"You get a heart"

[Codo]

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?

 

Yes. I read your posting, but I never meet these guys at the table who play low from Kx in a four card end position. If they can count, they know whether there are other cards, which can be played without a problem and if they cannot count, they simply grab their king.

 

There may be cases where declarer is void in a side suit, a finesse in this suit is lying in Dummy and I have to lead towards this suit. But this is not the case here.

[barmar]

Last night I was declaring 3♣ from the West in the following hand:

[hv=pc=n&s=s9853hq7652dk52c8&w=skhkjtdajt96cq942&n=saqjt62ha9dq87ckj&e=s74h843d43cat7653&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1d1spp2c2s3cppp]399|300[/hv]

After North led [HA] and a low ♥, I played ♣A and another ♣, which North won perforce. Then she played ♠Q! I conceded a ♦ and tried to claim making 3 -- I didn't realize that I never lost a ♠. Luckily, everyone else noticed, although the overtrick turned out not to matter, +110 would also have been a top. I suppose she can be forgiven for not expecting a singleton -- she bid her suit twice, how many of us would keep silent with the South hand (4-card support and a singleton in our suit) -- but how can it gain? But she's not crazy, so I guess this makes it careless.

[aguahombre]

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.

Unlike rwbarton, I am not sorry for this thread drift.

 

I am sure there are tactful ways of responding to that wife's inane reply, but I probably wouldn't find one. On a good day, I might simply say, "Yes, he does." On a bad day I might start with "It is mildly interesting that he always wastes our time, but....."

 

Yes, ZT is lurking for me; but that genre of comment (the wife's) is a pet peeve.

Edited September 5, 2012 by aguahombre

[kenrexford]

Yes. I read your posting, but I never meet these guys at the table who play low from Kx in a four card end position. If they can count, they know whether there are other cards, which can be played without a problem and if they cannot count, they simply grab their king.

 

There may be cases where declarer is void in a side suit, a finesse in this suit is lying in Dummy and I have to lead towards this suit. But this is not the case here.

 

 

In the post, LHO's holding in that suit was not given. If there are 4-5 cards let in the opponent's hands, then LHO could have K-x and could read his partner for whichever of Q-x or Q-x-x would remain. Either way, ducking makes some sense for LHO. This would require LHO to actually have three cards in that suit in the end position actually given, assuming count was properly shown earlier, but that is possible, as then LHO with K-x would be playing for partner having Q-x at this point. Granted, the actual RHO holding suggests count that was different, but then from LHO's perspective (and hence that of Declarer in the hypo), people with Kings and Queens in the critical suit do not always give Declarer true count or true attitude.

 

As far as the situational issue of being stuck in hand, we have no idea why Declarer is stuck in hand. Something must have caused that, as he in fact was stuck in hand at this point. That issue would be no less significant if Declarer had AJx as opposed to AQJ. In fact, stuck in hand with AQJ makes less sense than stuc in hand with AJx, as with the latter the play is equally effective from either side. Thus, the "case' is actually stronger here for A-J-x as an illusion.

[Phil]

This thread is making me laugh. Some of the world's best laws authorities can't agree on a very simple claim and Ken Rexford walks in and talks about the tricky and metaphysical aspects of playing the Q/J and getting the opponents to duck.

 

I wonder why I love this place so much.

 

Maybe we can move this one over to "changing laws and regulations"?

[kenrexford]

This thread is making me laugh. Some of the world's best laws authorities can't agree on a very simple claim and Ken Rexford walks in and talks about the tricky and metaphysical aspects of playing the Q/J and getting the opponents to duck.

 

I wonder why I love this place so much.

 

Maybe we can move this one over to "changing laws and regulations"?

 

"The Director shall not accept from claimer anysuccessful line of play not embraced in the originalclarification statement if there is an alternativenormal* line of play that would be less successful."

 

Obviously, playing the Jack from AQJ to catch LHO with K-x ducking is not a "normal" line of play that would be less successful. That is, unless I was declaring. Thus, I suppose I should have to lose the heart King. :rolleyes:

[Fluffy]

I don't know wich kind of opponents you do have, but I have seens the queen being led fom AQJ having 11 cards combined, I partner an old lady who has made many plays such as lead low towards the queen with Axxx vs QJ10xx to claim the rest with the rest being totally cold including double stoppers wih no entry issues. In her mind she duck the trick she is missing to be able to claim the rest.

 

There was someone who said that 3 tricks for the defence is acceptable, that is a complete nonsense, declarer has obviouly stated his intention to lose a trick to ♥K quickly in order to conserve ♠A as a stopper for the other.

[CamHenry]

I don't know wich kind of opponents you do have, but I have seens the queen being led fom AQJ having 11 cards combined, I partner an old lady who has made many plays such as lead low towards the queen with Axxx vs QJ10xx to claim the rest with the rest being totally cold including double stoppers wih no entry issues. In her mind she duck the trick she is missing to be able to claim the rest.

 

There was someone who said that 3 tricks for the defence is acceptable, that is a complete nonsense, declarer has obviouly stated his intention to lose a trick to ♥K quickly in order to conserve ♠A as a stopper for the other.

 

Apparently my meaning was unclear - I said that if we accept one trick to the defence, we should then award three.

[bluejak]

Follow-on question: Is it possible to concede some, but not all, of the remaining tricks without claiming the rest?

Not in my view, if it is a real concession. But I suppose it is really a question of what defines a concession.

 

You.

 

LAW 49 - ... when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50);

 

 

LAW 50D.1. (a) A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played.

LAW 68: CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress **.

 

** If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.

Note especially the words "do not become penalty cards".

 

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...

This has nothing to do with why int. players do not claim. I see 2000 claims a year at my table and it is well over a year since the last one got challenged. Int. players do not claim because of lack of confidence and a failure to realise there is any advantage in playing faster, ie they do not claim for the same reason that they put the contract in the Bridgemate before leading and putting dummy down.

 

This thread is making me laugh. Some of the world's best laws authorities can't agree on a very simple claim and Ken Rexford walks in and talks about the tricky and metaphysical aspects of playing the Q/J and getting the opponents to duck.

 

I wonder why I love this place so much.

 

Maybe we can move this one over to "changing laws and regulations"?

The legalities are clear, and we are arguing about bridge judgement. Why not? What do you think all those threads in other forums are about? It is nothing to do with the level of authority Laws-wise.

[Bad_Wolf]

Back in the 80s I was taught that accepting a trick here was tantamount to cheating. I would still never do it. I would kick the ***** out of anyone who accepted the claim and folded up their cards.

[Phil]

The legalities are clear, and we are arguing about bridge judgement.

 

David, what 'bridge judgment' is involved with 'you get a heart'?

 

How would you (adjudicate), btw?

[iviehoff]

David, what 'bridge judgment' is involved with 'you get a heart'?

The application of Law 71 is a "judgment ruling". The TD has to decide what is a "normal play", which can only be decided by application of bride judgment rather than binary logic.

[RMB1]

..., what 'bridge judgment' is involved with 'you get a heart'?

 

The judegement is whether the play of HQ or HJ before HA is normal (including careless or inferior) or is beyond "careless or inferior".

 

No one has tackled the technicalities - although they are clear.

 

Declarer claimed 3 tricks and conceded 1. Presumably the defence agreed. (I know that some here who would not agree and would concede all the tricks - I respect them, but I do not think the laws require it.)

 

At some point later the declaring side discover that HK was singleton and withdraw the concession, this is now Law 71.

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

 

Then we are back to whether ducking a heart is normal.

[Phil]

Thanks Robin for the concise answer and also addressing the ethical nature of the matter from a directors POV.

 

Is playing a low heart from AQJ 'careless or inferior'? I would say yes, regardless of the statement. This seems to fall into the same genre as conceding a trick with AKT / xxx or AKQ8x / x when the QJ or JT9 fall in two or three rounds.

 

I thought I remembered some ACBL director's guidelines that declarer is allowed to play top-down, which seems far from unreasonable.

[iviehoff]

Is playing a low heart from AQJ 'careless or inferior'?

This rather glides over the actual judgment that has to be made, as in fact it in practice it is about gradations of carelessness and inferiority. We are told that "normal" plays include the "careless or inferior" (footnote 22 to law 70). Any play worse than best play is "inferior". Therefore, for this to be meaningful, ie for there to be any plays that are not "normal", there must exist plays that are so bad as to be beyond mere "careless(ness) or inferior(ity)", and thus not be "normal". Where that line might be between merely or ordinarily "careless or inferior" and worse than that, is very hard to discern, and that is why there is usually so little agreement on the judgment element of claims rulings. Bluejak says he thinks it is usually obvious, but this forum is full of cases that test that assertion.

[iviehoff]

I thought I remembered some ACBL director's guidelines that declarer is allowed to play top-down, which seems far from unreasonable.

It is explicit in the laws that there may be regs of that nature. But regs on assuming play to be top-down wouldn't usually apply to a broken holding.

[ahydra]

RMB1/Phil's argument seems good to me, and I'd buy it. But at the time of the claim, declarer (very carelessly IMO) didn't realise the HK could be singleton. Is it too much effort to play the HA?

 

If he's careless enough to not realise the possibility of the singleton king when he claimed, we might argue he'd be careless enough to do so again in the putative "play of the remaining cards" in Law 71. Given the Laws' (and their usual interpretation's) strong emphasis on clear and accurate claim statements, I feel it's wrong to allow declarer to retract the concession of a heart when he sees the hand records. He should either play the HA then claim, or say "you get a heart unless the king is singleton".

 

ahydra

[billw55]

This rather glides over the actual judgment that has to be made, as in fact it in practice it is about gradations of carelessness and inferiority. We are told that "normal" plays include the "careless or inferior" (footnote 22 to law 70). Any play worse than best play is "inferior". Therefore, for this to be meaningful, ie for there to be any plays that are not "normal", there must exist plays that are so bad as to be beyond mere "careless(ness) or inferior(ity)", and thus not be "normal". Where that line might be between merely or ordinarily "careless or inferior" and worse than that, is very hard to discern, and that is why there is usually so little agreement on the judgment element of claims rulings. Bluejak says he thinks it is usually obvious, but this forum is full of cases that test that assertion.

In this specific case at least, I find it easy to discern. Playing a low heart is careless. Cashing the trump and then playing a low heart is irrational. So for me, one trick to the defense is acceptable, but three is not.

 

That said, as the defender, I would not object to a ruling of zero tricks. At least it makes sense, in a way.

 

And lastly, as declarer, I would never under any circumstance attempt to withdraw a concession I had made.

[bluejak]

Bluejak says he thinks it is usually obvious, but this forum is full of cases that test that assertion.

Sure. Let us say that there are a million claims a day, of which 0.2 are posted to this forum. I do not think that challenges the view that it is "usually obvious".

[iviehoff]

In this specific case at least, I find it easy to discern. Playing a low heart is careless. Cashing the trump and then playing a low heart is irrational. So for me, one trick to the defense is acceptable, but three is not.

Let's be a little careful, what you mean is that playing the low heart is (ordinarily) "careless" but not worse than that, hence "normal"; playing a trump would be worse than "careless".

 

I agree with you, but most of the early posters on the thread argued that playing a low heart was worse than careless.

And lastly, as declarer, I would never under any circumstance attempt to withdraw a concession I had made.

You may find your team pressures you into withdrawing a concession in a very clear case if it helps their cause. Doing it after the hand when you are no longer have the opposition in your face to embarrass you may be easier. Though having had the embarrassing experience of trying to withdraw an impossible concession and failing to get a favourable ruling from the TD, I tend to agree with you.

[gnasher]

And lastly, as declarer, I would never under any circumstance attempt to withdraw a concession I had made.

Withdrawing a concession is perfectly normal and reasonable under some circumstances. For example, suppose that you claim saying "I'll take the two top hearts and dummy's diamonds, then give you the last three tricks", when in fact this would leave the defenders with only two tricks. Why shouldn't you withdraw your concession once you realise your mistake?

[billw55]

Withdrawing a concession is perfectly normal and reasonable under some circumstances. For example, suppose that you claim saying "I'll take the two top hearts and dummy's diamonds, then give you the last three tricks", when in fact this would leave the defenders with only two tricks. Why shouldn't you withdraw your concession once you realise your mistake?

Because mistakes count. Even this one. At least, for me they do.

 

I am probably biased about this. I grew up playing chess, in youth events and later regular tournaments, until I gave it up. So my game attitudes mostly come from chess culture, where the taboo against any kind of "undo" is absolute.

[blackshoe]

Bluejak says he thinks it is usually obvious, but this forum is full of cases that test that assertion.

Bluejak has been directing and serving on ACs for considerably longer than most posters here. B-)

[Fluffy]

Is playing a low heart from AQJ 'careless or inferior'? I would say yes, regardless of the statement. This seems to fall into the same genre as conceding a trick with AKT / xxx or AKQ8x / x when the QJ or JT9 fall in two or three rounds.

 

I don't think conceding a trick with AK10 xxx its related, conceding a trick there you are not promoting any trick for your side, it has no sense to play the 10 early.

 

Maybe to many posters playing the queen from AQJ is nonsense, this goes into the very basic of how we think of this game perhaps, for me it is reasonable way of thinking.

[Zelandakh]

I grew up playing chess, in youth events and later regular tournaments, until I gave it up. So my game attitudes mostly come from chess culture, where the taboo against any kind of "undo" is absolute.

True story. At school I was the captain of the chess team. We were playing one of the local public (posh) schools and it was all down to the last table where the opponent was messing about with something like 2 queens and a bunch of other pieces against a lone king. With everyone looking on this was obviously incredibly embarassing for our player and he had just had enough and was about to resign when I stepped in and announced stalemate, thus rescuing a half point for our side. This was not technically an undo since I got to the board faster than our team mate managed to turn his king over. Nonetheless this would have been a clear case where an undo was allowed since checkmate or stalemate ends the game (thus making the resignation illegal). The same is true of a mistaken concession where the defence cannot win the allotted number of tricks.