius. He did not hold the king. But according to the laws like they read them, he could have hold it.

 

Beancounters who call the TD will get a trick out of nothing.

So don't claim, or explain in full length and best with words even a baby understand:

I will take the queen. If the King does not appear, I will win the last trick with the ace. But if the queen lose to the king,you win the trick.

 

So do not claim....because if you would talk this way with me as your opponent, I may well call the TD, because I find it offending if you think that I may not be able to understand this claim while you just say: The rest is mine.

I may well call the TD about it... :angry:

I think I understand this. The answer is that if there was no logical alternative to a third spade finesse, then I would award the contract; if, however, the layout was:

 

North: AQ76 xxx xxx xxx South JT9 AKQ AKQ AKQx

 

and the contract was 7NT, I would award two tricks to the opponents unless there was Kxx of spades onside. Now, if the contract was 6NT, I would have to think again. If it was matchpoints, I would award two tricks to the opponents wherever the king is (unless Kxx onside), and if it were teams I think it would depend on the wording of the claim, but I would probably make the same award. And it would not bother me one iota if Fred was laughing in the background. All this assumes clubs are 4-2 of course.

 

Oh, by the way, inclusion of the phrase "repeating the spade finesse" would avoid all ambiguity. The Laws require a statement of the intended line. Make one, or suffer the consequences!

[cherdanno]

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.

Agree. I was not trying to make any claims (haha) about what the Laws actually say (I have no idea) or what I think they *should* say (I am not really qualified to offer a meaningful opinion).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

So what is the purpose of your commenting on a laws forum on a subject in which you are not qualified to offer an opinion, although I find this hard to believe, as I would expect you to have at least a basic knowledge of the Laws? Especially when you preface two of your postings with 1000%?

 

We all agree that there are many people who would accept the claim here. The purpose of this forum is to decide what the correct ruling is if the TD is called. And I would submit that is one more trick to the defenders. And I am certain that is 1000%. And, like campboy, I take a dim view of someone who would laugh at the opponents for calling the director.

Umm. Fred's "1000%" phrase said that in a strong game, it was 1000% clear what declarer meant. This is not a claim of what the ruling should be, so someone making that claim only has to know declarers in a strong game, and has to know nothing about the laws.

Nevertheless, I very much hope it is relevant for the ruling. If every player in a strong game would understand this claim the way Fred does (and despite having played only very few very strong games, I was 99.9% sure this is true even before I read Fred's and Justin's opinion in this thread), then I would hope that any director would take that into consideration.

 

To me, this is the equivalent of having a trump suit of AKQJxx opposite xx and only winners on the side, playing one round of trumps from the top, then claiming. It is obvious to everyone that I was checking for a 5-0 trump break, and (I assume) nobody would call the director in this case if I claimed the rest without saying "pull trumps from the top".

[lamford]

To me, this is the equivalent of having a trump suit of AKQJxx opposite xx and only winners on the side, playing one round of trumps from the top, then claiming. It is obvious to everyone that I was checking for a 5-0 trump break, and (I assume) nobody would call the director in this case if I claimed the rest without saying "pull trumps from the top".

Rubbish. The two are not similar in the remotest way, and all TDs would allow the claim in the example you give, as there is only one normal line.

[jdonn]

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.

And for what it is worth, I would let the claim stand as a defender, but that is a personal choice.

So you would just forfeit a trick you would have won 25% of the time? Or is it possible you don't realize that you are exagerating to make your point?

 

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.

 

Second comment, LOL at telling Fred he shouldn't post anywhere he damn well pleases on the forums, or even implying it. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the laws forums are guests on Bridgebase forums. That is like me inviting you to my house and then you yelling at me for watching tv in the kitchen, where cooking is meant to take place. Um, it's my kitchen!

[lamford]

Second comment, LOL at telling Fred he shouldn't post anywhere he damn well pleases on the forums, or even implying it.

I did neither. I asked what the purpose was of Fred commenting on the correct ruling if he claimed he did not

a) know what the laws should say

b ) know what the laws do say

[fred]

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.

Agree. I was not trying to make any claims (haha) about what the Laws actually say (I have no idea) or what I think they *should* say (I am not really qualified to offer a meaningful opinion).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

So what is the purpose of your commenting on a laws forum on a subject in which you are not qualified to offer an opinion, although I find this hard to believe, as I would expect you to have at least a basic knowledge of the Laws? Especially when you preface two of your postings with 1000%?

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.

 

Sorry if you thought my contributions in this particular case lacked value. I suspect other readers found my comments interesting even if they have no legal relevance.

 

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 :angry:

The purpose of this forum is to decide what the correct ruling is if the TD is called.

Well the original post asked:

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

My experience as a player suggests that I rate to have more insight than most into the psyche of players of a particular ability class.

 

So I thought it was worth mentioning that, in the ability class of high-level bridge players, the question doesn't have any meaning (because nobody would have called the TD in the first place). I also found this thread interesting because, to me, the situation was almost comical yet some people were taking it SO seriously.

And, like campboy, I take a dim view of someone who would laugh at the opponents for calling the director.

I promise that if I ever play against you and campboy, I will try very hard to refrain from laughing regardless of how absurd your TD calls seem to me. If you prefer we can go as far as to declare our table a no-smiling zone.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[lamford]

Running the J from JT9 opposite AQxx then claiming is an implicit statement the finesse is being repeated.

And if the first two finesses hold, you then assume declarer would take his 12 tricks at IMPs in the example stated; or risk the contract for an overtrick by repeating the finesse a third time?

 

Rather than talk about "implicit lines", a phrase that is not in the laws at all, why not just follow the rules which clearly state that declarer cannot play for a specific card in a particular location unless someone has shown out or unless failure to do so would be irrational. And that is a value judgement in each case.

[lamford]

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.

Agree. I was not trying to make any claims (haha) about what the Laws actually say (I have no idea) or what I think they *should* say (I am not really qualified to offer a meaningful opinion).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

So what is the purpose of your commenting on a laws forum on a subject in which you are not qualified to offer an opinion, although I find this hard to believe, as I would expect you to have at least a basic knowledge of the Laws? Especially when you preface two of your postings with 1000%?

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.

 

Sorry if you thought my contributions in this particular case lacked value. I suspect other readers found my comments interesting even if they have no legal relevance.

 

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 :angry:

The purpose of this forum is to decide what the correct ruling is if the TD is called.

Well the original post asked:

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

My experience as a player suggests that I rate to have more insight than most into the psyche of players of a particular ability class.

 

So I thought it was worth mentioning that, in the ability class of high-level bridge players, the question doesn't have any meaning (because nobody would have called the TD in the first place). I also found this thread interesting because, to me, the situation was almost comical yet some people were taking it SO seriously.

And, like campboy, I take a dim view of someone who would laugh at the opponents for calling the director.

I promise that if I ever play against you and campboy, I will try very hard to refrain from laughing regardless of how absurd your TD calls seem to me. If you prefer we can go as far as to declare our table a no-smiling zone.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Again, I made no statement that they lacked value. I was indeed interested in what you had to say, and prefaced my first posting by "I normally have the highest regard for your opinions" or words to that effect.

 

I asked why your opinion should be so dogmatic when you claimed

a) to have no knowledge of the relevant law

b ) to have no opinion on what it should say

 

And I still ask that. I was both surprised by your opinion on the hand, and on the statement of your lack of legal knowledge of the area.

 

May I ask where I stated that your contribution lacked value?

[fred]

I asked why your opinion should be so dogmatic when you claimed

a) to have no knowledge of the relevant law

b ) to have no opinion on what it should say

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.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I forgot rule #47 of the forums. Never suggest anyone implied anything, they always deny it and it's never provable! Anyway,

 

Running the J from JT9 opposite AQxx then claiming is an implicit statement the finesse is being repeated.

And if the first two finesses hold, you then assume declarer would take his 12 tricks at IMPs in the example stated; or risk the contract for an overtrick by repeating the finesse a third time?

 

Rather than talk about "implicit lines", a phrase that is not in the laws at all, why not just follow the rules which clear state that declarer cannot play for a specific card in a particular location unless someone has shown out or unless failure to do so would be irrational. And that is a value judgement in each case.

Because I would never have thought some people obviously so well versed in the laws could be so clueless about what plays are and aren't irrational!

 

Here is a question for you to mull over. Why do you think it is that certain players would laugh at the opponents for calling the director in a case like this?

[lamford]

I promise that if I ever play against you and campboy, I will try very hard to refrain from laughing regardless of how absurd your TD calls seem to me. If you prefer we can go as far as to declare our table a no-smiling zone.

Both I and campboy have indicated that discussion of this thread is based on how we would rule as a TD. I have already indicated that as a defender, I would concede the claim, and campboy suggests the same. I would have no problem with anyone contesting it either. 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.

[lamford]

Because I would never have thought some people obviously so well versed in the laws could be so clueless about what plays are and aren't irrational!

Keep waiting. That dictionary will arrive in the post soon.

[fred]

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