[Codo]

In a free weekend tourney, so no points involved, my opps bid up to 7 ♣.

He had a 8 card Spades fit AKJxx in one hand, Txx in the other. He was not able to get rid of these cards, so he had to find out about the queen by himself. But just after my pd lead, the declarer claimed.

I refused it, because there are different ways to play the Spade suit. He played, got no new infos from us in other suits and played spade. But he did not use the percentage play of cashing the ace and finessing second round, he played for the drop of a doubelton queen.

Is this cheating? ( from his bidding and play I would judge, that he was ablte to handle the cards)

I was more amused about this then frustrated, because his line did not work and the normal finesse had succeeded, but still...

[hotShot]

If a claim is refused, a lot of UI is given. If the ♠Q is onside, the opponents would most likely accept the claim, so refusing the claim makes it more likely that the Q is offside. So playing for the drop seems to be using this UI.

One should state a line of play, when claiming and as the rules state, playing should stop, once a claim was made.

[barmar]

Although the rules say that you have to state a line of play when claiming, I'm sure you know that this rule is hardly ever followed in online bridge. And I don't think BBO provides a way for the opponents to ask for a line to be stated while they're being prompted to accept or refuse a claim. And even if it did, the act of asking the question would likely pass the UI that the most obvious line won't succeed, so then he'll state a different one.

The right way to handle this is to call the director. The laws say how a claim with an incomplete line of play is to be handled.

[Blofeld]

I wouldn't mind if anyone did this against me.

But then I don't think there's any UI passed from my refusing a claim; I'll always do it if there are lines with neither strictly better than another (in the sense that it will always take more tricks) which take different numbers of tricks, and declarer doesn't state a line[1].

[1] I initially wrote "if there's no 100% line and declarer doesn't state a line", but I don't think this is quite true. If declarer appears to be claiming on a long suit breaking, or on the next lead from the defence not being ruffed, and there's no other possibility, then I'm happy to accept.

[MickyB]

This is grossly unethical IMO. Players who try to pull this trick will invariably be looking for tell-tale signs from their opponents with regard to the position of key cards. If it happens, just call the director and let him sort it out. If declarer has just misclaimed, presumably as a result of miscounting tricks or similar, then there is a reasonable chance he should be ruled against anyway.

[1eyedjack]

I have known declarers to claim just on the offchance that defenders inadvertently accept without thinking, thereby saving declarer the irritating chore of finding the missing card. That is unethical, in my view.

I may be wrong, but I believe that strictly in the Laws if they make a claim without stating a line, and there is a reasonable (which might be odds against) line that fails, the decision is awarded in favour of the other side. So, you could reject the claim, and then in turn claim one trick (however the Queen lies).

Personally I don't get the UI thing at all. I believe it would be an improvement if the laws allows continuation of play during an online game, which is how everyone unofficially plays it anyway, with no penalties resulting whatever line he takes.

[inquiry]

If this happened with a director present, the director would have asked the declarer to state a line of play (actually, he should have done so when he made the claim).

My limited understanding of the law is that if he didn't mention playing for the drop or finessing the queen, he is not allowed to guess correctly in spades unless the queen shows up on the first round, the hand behind the spade AKJ shows out or can be counted out of spades after one round.

Since this was a tournament (even one without points), did you call the director? IF he had successful finessed you or your partner for the queen would you have called the director then? If he had successfully dropped the Queen doubleton off side would you have called the director then?

As to the question, was this cheating? Maybe declarer miscounted his tricks (12, 13, there isn't much difference there,... so he was off by one). In which this is not cheating, it is poor math. Or maybe he thinks claim early, they might accept. Their seeing my hand will not help them play defense better (ok, this is unethiical and may slip over to mildly cheating). Or maybe he often claims in such find the queen situations and people always (well almost always) accept if the queen is in the pocket. Even if only half accepted, that would tip the odds into playing for the drop. Ok, in this case, the claim would be highly unethical and then choosing a line of play based upon the above assumption would be cheating of sorts.

But you were in a tournament for goodness sake. The fact that you are posting the hand and we are discussing it is a problem of either your not calling the director, or if you did, the director not coming and making a ruling. That is why we have the laws of bridge, to keep from changing a claim (even a mistaken one) into a question of cheating. Now if this was the main room, we would be back to the origianal question, as there is no director there.

[Codo]

At f2f bridge, this had been easy: No line of play, playing for the drop has roughly 40 %, finessing second round about 51 %, so he must choose the line which fails.

At online bridge, I guess at least 50 % of all claims are without stating a line, but most are so clear cut, that you can simply accept (or decline).

At the table, I did not want to call the director. The line with the finesse is so superior, that I did not want the TD to decide in our favour just because he did not stated the line. So I simply declined and expected him to make the contract- I know that this is not allowed in f2f bridge, but online bridge is different and I was not hunting for a great score, just for great bridge.

I just got suspicous after he played for the inferior line and than, I did not want a ruling any more, after all, I had the best possible score, why should I call the TD?

I surely had called the TD if the queen had dropped, but had believed that this had been too late and that the ruling may well be against me.

So it really is just a question about how you would rate such behaviour and as far as I read the comments till now, the answer is not clear cut.

[jikl]

Some of this is another problem talked about often in another area of the forums. There are so many directors that will never make adjustments that people live with the fact that there is no point calling the director. Then you have playing TDs, enough said. A further problem is that some directors don't actually know the laws. Take this as an example that someone tried to con a director with when I was declarer:

---

I claimed with no line (no trumps were outstanding, neither ♥ or ♠ were trumps). One of the defenders called the TD and said I had claimed with no line, I "didn't know" the ♥8 was high, and I would therefore finesse the ♠. I was actually nearly ruled against!

Haven't seen that person TD in a long time which is probably a good thing, not that I even remember his name unless I saw it again.

Sean

[keylime]

I had a player at the sectional call the director because I claimed, even tho I did not state a line of play and that the play was marked from the bidding and first 8 tricks. After having to say that I didn't state a line of play things got resolved. I'm still wondering why the person called to begin with admittedly.

[inquiry]

keylime, on Nov 21 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

After having to say that I didn't state a line of play things got resolved. I'm still wondering why the person called to begin with admittedly.

If your opponents were going to agree that you had all the remaining tricks, there was not need to call the director. So we will first agree that they contested the claim in some way. In which case calling the director was 100% correct.

You stated, "even tho I did not state a line of play and that the play was marked from the bidding and first 8 tricks.

Here in is a problem. Even if the play was marked, if there was an outstanding trump, there are some rules that have to applied. Also, we can parse your statement into two parts. The first part, bieing the was marked from the play of the first 8 tricks. The laws allow a declarer who failed to state a line of play to take advantage of a position of a card unless it would be clear from someone showing out already or showing out subsequent to the key play. If someone had shown out in your fall of the first 8 tricks so be it, director ruled correctly.

However, the second part of the statement "from the bidding" causes a whole can of worms. Just becasue someone bid, doesn't mean he is marked for a card. He could have psyched, he could have miscounted. etc. Now you get into a fuzzy zone of what is the "normal play" for a player of your caliber (and who decides what your caliber is), and rather some play other than the winning play is irrational at this point in the hand. Surely you are not suggesting your opponents decide what is irrational for a player of your ability. Maybe we can all count one hand out of a suit without him showing out by his bidding and play so far, but it is up to the director to assess that a player of your caliber would have done so, or if not having done so would be irrational. You could avoid all this by stating your line. This is why they called the directored. They wanted to make sure their rights were protected and the rights of all the other players in the event holding your cards.

[glen]

One rule of thumb for claiming is: Will it speed up play?

Often if the opponents will quickly follow suit if you continue play then claiming instead does not gain but slows the game down or does not gain any time at all. Also don't claim if your opps may not see things as fast or in the same light that you would. Which is much the same point as in the post just above.

Finally, to the thread starter, I would avoid as much as possible using the word cheating in thread headings, and use something else less fire starting.

[neilkaz]

This is very unethical and with the Q doubleton offside I strongly feel a director should be called and the score of down 1 awarded.

If this was an honest mistake, and it may have been, then it's just too bad for the declarer who most likely wouldn't play to drop a dblton Q anyhow with 8 cards.

[gwnn]

Why would failing a grand slam out of sheer stupidity be cheating?

I personally hate refusing claims IRL (online u don't know who refused). I had this one occasion when I gave my p a "phoney raise" with a doubleton spade. The declarer claimed his contract "I discard my heart loser on my good 3rd spade and then give u the trump ace". I had to answer -having no more ♠- "Hm, I don't understand" and then ruff it with my singleton club. I wonder whether he could have changed his line and play 1 round of trump before?

[1eyedjack]

gwnn, on Nov 22 2006, 08:28 AM, said:

I personally hate refusing claims IRL (online u don't know who refused).

I can see that it cannot cost to hide who refused the claim, but I am unconvinced that it matters. As defender I am as capable of deducing my partner's hand from the three hands exposed to me as is my partner (in some cases more capable).

[barmar]

gwnn, on Nov 22 2006, 03:28 AM, said:

I wonder whether he could have changed his line and play 1 round of trump before?

No. Once declarer states his line of play, he's stuck with it. He can't change it based on what he learns when you dispute the claim.