[mgoetze]

German Premier League

---

North plays 4♥. Lead ♣7, won by the Ace. Declarer draws trump in 3 rounds and faces his hand.

Declarer: 12 tricks if the spade finesse is on.
Opponent: What about diamonds?
Declarer: Uhm, I finesse there as well.
Opponent: Director!

[blackshoe]

Easy. Two tricks to the defense. Law 70D1.

[mgoetze]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-30, 17:56, said:

Easy. Two tricks to the defense. Law 70D1.

Well, yes, that's nice. Would you mind spelling out for me, though, whether you are considering the drop, the squeeze or both a less successful normal line of play, given that this is a pretty high-level field?

[blackshoe]

Declarer said he was taking the spade finesse. That works, so he loses no spade tricks. He didn't say anything else about how to play the hand, and he doesn't now get to change or add to his statement anything that gives him tricks if there's another normal line that doesn't give him those tricks. Also, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense. So declarer loses a diamond and a club. Put it another way: it would be careless to play the ♦A before the K.

If you disagree, you have the right to appeal (Law 83).

[mgoetze]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-30, 18:31, said:

Put it another way: it would be careless to play the ♦A before the K.

OK. Is there any "class of player" for whom you would consider this play downright ridiculous rather than merely careless? Meckstroth? Rosenberg?

Quote

If you disagree, you have the right to appeal (Law 83).

I don't think I'll be doing that, as I actually play 3 leagues further down.

[barmar]

It seems like when declarer made his claim, he thought his ♦J was the Q, and it was only the defender's question that woke him up. With that mistake in mind, a number of normal lines of play can lose a ♦ trick.

Should we ask declarer why he didn't mention the ♦ finesse in his original claim statement? It doesn't seem like he thought it was obvious, because he did see the need to mention the ♠ finesse, which is just as obvious.

[blackshoe]

I think it's unlikely Meckstroth or Rosenberg would make this kind of mistake. I don't think it's impossible.

[mycroft]

So, if we're going to work an infallible claimer, we can't - we know she's already made one mistake. When is she going to clue in? After it's too late to take the finesse? Well, then.

[lamford]

 mycroft, on 2012-January-31, 10:31, said:

So, if we're going to work an infallible claimer, we can't - we know she's already made one mistake. When is she going to clue in? After it's too late to take the finesse? Well, then.

I would rule 11 tricks. It seems normal to duck a club, ruff out a spade menace, and play the pointed-suit squeeze against East, working when East has the queen of diamonds or West has queen doubleton. Spades are 5-2 and hearts 1-3, so this line seems close, and is certainly normal, though I think anti-percentage still.

[mgoetze]

 lamford, on 2012-January-31, 10:40, said:

I would rule 11 tricks. It seems normal to duck a club, ruff out a spade menace, and play the pointed-suit squeeze against East, working when East has the queen of diamonds or West has queen doubleton. Spades are 5-2 and hearts 1-3, so this line seems close, and is certainly normal, though I think anti-percentage still.

Yes, I definitely agree that this line is normal for the given class of player (in fact several declarers in other matches of the league played this line).

I am more interested in figuring out the majority view on whether just playing for the drop in diamonds is normal and inhowfar this is affected by the class of player in question.

Consider some more diamond suits (assume plenty of entries in all cases)

AJxx
Kxxx

AKJT9
xx

AJxx
Kxx

On the first, I would always rule that playing for the drop is a normal line, after all it is only slightly inferior, and declarer may always have an idea (from bidding, table feel, whatever) that the queen is offside and take it. On the second, I am also inclined to rule that playing off the top is a normal line, after all if it fails you can still get 4 tricks, there may be a ruffing finesse (even if you've forgotten that you'll be out of trumps in South by then) etc.

But we can see that the third layout is a far cry from these, there is really substantially less merit to playing for the drop. And in the layout of the original case, it's even worse.

Now, there is of course a large class of players for whom it is absolutely routine to first make sure they get the present trick, and only then consider how they will go about taking the other tricks. They will often start with the Ace. There is furthermore a substantial class off player which will usually plan ahead, but are sometimes distracted, and in a "careless" moment may start with the Ace and then say "oops".

But isn't there also a class of players for whom "careless" would not even begin to describe what a ridiculously unlikely occurence it would be for them to start with the Ace?

[mycroft]

I can't imagine what anybody who looks at that hand and thinks she has 12 tricks on the spade finesse was thinking (well, yes, I can, but I can think of 3 different things, and I don't know which one it would be). But if you think all the tricks are good after the finesse works, then provided you don't mismanage your entries for the finesse, or your controls if it loses, I can't see why any order of top tricks is careless - including taking the card that could have got you that "13th trick" if it turned out you needed it because you only have 11.

So in response to mgoetze above: yes, there is, but that class of players are the ones who don't count 2+6+2+1 and get 12.

[mgoetze]

 mycroft, on 2012-February-01, 10:27, said:

I can't imagine what anybody who looks at that hand and thinks she has 12 tricks on the spade finesse was thinking (well, yes, I can, but I can think of 3 different things, and I don't know which one it would be). But if you think all the tricks are good after the finesse works, then provided you don't mismanage your entries for the finesse, or your controls if it loses, I can't see why any order of top tricks is careless - including taking the card that could have got you that "13th trick" if it turned out you needed it because you only have 11.

I don't understand where this reasoning comes from. The laws do not mention "what declarer was thinking at the time" at all, do they? Declarer might have several potentially valid reasons to (try to) make a quick claim rather than play out the hand with care and attention. The laws do not prescribe that he be automatically punished for this.

[gordontd]

 mgoetze, on 2012-February-01, 13:09, said:

I don't understand where this reasoning comes from. The laws do not mention "what declarer was thinking at the time" at all, do they? Declarer might have several potentially valid reasons to (try to) make a quick claim rather than play out the hand with care and attention. The laws do not prescribe that he be automatically punished for this.

They prescribe that "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer."