"You get a heart"

[phil_20686]

I remember a hand in a club where I had Jx opposite AQTxx, and I claimed very early as we were a bit late saying "Ill take the club finesse and it it wins I have x tricks and it loses I have y tricks." and the director ruled that my line of play meant playing low to the queen and if it won, cashing the ace rather than repeating the finesse. (i needed three club tricks to have x tricks), and so that I should get Y tricks with Kxx in the slot.

 

Pretty much still angry about it two years later.

[pran]

I remember a hand in a club where I had Jx opposite AQTxx, and I claimed very early as we were a bit late saying "Ill take the club finesse and it it wins I have x tricks and it loses I have y tricks." and the director ruled that my line of play meant playing low to the queen and if it won, cashing the ace rather than repeating the finesse. (i needed three club tricks to have x tricks), and so that I should get Y tricks with Kxx in the slot.

 

Pretty much still angry about it two years later.

Most understandable, I consider this a TD error:

 

Without much thinking I would have ruled the result as if you led the Jack and let it run (unless covered), then small to the Ace/Ten.

 

Next board please.

[gnasher]

Claiming is basically a courtesy to the defence. I would like club players to claim a lot more. I have lost count of the times I have tanked in defence for several minutes, on potentially very difficult end positions, when in fact declarer had all the rest of the tricks, or a hand where the position was basically a non event, but they don't claim because they had one of these rulings and now "don;t ever claim".

 

Its different if you are playing in a high level tournament, where it is legitimate to take pretty much any excuse to make your opponents waste brain power ...

 

Are you saying that you think it's legitimate to play on when you could claim, in order to make the opponents waste their mental energy? That would be a breach of Law 74B4.

[semeai]

Are you saying that you think it's legitimate to play on when you could claim, in order to make the opponents waste their mental energy? That would be a breach of Law 74B4.

 

There was an example heavily discussed at bridgewinners a while ago of I believe Michael Rosenberg playing on when an overtrick in 6NT was technically possible if Meckwell defended horribly, but that otherwise the result 6NT= was certain. If I recall correctly, the hand took 10-15 minutes to play out, with the defense taking lots of thinking time.

 

This isn't the same, and is surely not illegal at least since there was the barest possibility of the 1 imp pickup, but is close to what Phil is talking about.

 

Added: Here's the link.

[iviehoff]

Ruling that you lose a heart here seems pretty bad at club level. Its just the kind of ruling that creates lots of ill feeling for no reason.

Really? The guy conceded a trick. Now he is trying to cancel his concession. I think in general the ruling "you conceded a trick, you lose it" is a ruling more likely to be accepted with (overall) equanimity than allowing him to cancel the concession, when the opposition have got sufficiently used to the idea that this trick conceded is theirs to call the director over it.

 

When I attempted to cancel my concession of trick 14, the opps called the TD, because this idiot facing them had conceded a trick and they were used to the idea it was very hard to unconcede a trick and they wanted it. What exactly happened here was there were 6 tricks remaining, and I stated in order which card was going to win each trick. I then found I was waving around a card in my hand, which in fact was the card I played to trick 7 which I'd never got around to quitting, and I couldn't find a winner to cover it so I conceded it. I think that the ruling I got, that I couldn't cancel my concession of a trick, even a trick that didn't exist, was the one least likely to cause upset, even if it was quite wrong.

 

I do agree with you that claims are a courtesy to the defence, but the courtesy fails to be present if you get it wrong.

[iviehoff]

Pretty much still angry about it two years later.

I hope it is yourself not the TD you are angry with. Because the TD gave you a technically correct ruling, even if some might disagree with the judgment element. But forget your anger and take it as one of those mistakes that teach you a lesson: you have to say "I will repeat the finesse", then there is no risk of being ruled that you won't. In fact, you have to go even further: you have to think about lines where player on the right holds up the first finesse and wins the second, considering also the possibility that a player with a doubleton K does this.

[Phil]

This seems like a straightforward matter and I am surprised that there is so much disagreement.

[iviehoff]

This seems like a straightforward matter and I am surprised that there is so much disagreement.

You shouldn't be surprised. Claim rulings involve a judgment aspect. It is hard to find a claim ruling on the forum where there is unanimity on the judgment aspect.

[lalldonn]

I really think people should remember in general that claims are a courtesy to everyone. I wish we would focus on encouraging them, not discouraging them, especially given all the complaints about slow play. I hate when it becomes a sort of challenge to think of the order the claimer's cards could be played in that would lose him the most tricks, no matter that it is so bizarre that no one but gib would play in that order.

 

It's not like this is a case where declarer thought his hearts were good and you could then argue he might play them in any order. He said he was losing one so he knew the king was out. No one who knows the king is out would do anything but play the ace first (except if he is trying to sneak past Kx on his left, but anyone who is making that play would not concede the trick of course.) I would never even dream of calling the director here. This is not how I want to win my tricks.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Today, I suggested to my LHO, North, who was on lead, that he lead before entering the contract in the Bridgepad. He ignored me. His partner, who is also his wife, chuckled and said "he never leads first, he always enters or writes down the contract". And he's slower than most.

[jallerton]

I think we're missing an important point here: if declarer is silly enough to play hearts from the bottom up, he's silly enough to check for an outstanding trump "just in case". He then loses three of the remaining tricks, as E pitches a small diamond on the spade then wins the ♥K, with two diamonds left to cash.

 

I don't see how it is possible to justify a ruling that declarer loses exactly one trick in this situation.

 

I think you're missing an important point here. Declarer stated "you get a heart". Implicit in this statement was that he would retain trump control so as to be able to enjoy the established heart(s). [if you swap ♥A and ♥K round in the position, surely no-one would consider awarding anything other than 1 trick to the defence.] In this context, playing the last round of trumps is not a normal line, whilst the play of ♥Q or ♥J may be normal, albeit inferior, when made by a player who did not appreciate that singleton K was even a possibility.

 

Ruling that you lose a heart here seems pretty bad at club level. Its just the kind of ruling that creates lots of ill feeling for no reason. Claiming is basically a courtesy to the defence. I would like club players to claim a lot more. I have lost count of the times I have tanked in defence for several minutes, on potentially very difficult end positions, when in fact declarer had all the rest of the tricks, or a hand where the position was basically a non event, but they don't claim because they had one of these rulings and now "don;t ever claim".

 

Its different if you are playing in a high level tournament, where it is legitimate to take pretty much any excuse to make your opponents waste brain power, or to take advantage of their poor claims.

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If it's legitimate to "take advantage of poor claims" at high levels, it's equally legitimate to do so at club level.

 

No one likes these rulings. Declarer is usually annoyed that you are enforcing a frankly bizarre line of play. The other tables don't like as it basically randomises the results for no reason. Often the defenders don't even like it. If you have defended well and already saved a trick and were hoping for a good score, and your efforts are rendered irrelevant, and rob you of a good story.

 

Is that the old "protecting the field" argument? We haven't see the full hand, but quite possibly declarer "randomised" the result earlier by failing to take the heart finesse when dummy had the lead.

 

I remember a hand in a club where I had Jx opposite AQTxx, and I claimed very early as we were a bit late saying "Ill take the club finesse and it it wins I have x tricks and it loses I have y tricks." and the director ruled that my line of play meant playing low to the queen and if it won, cashing the ace rather than repeating the finesse. (i needed three club tricks to have x tricks), and so that I should get Y tricks with Kxx in the slot.

 

Pretty much still angry about it two years later.

 

That was an obviously incorrect ruling (perhaps the TD didn't understand the suit combination), but each claim has to be assessed on its merits.

[phil_20686]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If it's legitimate to "take advantage of poor claims" at high levels, it's equally legitimate to do so at club level.

 

 

I don't think that there is any contradiction. The aim of playing at a club bridge is to have a good time. It is not competitive in any real sense of the word, and at least 70% of any given time are basically there to play social bridge. That is obviously different at a tournament.

[rwbarton]

Heh. Today, I suggested to my LHO, North, who was on lead, that he lead before entering the contract in the Bridgepad. He ignored me. His partner, who is also his wife, chuckled and said "he never leads first, he always enters or writes down the contract". And he's slower than most.

 

Oh god.

 

LHO: "1♣"

Partner: "Pass"

RHO: "Caddy please!" Then proceeds to sit there and wait while holding boards 1-3 in the air. I plead with him to make a call on the board that is already in front of us but he painstakingly explains that the other table needs to play these boards and he is calling the caddy now so that they won't have to wait for these boards later. I point out that he is certainly wasting our time now but this seems to make no impression. After a couple minutes the caddy arrives and now he looks at his hand and works out what to bid.

 

Of course, the caddy needs to take board 4 from us later anyways.

 

(Sorry for the thread drift, I just had to vent a little.)

[helene_t]

90% of our club players, when sitting North and being dummy, enter the contract in the bridgemate before putting down the dummy. If they were computer litterates and could enter the contract in 5 secs it wouldn't matter but many of them struggle with the bridgemate for a minute before asking one of the other players for help or even calling the director.

[billw55]

I would never give the defense a trick here. I think the type of players who aren't good enough to think of singleton K here are the same ones who don't just randomly play suits in any order but top down. Every time I say that someone tries to provide a counterexample but I still think it's true 95++% of the time.

Out of curiosity, do you think there is an ethical burden on the defender holding the stiff K? Let's say that when declarer makes his concession, the defender just folds his cards and puts them back in the board. Kosher or not? Does the level of event make any difference?

[billw55]

I really think people should remember in general that claims are a courtesy to everyone. I wish we would focus on encouraging them, not discouraging them, especially given all the complaints about slow play. I hate when it becomes a sort of challenge to think of the order the claimer's cards could be played in that would lose him the most tricks, no matter that it is so bizarre that no one but gib would play in that order.

 

It's not like this is a case where declarer thought his hearts were good and you could then argue he might play them in any order. He said he was losing one so he knew the king was out. No one who knows the king is out would do anything but play the ace first (except if he is trying to sneak past Kx on his left, but anyone who is making that play would not concede the trick of course.) I would never even dream of calling the director here. This is not how I want to win my tricks.

I started thinking about my own habits as declarer in situations like this.

 

I agree that claiming is a courtesy that should be used when possible. (Although admittedly, I consider my ops and the likelihood that playing is actually faster, if they have a known habit of contesting.)

 

So how does this relate to concessions? Well, if I think I have one or more losers, I will make a claim statement which includes the loss of those tricks. For brevity, simply "losing a heart" would be very normal wording.

 

Now let's say that I think my ops may fuss over such a claim/concession, or that for any other reason I choose not to make it immediately. What would I do in actual play? I know the answer for myself: I would lose my loser immediately so that I could claim all remaining tricks sooner. Which means that I would lose a trick to the stiff K in this situation. Am I in a 5 percent or smaller minority in this regard? I would tend to doubt it but I suppose I cannot be certain.

 

For clarity, I would like to think that in real play, I would always consider the possibility of a stiff K, and therefore lay down the ace during play. But of course I do make mistakes, and I suppose something like this could happen to me. If it did, I would never consider for an instant trying to recover the trick by a ruling. I conceded it, I live with it.

[kenrexford]

This is kind of funny.

 

I write an ongoing bridge story ("Gil's Epic Game") for our local newsletter. It can be found at www.limadbc.blogspot.com.

 

In THIS MONTH"S Newsletter, a situation is described that is relevant to this very discussion.

 

Two deals were played between rivals. On the first, our hero held K-x in what would be the heart suit (in the instant example) in LHO's seat. When Declarer played the Ace from Ace-10-x, our hero jettisoned the King under the Ace to avoid the endplay and cross-ruff.

 

On the very next hand, the nemesis was now defending and sat behind LHO with the K-x. Our Declarer, having Ace-Queen-x, with J-x-x in Dummy, played the Ace, under which LHO jettisoned the King, enabling Declarer to pick up the entire suit without a loser. The same situation works with A-Q-J, btw.

 

The instant discussion then makes me wonder whether there is any merit to Declarer playing the Queen or Jack in an attempt to catch LHO with K-x and DUCKING the first heart. If so, then playing hearts from the top is not clear.

 

I initially thought of Declarer with Q-J-x. In that situation, LHO could duck with K-10-x, allowing his partner to win the Ace and then lead through the J-x in Declarer's hand. However, there are two problems with that analysis. First, the 10 in Dummy kills that idea. Second, that only induces a duck at trick one, which is insufficient for Declarer's purposes with A-Q-J in hand.

 

I cannot really come up with a reason to duck the Queen in this situation with K-x. So, I then thought about Declarer leading out the Jack. That would be a really deep position to take, but imagine from LHO's perspective a Declarer with A-J-x. Declarer might be playing for Declarer's RHO to have K-Q-x and operating a throw-in. If LHO takes the King, the hand is over. But, if he ducks, then RHO would win his Queen and fire back small, giving Declarer a losing option.

 

So, I suppose that Declarer might well try the ruse of the heart Jack, planning on this surprisingly winning and then catching LHO having ducked from K-x. Of course, a lot of other factors about knowns and unknowns and the like would be critical to determining whether Declarer playing the Jack makes sense. But, it seems possible that a good Declarer might not always play the Ace of hearts first but might legitimately play the Jack first.

[lalldonn]

Out of curiosity, do you think there is an ethical burden on the defender holding the stiff K? Let's say that when declarer makes his concession, the defender just folds his cards and puts them back in the board. Kosher or not? Does the level of event make any difference?

I would never accept a trick I'm sure they wouldn't have lost. I would let others speak for themselves.

[Codo]

I watched and play bridge. There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom. This is plain silly. But maybe these people live elsewhere, so they make different rulings there.

 

I would really "love" a TD, who claims 3 tricks for the claimer here and is wondering why int. players do not claim...

[gordontd]

There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom.

I think that's a bit of an over-statement. In general people in that position claim, rather than play it out. However, when they do play it out and they have an unavoidable loser (as this declarer seemed to think he had), they do sometimes play to lose it first, perhaps for the clarity of making the rest of their hand good.

[kenrexford]

I watched and play bridge. There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom. This is plain silly...

 

Do you disagree that there is a legitimate (meaning a potential gainer) reason for Declarer to consider the Jack at this point as his first heart?

[billw55]

I would never accept a trick I'm sure they wouldn't have lost. I would let others speak for themselves.

Admirable! Now consider this: from east's point of view in the OP, it may be possible that declarer holds (say) a high trump, a small heart, and two top diamonds. This would result in the same claim statement - "you get a heart." In such a case, a defender holding the stiff ♥K will make no difference. Is it the defender's responsibility to inspect declarer's hand and determine whether or not he should lose a trick that he has conceded?

 

There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom.

I am one such person. See post #40 for my reasons. Maybe I am just dumb, dunno.

[lalldonn]

Do you disagree that there is a legitimate (meaning a potential gainer) reason for Declarer to consider the Jack at this point as his first heart?

If he is trying to steal a trick, which this person obviously isn't or he wouldn't have conceded.

 

Admirable! Now consider this: from east's point of view in the OP, it may be possible that declarer holds (say) a high trump, a small heart, and two top diamonds. This would result in the same claim statement - "you get a heart." In such a case, a defender holding the stiff ♥K will make no difference. Is it the defender's responsibility to inspect declarer's hand and determine whether or not he should lose a trick that he has conceded?

Shouldn't the defenders do that anyway? They might be entitled to 2 tricks after all. I think it's everyone's responsibility to make sure claims and concessions and scores are correct. Accepting a concession without making sure it's right is like not checking your scores only when you have won an event, just in case you find a mistake and didn't really win.

[kenrexford]

If he is trying to steal a trick, which this person obviously isn't or he wouldn't have conceded.

 

But, wouldn't that be an even better ruse?

 

My observation was simply to counter the claim that playing the Ace is 100% obvious. That has nothing to do with the ruling, directly. But, since the play of the Jack has theory, the analysis is not whether a line is plausible but rather plausible in context of the words spoken, which is different. That difference might apply in a different situation.

[iviehoff]

Out of curiosity, do you think there is an ethical burden on the defender holding the stiff K? Let's say that when declarer makes his concession, the defender just folds his cards and puts them back in the board. Kosher or not? Does the level of event make any difference?

It is illegal to accept the concession of a trick you cannot possibly win. This is hidden away at L79A2, well away from the bit on concessions, so is easily overlooked.

 

But if you could possibly win it, then you can fold your cards and put them in the board with a good conscience. The position of not accepting the trick conceded that you believe you wouldn't win in practice is going beyond what the law requires.

 

But having said that, if someone concedes a trick in error, particularly when they are already upset about something, and really just wants to forget this hand and move on to the next hand, then it can be kinder quietly to accept it and move on rather than expend time (and possibly rub further salt in) explaining why the concession is impossible.