[lamford]

Scoring: IMP

4NT (28-29) - 6NT

---

One of the ?s is the king of spades, but I forget which

On the jack of hearts lead, declarer wins and runs the jack of spades and then runs the ten of spades and claims when it holds, without saying anything.

a) how would you rule if the king of spades is with West?
b ) how would you rule if the king of spades is with East?
c) how would you rule if West had four spades?
d) how would you rule at matchpoints?

With thanks and acknowlegements to jdonn for the hand!

[jdonn]

? I didn't come up with this hand, nor did I reference it.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 06:37 PM, said:

? I didn't come up with this hand, nor did I reference it.

No, but you were the inspiration behind it with your claim that with JTx opposite AQ9x if declarer ran the jack and it held he would repeat the finesse in any claim.

jdonn said:

Running the J from JT9 opposite AQxx then claiming is an implicit statement the finesse is being repeated.

[Pict]

Not a great example, since even most lesser players might cash their winners after the two spades and all would be clear.

[lamford]

At matchpoints?

[jdonn]

My statement was:

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

Running the J from JT9 opposite AQxx then claiming is an implicit statement the finesse is being repeated. Because it's obvious that's what they were doing, because everyone would do it, because if he wasn't going to then he wouldn't claim at all, give it whatever reason you want. Likewise cherdanno's example.

Please note a few points:
- I said running the jack then claiming, I didn't say running the jack then the ten then claiming as you are asking in this example.
- In my example repeating the finesse would not cut declarer off from the long card, in yours it would.
- I don't recall saying "in any claim", please show me where I said anything like that. Do you think I am requiring south to take a third finesse in your example if his clubs are AKQJ and otherwise his hand is the same?

You would probably do better to draw your inspiration from elsewhere since it seems to have been based off gross misimplications and falsehoods in this case. Nonetheless, the free publicity is most appreciated.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

- I said running the jack then claiming, I didn't say running the jack then the ten then claiming as you are asking in this example

OK, we can change the specification to running the jack then claiming. How would you now rule?

[Jlall]

If they claimed all the tricks at this point I would force them to hook the spade again and go down if the SK is off obviously. They are claiming based on the spade hook being on; they have not foreseen the possibility that RHO has ducked. They certainly do not get the benefit of running their winners first and doing a showup squeeze, even if clubs were 3-3 they would not get to do this, because they think the SK must be on it would not be irrational to cater to the possibility that it's off.

[jdonn]

lamford, on Jan 25 2010, 06:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

- I said running the jack then claiming, I didn't say running the jack then the ten then claiming as you are asking in this example

OK, we can change the specification to running the jack then claiming. How would you now rule?

Thought tempted to not even give you the joy of my opinion since bringing me up to begin with in this problem was truly obnoxious, obviously he must continue finessing and go down if it's off. If he is bad enough to not find the squeeze on west (and for that matter bad enough to play a 4NT opening bid shows a huge balanced hand) then he is bad enough to not consider the east might be ducking the king of spades.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 07:00 PM, said:

Thought tempted to not even give you the joy of my opinion since bringing me up to begin with in this problem was truly obnoxious, obviously he must continue finessing and go down if it's off.

Here you say it is obnoxious; in an earlier thread you welcomed the publicity.

[jdonn]

lamford, on Jan 25 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 07:00 PM, said:

Thought tempted to not even give you the joy of my opinion since bringing me up to begin with in this problem was truly obnoxious, obviously he must continue finessing and go down if it's off.

Here you say it is obnoxious; in an earlier thread you welcomed the publicity.

I assume you mean an earlier post in this thread. That comment was quite sarcastic.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 07:00 PM, said:

If he is bad enough to not find the squeeze on west (and for that matter bad enough to play a 4NT opening bid shows a huge balanced hand) then he is bad enough to not consider the east might be ducking the king of spades.

The WBFLC guidelines are that we do not take into account the specific player in deciding what is rational, but I agree that we award two tricks to the opponents even at IMPs where the declarer can cash out after winning two spade tricks. Some would argue that not cashing out was irrational.

[jdonn]

I do not award the opponents any tricks if the king of spades is on, however. Agree?

Btw am I imagining it or isn't/wasn't there some statement in the laws that intent is what governs claims, even if something wasn't explicitely stated?

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 07:24 PM, said:

Btw am I imagining it or isn't/wasn't there some statement in the laws that intent is what governs claims, even if something wasn't explicitely stated?

You're imagining it, at least as far as the current laws are concerned.

[Jlall]

I don't see what the argument is here. This position is consistent, someone who claims all the tricks after a finesse wins when they don't actually have all the tricks is assuming the finesse is on and claiming so. If the finesse is off then you go down because you did not consider this possibility.

[cherdanno]

blackshoe, on Jan 25 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 07:24 PM, said:

Btw am I imagining it or isn't/wasn't there some statement in the laws that intent is what governs claims, even if something wasn't explicitely stated?

You're imagining it, at least as far as the current laws are concerned.

However:

Quote

LAW 70 CONTESTED CLAIMS
A. General Objective
In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer.

(Emphasis mine.)

[axman]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

I don't see what the argument is here. This position is consistent, someone who claims all the tricks after a finesse wins when they don't actually have all the tricks is assuming the finesse is on and claiming so. If the finesse is off then you go down because you did not consider this possibility.

This assertion is not in accordance with law- specofically

L70A...The Director proceeds as follows.

which refers to L70B to E.

[lamford]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

I don't see what the argument is here. This position is consistent, someone who claims all the tricks after a finesse wins when they don't actually have all the tricks is assuming the finesse is on and claiming so. If the finesse is off then you go down because you did not consider this possibility.

Yes, I agree with that. If the player claims 13 tricks, he is two off. If he claims, stating "I have 12 tricks now", perhaps miscounting, then he gets awarded the contract as he does have 12 tricks without a third finesse.

[bluejak]

I am not very interested in the second position, nor do I see why the need to change an interesting problem. As I have said a couple of times when we are set a problem please let us assume it is as in the OP, even if there may be some history in the source of the problem and even if it is different from the source.

While the player's intent is not specifically mentioned in the Laws, when judging what we think a player's likely/logical/possible/irrational lines are I think intent is part of the judgement.

In this case I have little doubt that declarer has assumed the finesse is working, so I would rule he would take it again, and any other line is irrational. So now he goes off if East has Kxx and makes an overtrick if West has Kxxx. Of course, if West had xx I would not force the finesse.

Pict, on Jan 26 2010, 12:40 AM, said:

Not a great example, since even most lesser players might cash their winners after the two spades and all would be clear.

My experience is that lesser players who think a finesse is working routinely take it again immediately.

Personally, I think it an excellent example.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jan 26 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

Pict, on Jan 26 2010, 12:40 AM, said:

Not a great example, since even most lesser players might cash their winners after the two spades and all would be clear.

My experience is that lesser players who think a finesse is working routinely take it again immediately.

Definitely agree with that. It's clear you can't say "declarer gets the rest because he will run his winners before taking the finesse again and find out west is squeezed." If we do that we might as well employ gib to make all rulings.