[shyams]

May I ask a question in all earnestness: Are there any penalties for not claiming?

After reading some of the suggested rulings (not just this one), I the sensible players are the ones who play out all 13 cards one by one (and often at slow pace) so that they do not have to claim.

Even in my last club game (a couple of days ago), I saw opps / partner refuse to claim (possibly because they had one loser -- which they eventually lost at trick 13; or because they are too scared that opps will call TDs on every claim

I have also seen absurd situations where partner planned to play out all cards in dummy even when I (dummy) knew dummy was high (absolutely no way to lose a trick). After 2 tricks, I could not take it... and was told off by RHO when I claimed as dummy (surely this is an invitation for more)

[lamford]

fred, on Jan 24 2010, 04:51 PM, said:

If this claim had been made in a "strong game" it would 1000% obvious that declarer meant to finesse against the Jack of hearts again. It is hard for me to imagine anyone even calling the TD for this (in a strong game).

Normally I have the highest respect for your opinions, particularly when it involves suit combinations, but I beg to differ here.

Are you telling me that it almost certain that, in a strong game - you say, declarer selected a line that was theoretically 26% worse than best play, then claimed when his best line was down to 58%, and you think, just from the comment "I have three heart tricks" that he was going to run the 10?

I think that is the most likely line, but this is exactly why the Laws specify that we state any finesse that should be taken. The laughing would indeed be done by the TD, but at the incompetence of the declarer.

[fred]

lamford, on Jan 25 2010, 12:15 AM, said:

Are you telling me that it almost certain that, in a strong game - you say, declarer selected a line that was theoretically 26% worse than best play, then claimed when his best line was down to 58%, and you think, just from the comment "I have three heart tricks" that he was going to run the 10?

More than almost certain - it is 1000%

In a strong game, when declarer wins a heart finesse and claims "I have 3 heart tricks", the implication to all players is that he will repeat the finesse.

Assuming the finesse was going to win a second time, none of the players would get involved in thinking about post-claim alternative lines or percentages. If it occurred to one of the players that the Jack of hearts might still be offside, that player would only say something for the purposes of amusement.

Really - the players would have a very strong tendency just to put their cards away and save their energy for the next board.

Of course I can't argue with the notion that declarer should be more specific when stating a claim. Nor can I argue with not claiming at all if it occurs to declarer that the finesse might not win again.

However, in a game where all the players are very strong, I would be shocked if it mattered.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[lamford]

fred, on Jan 24 2010, 08:56 PM, said:

lamford, on Jan 25 2010, 12:15 AM, said:

Are you telling me that it almost certain that, in a strong game - you say, declarer selected a line that was theoretically 26% worse than best play, then claimed when his best line was down to 58%, and you think, just from the comment "I have three heart tricks" that he was going to run the 10?

More than almost certain - it is 1000%

In a strong game, when declarer wins a heart finesse and claims "I have 3 heart tricks", the implication to all players is that he will repeat the finesse.

Assuming the finesse was going to win a second time, none of the players would get involved in thinking about post-claim alternative lines or percentages. If it occurred to one of the players that the Jack of hearts might still be offside, that player would only say something for the purposes of amusement.

Really - the players would have a very strong tendency just to put their cards away and save their energy for the next board.

Of course I can't argue with the notion that declarer should be more specific when stating a claim. Nor can I argue with not claiming at all if it occurs to declarer that the finesse might not win again.

However, in a game where all the players are very strong, I would be shocked if it mattered.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Which one of these three scenarios would cause you the shock?

a) that declarer had played low to the nine in the first place
b ) that a strong defender had found the completely obligatory false card from ANY of KJ, KJx or KJxx
c) that declarer had intended to run the 10 but carelessly did not state it.

You thought that it was 1000% that he would have intended to run the 10. I take this to be like the sports player giving 110% effort, but what percentage chance would you give to the other two outcomes?

My estimates:
a) I would expect it be less than 25% that a strong declarer would select this line
b ) I would expect a strong defender to find the king false card over half the time, probably nearer 75%
c) I think it is maybe 75% that a strong declarer intended to run the 10 on the next round; the other 25% made up of all sorts of misreading or miscounting.

[fred]

lamford, on Jan 25 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

Which one of these three scenarios would cause you the shock?

a) that declarer had played low to the nine in the first place
b ) that a strong defender had found the completely obligatory false card from ANY of KJ, KJx or KJxx
c) that declarer had intended to run the 10 but carelessly did not state it.

d) none of the above

I would be shocked if the TD was called (assuming the Jack of hearts was actually onside).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Finessing the ten coming back without cashing the queen first is a play 0% of bridge players would make. That alone should be enough to make it irrational even without considering that it sometimes loses and never gains over cashing the queen first, another reason it's irrational. Saying a play works x% of the time does not make it rational. Is it rational with no count on the hand to finesse the first round with AKQTx opposite xxxxx since it will win half the time?

Your assumptions are so far off it's not even funny. Almost no stronger players would find this falsecard, not even near 75%! Take it for whatever it's worth that I have never ever once seen that play at the table, though I can recall one hand in a book where it was once found by one of the top players in the world. I believe that hand occured in 1980.

The fact your (original) point is not only ridiculous but then you throw on something even more ridiculous on top (you won't let them cash the queen even if they play LHO for the jack) make it difficult to have this discussion other than to say things like "your points are ridiculous".

Seriously Iamford you are missing the boat and you just don't see it, I don't know what else to say. I mean read what Fred is saying. Good players would be laughing at you.

[iviehoff]

It appears that at a high level of bridge it is custom and practice to allow claims without players dotting i's and crossing t's in their claim statements. It's a kind of gentleman's agreement: both sides allow each other this latitude and save time. If the director was called for such a claim, for example by some person not aware of this custom and practice, many of these claims would not succeed by strict application of the laws. (Occasionally a story emerges of a wrong claim being assented to - I'm not talking about those, I'm taking about claims that would almost certainly be fine if a full statement were given.)

So the fact that Fred tells us that in a strong game this claim would not be disputed is irrelevant. We are discussing the correct application of the laws. What happens in practice in the handling of claims between players in a high level game is not the same as the correct application of the laws.

Some people might dislike the fact that the director was called for this claim, because to them it is "obvious" what the player was going to do. But if the director is called, then what the player was "obviously" going to do is not the correct way to adjudicate a claim. The strict application of the law does not allow this claim. The law tells us not to allow finesses that aren't stated, with the exception only of finesses that are "marked" by someone showing out. The law tells us to consider any alterative line that is rational or merely careless. This contract can fail both due to carelessness, and also by following apparently rational lines. So the director cannot allow the claim. That is different from what is custom and practice in claiming in high level games.

[shyams]

Why is a repeating finesse not implicit in the claim?

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 02:02 AM, said:

Finessing the ten coming back without cashing the queen first is a play 0% of bridge players would make. That alone should be enough to make it irrational even without considering that it sometimes loses and never gains over cashing the queen first, another reason it's irrational. Saying a play works x% of the time does not make it rational. Is it rational with no count on the hand to finesse the first round with AKQTx opposite xxxxx since it will win half the time?

Your assumptions are so far off it's not even funny. Almost no stronger players would find this falsecard, not even near 75%! Take it for whatever it's worth that I have never ever once seen that play at the table, though I can recall one hand in a book where it was once found by one of the top players in the world. I believe that hand occured in 1980.

The fact your (original) point is not only ridiculous but then you throw on something even more ridiculous on top (you won't let them cash the queen even if they play LHO for the jack) make it difficult to have this discussion other than to say things like "your points are ridiculous".

Seriously Iamford you are missing the boat and you just don't see it, I don't know what else to say. I mean read what Fred is saying. Good players would be laughing at you.

I argued at first that it was possibly irrational not to cash the queen first, after playing low to the 10, and I would have no problem with deciding that it was and giving declarer the contract if there were Jx on his right. I suspect Jeremy69 would award a trick to the opponents in all situations as he is certainly more draconian on claims than me, and I think he would be right on this hand.

We do not need to decide on how often good players would or would not find the falsecard, and I am assuming that A108 are remaining visibly in dummy else that estimate might be different. All we are seeking to do is find which lines are rational and which aren't.

If the TD is of the opinion that the only rational line for declarer, considering his statement, is to run the ten, then he decides on that. The limited evidence suggested that while this was likely, it was not certain.

For what it is worth I tried five players of below county standard (they have never represented London) and all five found the king when presented it as a problem. It is no more or less routine than dropping the queen from Q10x after declarer has finessed dummy's jack from AJx and then cashed the ace opposite a known four-card suit.

And for what it is worth, I would let the claim stand as a defender, but that is a personal choice. As iviehoff said, we are discussing the Laws of Bridge, not what ethics should be among strong players.

[Codo]

1. Where in the Laws do you read that a winning finesse is not allowed to be done again?

2. What do you think matters more? The ethics of the games or the laws?


My point:
1. Nowhere- so the claim is valid as long as East did not falsecard.
2. The ethics, so if there is more then one possible interpretation of a §, you should use the one which helps the game most. I do not see this in your way of handling the laws in this case.

But your opinion may differ....

[campboy]

1. Of course a winning finesse is allowed to be repeated. The player merely has to state that that is what he is doing to get all the tricks. However, if he does not state that he is taking a finesse then we are in law 70E1 territory; a finesse is not "marked" unless someone has shown out of that suit (or will do so before we have to decide whether to take it).

2. I do not see the distinction. The ethics of any game derive from the rules; what is ethical in one game may be unethical in another.

[Codo]

So you play NT and the crutial suit is
North South
JT9 AQ76
You play the jack 263
Ten 475
9 8
now you claim the rest of the tricks.
Better not if Campboy or Lamford is your TD. The evil West may had hold back the King and duck twice to cut down communication.
So they rule: You must now play the ace to catter for that possibility. Damn.. surprinsingly West was not such a genius. He did not hold the king. But according to the laws like they read them, he could have hold it.

Beancounters who call the TD will get a trick out of nothing.
So don't claim, or explain in full length and best with words even a baby understand:
I will take the queen. If the King does not appear, I will win the last trick with the ace. But if the queen lose to the king,you win the trick.

So do not claim....because if you would talk this way with me as your opponent, I may well call the TD, because I find it offending if you think that I may not be able to understand this claim while you just say: The rest is mine.
I may well call the TD about it...

[iviehoff]

shyams, on Jan 25 2010, 11:01 AM, said:

Why is a repeating finesse not implicit in the claim?

Because the law tells us quite clearly that no unstated line of play is ever "implicit" in a claim statement if there are alternative ways of making fewer tricks that are either rational lines of play, or result from mere carelessness. And because the law tells us quite clearly a finesse is not marked for the purposes of a claim unless a player shows out.

If you think that obviously the player will never do anything other than repeat the finesse, and don't want to be awarded a trick for it, then the thing to do is not dispute the claim. If the claim is disputed by someone, the TD has to follow the laws. The lesson is, make adequate claim statements, it's what the law tells you to do.

[fred]

iviehoff, on Jan 25 2010, 09:35 AM, said:

It appears that at a high level of bridge it is custom and practice to allow claims without players dotting i's and crossing t's in their claim statements.  It's a kind of gentleman's agreement: both sides allow each other this latitude and save time.

Correct and I strongly believe that this is a good thing. Perhaps it should be noted that I don't recall every hearing anyone openly making such an "agreement" - it is just the way it is.

Quote

So the fact that Fred tells us that in a strong game this claim would not be disputed is irrelevant.  We are discussing the correct application of the laws.  What happens in practice in the handling of claims between players in a high level game is not the same as the correct application of the laws.

Agree. I was not trying to make any claims (haha) about what the Laws actually say (I have no idea) or what I think they *should* say (I am not really qualified to offer a meaningful opinion).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Actually I'll concede one thing, the king play isn't that hard when given as a problem. I bother you to take time out of your day and say "you have xxx xxx KJxx xxx...." gee I wonder where the problem will be.

[Pict]

Quote

For what it is worth I tried five players of below county standard (they have never represented London) and all five found the king when presented it as a problem. It is no more or less routine than dropping the queen from Q10x after declarer has finessed dummy's jack from AJx and then cashed the ace opposite a known four-card suit.

Would they have falsecarded if North had A10xx, or they couldn't see North's hand.

[blackshoe]

Codo, on Jan 25 2010, 09:50 AM, said:

So they rule: You must now play the ace to cater for that possibility.

No, they don't. They rule that the law requires that when a finesse is not marked, one defender having shown out, the line of play statement required to accompany a claim must include that the finesse will be taken or, if not taking the finesse is "normal", then if that line fails, the TD awards a trick (or more) to the defenders. FWIW, I don't think it's "normal" to take two finesses on this lie of the cards, and then play the ace. I think the finesse is marked, although it might depend on the level of play of the defenders. There is also the question whether declarer has a count on the hand. If he knows the opponents are 3-3 in this suit, there's no need for a third round finesse.

Quote

So do not claim....because if you would talk this way with me as your opponent, I may well call the TD, because I find it offending if you think that I may not be able to understand this claim while you just say: The rest is mine.

That's just childish.

Quote

I may well call the TD about it...

To which my mildest response would be "get a life".

[blackshoe]

fred, on Jan 25 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

iviehoff, on Jan 25 2010, 09:35 AM, said:

It appears that at a high level of bridge it is custom and practice to allow claims without players dotting i's and crossing t's in their claim statements.  It's a kind of gentleman's agreement: both sides allow each other this latitude and save time.

Correct and I strongly believe that this is a good thing. Perhaps it should be noted that I don't recall every hearing anyone openly making such an "agreement" - it is just the way it is.

Speaking as both a (not nearly at that level) player and as a director, I have no problem with that - provided that everyone at the table is of the appropriate level. We have a very good player here who likes to intimidate his opponents by doing this. One of these days I'm going to get called to the table when it happens, instead of finding out about it three days after the fact, and then I'm going to hit him with some serious penalties.

In cases where one or more defenders is not quite up to the standard of "high level bridge", I expect everybody to follow the rules, including the one which says they should accept gracefully any ruling of the TD (subject of course to their right to appeal), and including the one which says a claim should be accompanied by a clear line of play statement.

[Jlall]

+1 that if you take a finesse and it wins then you claim it is implied you are taking the finesse again

[barmar]

Definitely agree with that. When I claim against novices, I generally go overboard in the claim statement, since I have no expectation that they will see what would be obvious to more experienced players.

In the situation in this thread, I fully agree with Fred. If it were played by experts, it would be obvious that he intended to repeat the finesse. If West falsecarded, he would simply point out that the finesse was losing, and declarer would agree that he only gets 2 tricks. They might call the TD just as a formality (some players are sticklers to the rule that you should call the TD in any dubious situation), but I suspect in most cases they wouldn't bother. The same thing if someone finesses twice, and the opponent was holding up the offside honor; he'd point out that the third finesse would have lost, and declarer would agree that he doesn't get all the tricks.