Claim with delayed explanation

[twcho]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sq73hqt8d985cat85&w=sa8654h7djt643c92&e=sjhakj3dakq72cj63&s=skt92h96542dckq74]399|300|Scoring: IMP

W　N　E　S

　　　　　 2♥

P　P　3N　AP

 

2♥ was alerted and explained by north as 6-11 HCP, 54+ Majors

[/hv]

 

South led ♣K and partner encouraged. The director was summoned by North after 4 rounds of Clubs. North said that 3NT was played. And now North was on lead on the 5th trick, however, before North played to the 5th trick, the declarer, E, showed his remaining 9 cards to two opponents and the dummy. There was silence for a few seconds before declarer said "Afterall, I have to finesse".

 

At this point, director was summoned to the table. North said that there was about 8-10 seconds of break of tempo for the declarer to make this statement. South and West also agreed but E said that there were about 5-6 seconds before making the statement.

 

How will you rule?

[Cascade]

I rule against declarer.

 

If the claim needs a finesse the declarer needs to make this statement at once otherwise it is subject to the requirement that declarer cannot adopt a line of play the success of which requires finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card.

[JLOGIC]

Definitely rule for the defense, declarer seems to have miscounted his tricks then when his claim was not accepted he realized his mistake and said he'd finesse.

 

I mean, no one would claim in this spot on a finesse since if north switches to a spade and you claim on the finesse you are down 3, so it's pretty obvious what happened.

[Free]

agree with jlo

[ahydra]

Definitely rule for the defense, declarer seems to have miscounted his tricks then when his claim was not accepted he realized his mistake and said he'd finesse.

 

I mean, no one would claim in this spot on a finesse since if north switches to a spade and you claim on the finesse you are down 3, so it's pretty obvious what happened.

Is he not down 4? (The defence can cash the ♠Q followed by the 10 and 9) Declarer made no mention of cashing diamonds first :ph34r:

 

As a result, what number of tricks are we giving declarer if South actually held the Queen of Hearts? Does the "rule in favour of the defence" thing override the "not allowed to use any line of play in finding one opponent with a particular card" thing?

 

ahydra

[pran]

Definitely rule for the defense, declarer seems to have miscounted his tricks then when his claim was not accepted he realized his mistake and said he'd finesse.

 

I mean, no one would claim in this spot on a finesse since if north switches to a spade and you claim on the finesse you are down 3, so it's pretty obvious what happened.

Is he not down 4? (The defence can cash the ♠Q followed by the 10 and 9) Declarer made no mention of cashing diamonds first :ph34r:

 

As a result, what number of tricks are we giving declarer if South actually held the Queen of Hearts? Does the "rule in favour of the defence" thing override the "not allowed to use any line of play in finding one opponent with a particular card" thing?

 

ahydra

As the cards lie we shall rule him to cash his top two hearts first when he eventually get to play hearts.

 

If South had held the Queen we should rule him to try the heart finesse.

 

The only question is what cards he shall be ruled to play before playing his hearts.

[jeremy69]

IMO his claim statement makes two things clear

 

1. As others have said he initially miscounted his tricks

2. He intended to cash diamonds first

 

I would rule him down one

[Trecar]

Claimer failed to state "I will cash the diamonds the take the heart finesse and either make or be -3 (or -4?)"

 

He has therefore stated no line of play, and only the delay in acquiesence by N/S has "found" him a successful line of play.

 

I would rule -1 on the strength of Law 70E1.

[blackshoe]

Is there a normal line of play that does not involve the finesse?

[qwery_hi]

Is there a normal line of play that does not involve the finesse?

if declarer thought he had 6 diamond tricks, then yes, cash 9 top tricks.

[blackshoe]

If. We have no evidence he thought that.

[qwery_hi]

If. We have no evidence he thought that.

I'm not so sure - if declarer was always finessing for 9 tricks, he'd say so in his original claim statement. OTOH, if he thought he had 9 on top, he wouldn't.

[gordontd]

Is there a normal line of play that does not involve the finesse?

Sure - cash your top tricks in any order and then realise you're one short.

 

Or following a spade lead, start by unblocking the diamonds from dummy. By the time you've played three rounds it's too late to finesse.

[blackshoe]

If. We have no evidence he thought that.

I'm not so sure - if declarer was always finessing for 9 tricks, he'd say so in his original claim statement. OTOH, if he thought he had 9 on top, he wouldn't.

Since everyone is so found of speculating, suppose he thought his line of play was obvious?

[RMB1]

Since everyone is so found of speculating, suppose he thought his line of play was obvious?

There is evidence that he did not think he was obviously finessing.

 

If he thought his line was obvious, would he add "Afterall, I have to finesse"?

 

If he was finessing, he has no reason to think it would be successful, so would say "Eight or nine (depending on who has ♥Q)"

[blackshoe]

If he thought his line was obvious, would he add "Afterall, I have to finesse"?

He would if the opponents' silence convinced him it wasn't as obvious as he'd thought.

 

If he was finessing, he has no reason to think it would be successful, so would say "Eight or nine (depending on who has ♥Q)"

 

Maybe.

 

All I'm saying is that I don't think this ruling is as obvious as others do.

[aguahombre]

I think they just don't like giving the benefit of the doubt to the offending side, when the OS created the doubt.

[jdonn]

Frankly I don't think he counted his tricks at all, I suspect declarer just saw what looked to him like plenty of tricks and claimed. But it's quite obvious to me that at the initial time of the claim he didn't intend to finesse, for a variety of reasons (the delay in the explanation, the fact that few if any would claim on the finesse before north plays, that people who claim on a finesse tend to state how many tricks they are making depending on the result, etc.) On that basis I have to rule down 1 because if north played a heart now declarer wouldn't have known yet that he didn't need the finesse, he would only have figured it out if he ran his diamonds first.

[blackshoe]

Well, I want to ask him some questions. I may then rule one (or more) down, I may not. But I do think more investigation is warranted.

[qwery_hi]

If. We have no evidence he thought that.

I'm not so sure - if declarer was always finessing for 9 tricks, he'd say so in his original claim statement. OTOH, if he thought he had 9 on top, he wouldn't.

Since everyone is so found of speculating, suppose he thought his line of play was obvious?

Since when do the laws make an exception to stating a line of play if I think the line is obvious?

[bluejak]

They don't. But custom + practice, logic, and experience do so. There are lots of hands where declarer shows his hand and the opponents have their hands back in the board and have written the score down before he has a chance to even speak. For example, five winning trumps and nothing else. So, in practical terms, not stating a line in completely obvious cases is normal.

[qwery_hi]

They don't. But custom + practice, logic, and experience do so. There are lots of hands where declarer shows his hand and the opponents have their hands back in the board and have written the score down before he has a chance to even speak. For example, five winning trumps and nothing else. So, in practical terms, not stating a line in completely obvious cases is normal.

You're wrong. Custom+practice, logic + explanation make an exception when the line of claim is obvious * to the opponents *

 

For example, you or I wouldn't dream of claiming on a routine double squeeze when playing against 299'ers.

[bluejak]

Sounds like what I said.

[blackshoe]

You're wrong. Custom+practice, logic + explanation make an exception when the line of claim is obvious * to the opponents *

 

For example, you or I wouldn't dream of claiming on a routine double squeeze when playing against 299'ers.

Heh. I once claimed the last four tricks in what seemed to me a completely obvious position, and stated what I thought was a very clear line of play. I don't remember the details, but something like two trumps and two losers in dummy, and two trumps and two losers in a different suit in my hand, saying "I'll crossruff these losers" or something like that. LHO said "I'm sorry, I just can't see it. Would you play it out, please?" I said we would need the director, and called her. She gave me all four tricks.

 

LHO may have been the same woman who I on another day overheard say to her partner, during a post-mortem after the game, "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!" ;)

[aguahombre]

I know all the stuff about play stopping when there is a claim, Blackshoe. And certainly you acted by the book.

 

I would have done what the Lil ol Lady asked, though; if it all-of-a-sudden dawns on her that she was being silly, no one else (TD) is involved to add to the embarrassment. If she really didn't understand about cross-ruffing, it would be instructional.