Finesse or Finesses

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak2hakqdakqjtcj3&w=sqjt5h853d972c975&n=s74ht74d53caqt864&e=s9863hj962d864ck2&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2c(strong)p2d(waiting)p2n(25-28%20FG)p6nppp]399|300[/hv]IMPs; Lead Q♠

 

South was in a bit of a hurry here on the above hand from a local club, and, after the queen of spades lead, claimed stating "I will take a* club finesse for the overtrick". East, our old friend with pince-nez who looks (and behaves) like the Secretary Bird, objected, stating that he would duck the jack of clubs and win the second club when the finesse was repeated, and declarer would be one off. South replied that he stated "finesse" not "finesses", and that he would not repeat the finesse with 12 tricks certain at IMPs, but would cash the ace, getting an overtrick safely when West began with ♣Kx. SB was still not happy, arguing that it would be careless to repeat the finesse but still quite normal for someone of South's standard. South objected to that remark and it got quite heated, and the director was called. How do you rule?

 

*edited by Lamford; original said "the"

[gnasher]

I rule one down. Declarer said he's going to try to make an overtrick by means of a finesse. The only way to do that is to run the jack and then finesse the queen. If he meant that he'd make the overtrick only against Kx onside, he should have said so.

 

If declarer is careless enough to make a claim of this sort, he's careless enough to go down too.

[RunemPard]

These claims should never be made...period...play the hand a little. (1 down)

[lamford]

The only way to do that is to run the jack and then finesse the queen.

That is two finesses. The claimer used the singular. The only way to make an overtrick by means of a single finesse is to cash the ace on the second round.

 

And I am sure that it would be rare for someone to say "the club finesses".

[ahydra]

I'm ruling one down - seems reasonable to think that South would play to the ♣Q after the ♣J holds, especially that he's mentioned "overtrick". For the claim to be valid I don't think I'd settle for anything that isn't a) an exact line of play or b) mention of West holding K or Kx exactly.

 

ahydra

[campboy]

That is two finesses. The claimer used the singular.

He also used the definite article. It is still "the club finesse" the second time it is taken. If he had said "a club finesse" then he would have a case.

[c_corgi]

I think declarer's statement is equivalent to "I will play for and make an overtrick when the KC is with West." Had he not claimed, he would likely have noticed the danger in repeating the finesse, but that is his problem: 1 down. Note that it is reasonable to think of it as repeating the same finesse (against the KC) rather than taking two separate ones of running the jack and small to the Q, so the semantic argument is unconvincing.

[lamford]

He also used the definite article. It is still "the club finesse" the second time it is taken. If he had said "a club finesse" then he would have a case.

I agree, and on checking the TD report, I find that he did use "a club finesse", and I have amended the OP. How do you rule now?

[campboy]

I agree, and on checking the TD report, I find that he did use "a club finesse", and I have amended the OP. How do you rule now?

Then it is clear what he meant IMO, and he gets 12 tricks.

[billw55]

Still down one. Repeating the finesse is definitely normal, especially since he stated "for the overtrick." Next time be more careful buddy.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Campboy.

 

Please folks, when you amend a post like this, changing valuable information, click the "edited by" box, and give the reason.

[c_corgi]

Even after the amendment I dont see why "taking a finesse for the overtrick" should be interpreted as "I will run the jack of clubs to set up my twelfth trick. On the second round I will try to make an overtrick by playing for the drop."

[lamford]

Then it is clear what he meant IMO, and he gets 12 tricks.

I don't necessarily agree that the use of "a" instead of "the" makes much difference at all. After the first finesse holds, we are now into "unstated line of play" territory. It is clear that cashing the ace on the second round is not embraced by the original clarification statement, and he therefore is deemed to take a second finesse, clearly normal for this class of player. I think one down is correct. And it would not matter if we were certain what he meant.

[lamford]

I agree with Campboy.

 

Please folks, when you amend a post like this, changing valuable information, click the "edited by" box, and give the reason.

Apologies, but I was unaware of that box. And cannot find it either; could you help, please?

Edited September 4, 2012 by blackshoe
When you click "edit", this line appears below your message.

[pran]

This "claim" is either just a "show-off" by declarer or a deliberate attempt to get warned against the danger of playing for 13 tricks in case the ♣K is offside.

 

12 tricks are always "cold" by just giving away a trick to the ♣K, 13 tricks are made on a repeated finesse in clubs with the ♣K onside. (Of course also with ♣Kx onside, but the repeated finesse has better probability for 13 tricks.)

 

From his own words I would rule that he attempts a repeated finesse and ends up one down.

 

(Claims should only be made when a complete and detailed line of play can be specified with the claim. Unless he explicitly states that he will not repeat the "successful" finesse to guard against a deception from RHO I shall rule that he repeates it.)

[RunemPard]

I still say it is 1 down...I am not an expert on the laws, but I do not think that the TD is a mind reader...

 

So my logic says making any claim where you have not fully stated your plans on the play should result in a penalty. Once the defense denies, information has been conveyed. The TD does not have a crystal ball, so be more careful next time and play.

 

Let us pray that this was not a team match of serious/semi-serious players...

 

I can only imagine the conversation after if we did this...lol

[campboy]

Well, depending on which meaning of "finesse" declarer is using, either there is only one "club finesse", which may be taken once or twice, or each trick constitutes a separate finesse. If the first meaning is being used then "taking a club finesse" makes about as much sense as "playing West for a king of clubs"; though not incorrect no-one would say it. If the second meaning is being used then "taking a club finesse", in normal (ie non-mathmotic) usage, means "taking exactly one club finesse".

[lamford]

Well, depending on which meaning of "finesse" declarer is using, either there is only one "club finesse", which may be taken once or twice, or each trick constitutes a separate finesse. If the first meaning is being used then "taking a club finesse" makes about as much sense as "playing West for a king of clubs"; though not incorrect no-one would say it. If the second meaning is being used then "taking a club finesse", in normal (ie non-mathmotic) usage, means "taking exactly one club finesse".

I think the meaning of "taking a club finesse" is just that, on the next trick declarer takes a club finesse. If he said "taking the club finesse", then on the next trick he takes the club finesse. Clearly to cash too many side winners first would not be normal, but what he does after one successful club finesse is unstated. If the Laws say something like "if West has a heart, declarer can require a heart lead", that does not mean "if West has exactly one heart", so your last "normal usage" is not normal. The declarer is obliged to take one club finesse, and after that he gets the least successful normal line. There is no need to decide what he intended to do after the first club finesse held.

 

To study the abnormal is the best way of understanding the normal - William James

[campboy]

I think it would also be perfectly reasonable to rule as you suggest.

[pran]

[...]but what he does after one successful club finesse is unstated.[...]

 

I can accept that position, and then we have a claim without a (complete) statement on how he intended his play after one successful club finessee.

 

So we must turn to

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 an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

and rule that it is not irrational to repeat the club finessee.

[lamford]

So we must turn to

 

Law 70 E 1 said:

 

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 an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

and rule that it is not irrational to repeat the club finessee.

The problem about applying that is that the success of cashing the ace does not depend upon finding one opponent rather than the other with the king of clubs. It makes 12 tricks regardless of who has that card, and makes an overtrick when the king falls, whoever has it. I think 70D1 is the right approach:

"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."

[billw55]

IMO any conditional line of play (i.e. if the first finesse works, cash the ace next) should only be accepted if explicitly described in the original claim statement. In my experience it is usually simpler for declarer to resolve any conditionals in play before claiming. This is likely also faster on average, since disagreement and director calls are reduced.

[aguahombre]

I wonder if the same director ruled that only one finesse was allowed on the other thread where declarer just said he would finesse, and required two finesses on this thread where declarer deliberately used a singular article in his claim.

[semeai]

The problem here is that the first club finesse is not for the overtrick --- it's necessary to make the hand.

 

This means the claim is not just incomplete, but rather also somewhat incoherent. A finesse for an overtrick would necessarily be the second finesse, since the first one is just what you need to do to make the contract (though you don't care if it wins or loses).

 

I generally don't like being unforgiving, but here I'd have to say it's down 1 because of this.

[iviehoff]

Declarer has to take one club finesse merely to make his contract. So "a finesse for the overtrick" could well refer to taking the second finesse after the first one succeeds.

 

The line of taking one finesse and refusing a second finesse in the same suit if the first one succeeds is a sufficiently complex one it needs to be spelled out quite clearly for it to be accepted as having been stated. The phrase declarer used to describe the line he is taking is not sufficiently clear to be associated with sufficient certainty to this line.