[shyams]

This happened in the club on Friday. I was South:

Scoring: XIMP

---

The ♠6: I knew I held 3-5-3-2 while bidding. After the opening lead, I folded the hand (to figure out odds for 6H). When I resumed, the ♠6 stayed partly stuck behind the ♠5
Bidding and play: We bid to 4♥ by South; opening lead was ♣5. I finessed (lost) and a trump came back. I won in dummy, drew 2 more rounds of trumps and finessed the ♦J (lost). When East returned ♦2, I claimed saying "I will discard the ♠5 on 4th diamond". As I was spreading my cards I notice the ♠6 again. It's been 5-7 sec since my claim statement. I say "obviously, there is a chance..."
What did not happen: I continued saying "How about we call Director and ask him to rule?" Note: Opps have not indicated if ♠ finesse wins.
Simple question: If you were the Director called, would you give me the overtrick?

I thought this had some similarities to the earlier post with some heated discussions. I did not post it earlier because I could not locate the hand records.

[jeremy69]

You made a claim. You did not indicate that you would finesse a spade because you were playing with only 12 cards. Careless and unfortunate and perhaps a PP to the person who poured beer on the spade pips making them sticky but you will lose one trick.

[shyams]

OK. Now let me improvise a bit:

I say "obviously, there is a chance for overtrick if West holds SK". Please note the 5-7 sec since my claim statement still holds good (Though I did not exactly time it, I am quite certain it was more than 5 seconds)

Would you give me the overtrick now?

[greenender]

I agree with Jeremy, for two reasons.

1. Bum claims normally arise from the claimer labouring under some misapprehension. The fact that yours was that you only had one loser (so that the location of the ♠K was irrelevant) doesn't disapply Law 70E which effectively bans non-marked finesses unless it would be irrational not to take the finesse. At the time of your claim you thought that you only had two ♠s, and for such a player it would not be irrational to cash the ♠A along the way.

2. If you follow your claim statement literally, you cash the remaining ♦s, and are in the wrong hand to take the ♠ finesse.

Whilst the general objective of the claims law is to do equity to both sides, albeit resolving matters of doubt against the claimer, this does not equate to allowing a claim if the director "thinks the claimer would have made the tricks claimed had the hand been played out". Now, had you played the hand out, you would obviously have taken the ♠ finesse, had you realised the position in time, but you are not entitled under the claim law to the benefit of that realisation.

No overtrick.

[campboy]

Agree. Basically, whether you would have realised in time had you not claimed is a doubtful point. You would have to notice before playing the second diamond from hand.

[shyams]

OK. Now let us go for a second improvisation, specifically focused on the quote below:

greenender, on Jan 26 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

2.  If you follow your claim statement literally, you cash the remaining ♦s, and are in the wrong hand to take the ♠ finesse.

Assume the black-suit 4s are switched between East and North (i.e. North began with ♣AQ4 and ♠AQ7; East began with ♣K932 and ♠T843)

Would you now give me the overtrick, assuming all info including the first improv above?

Hidden:

Spoiler

I realise this may test some people's patience so let me clarify what actually happened at the table. I did everything in the OP, including a fragment quote approx like "obviously, there is a chance..." (I did not say finesse). However, I did not call the TD and told opps I will score it as 4♠ =. West said "I have ♠K" but I said "it is IMPs. I don't mind scoring it as 10 tricks". We left it at that...

(Pardon the exaggeration): "If I had continued playing, I'd have made 11 tricks. Ergo, claiming is useless"

[campboy]

I don't see why the new example makes much difference. Basically, you are not going to notice until you attempt to play a spade from hand. There are perfectly reasonable lines where that would be too late (playing the extra trumps first, or just cashing the ♠A when in dummy).

[bixby]

If you had played it out while seeing all the cards you would have taken the risk-free finesse and made five. But if you had actually played it out from the position in which you made your claim, you might, and indeed likely would, have won the ♦10, crossed to dummy in diamonds, and discarded the ♠5 on the fourth diamond, as you said in your claim statement. At that point you are in the wrong hand to finesse and there is no way back.

So I think you have to lose a spade trick, and this doesn't even seem like a case in which the claim laws are at all harsh. The claim laws are getting us to the result that would likely have occurred in actual play.

If you had seen all your cards, and made the claim statement you made, while intending in your own mind that you would get rid of one spade loser on the diamonds and "of course" would have finessed to have a chance to get rid of the other, there would be something to argue about. In that case, the claims laws might still force you to lose a spade trick, even though you "obviously" would have made an overtrick if you had played the hand out. That is at least a harder case.

But the actual case seems easy.

[shyams]

bixby, on Jan 26 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

If you had seen all your cards, and made the claim statement you made, while intending in your own mind that you would get rid of one spade loser on the diamonds and "of course" would have finessed to have a chance to get rid of the other, there would be something to argue about.  In that case, the claims laws might still force you to lose a spade trick, even though you "obviously" would have made an overtrick if you had played the hand out.  That is at least a harder case.

Let's take the case in the second improv -- i.e. I have a method of getting back to hand by ruffing the 3rd club.

If I read your comment (quoted portion), you are saying something to the effect "I still lose the spade trick. But playing it out would have resulted in 11 tricks". I find that a bit hard to digest...

[blackshoe]

bixby, on Jan 26 2010, 09:54 AM, said:

If you had seen all your cards, and made the claim statement you made, while intending in your own mind that you would get rid of one spade loser on the diamonds and "of course" would have finessed to have a chance to get rid of the other, there would be something to argue about. In that case, the claims laws might still force you to lose a spade trick, even though you "obviously" would have made an overtrick if you had played the hand out. That is at least a harder case.

Is it? The same laws and the same principles apply.

We've seen a lot of "claiming is useless" statements on the forum lately. Really it seems to me more like "I'm too lazy to claim properly, so claiming is useless". For that player, maybe. But the moral seems to be "don't be so lazy" rather than "the claim laws need fixing". And if you find yourself fixed by a simple mistake, like not realizing that one of your cards is stuck behind another, I don't think you should blame the claim laws for it.

"The claims laws might still force you to lose..."

The laws don't force players to do anything. If they did, there would never be any irregularities. The TD makes a judgment call, that's all.

[blackshoe]

shyams, on Jan 26 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

If I read your comment (quoted portion), you are saying something to the effect "I still lose the spade trick. But playing it out would have resulted in 11 tricks". I find that a bit hard to digest...

He's saying that people who have not stated a complete and clear line of play will argue, when that is pointed out, that they were "obviously" going to do whatever it is that will get them the disputed trick(s). That argument will generally lose, because the laws require that it should. And I don't think he said playing it out would result in 11 tricks, rather that it might have done, if you had realized the position in time to change your intended line of play.

[shyams]

Scoring: XIMP

---

In essence, I am being told it would not be irrational for me to ruff the C4 and finesse the SQ in this position. The fact that a card was partly hidden when I am claiming (with 8 cards in my hand) is deemed as a future certainty that the card will remain undiscovered if I had played it out.

Quote

We've seen a lot of "claiming is useless" statements on the forum lately. Really it seems to me more like "I'm too lazy to claim properly, so claiming is useless"

Yet, I think there are no penalties for not claiming in a timely fashion.

Someone can play out all tricks with an intention to tire opponents out. But he cannot be punished unless he is stupid enough to tell someone that he played out to make opps expend unnecessary mental energy.

[bluejak]

greenender, on Jan 26 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

Whilst the general objective of the claims law is to do equity to both sides, albeit resolving matters of doubt against the claimer, this does not equate to allowing a claim if the director "thinks the claimer would have made the tricks claimed had the hand been played out".

I think it does, you know.

Of course in this case we do not allow the ♠ finesse since declarer may commit himself to a position where he cannot take it before he realises the problem. Even in the second case he may go to dummy with ♠A to cash the last diamond before realising: it is not irrational to do so.

[blackshoe]

shyams, on Jan 26 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

Yet, I think there are no penalties for not claiming in a timely fashion.

That turns out not to be the case, as David has already pointed out.

[Siegmund]

About the second improv:

Quote

Assume the black-suit 4s are switched between East and North (i.e. North began with ♣AQ4 and ♠AQ7; East began with ♣K932 and ♠T843)

With AQx opposite Jx in clubs we always have two club tricks (either we won the CJ in our hand at trick 1 or East played his king on air), so assuming that East did in fact win the first trick, you are now pitching one spade on a diamond and the other spade on a club, all top tricks.

In other words I don't think the '2nd improv' has anything in common with the actual hand or the '1st improv'.

As described at the table, I'm not allowing the finesse.

[lamford]

jeremy69, on Jan 26 2010, 07:10 AM, said:

perhaps a PP to the person who poured beer on the spade pips

Presumably under 74A2 as an action that might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. However, at the Young Chelsea, it would be hard to argue that the smell of beer on the cards would do this to anyone. And the expression "carefully avoid" indicates that, for it to be infraction, it would need to be done intentionally.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on Jan 28 2010, 07:55 PM, said:

And the expression "carefully avoid" indicates that, for it to be infraction, it would need to be done intentionally.

Nonsense. Unintentionally careless actions which cause annoyance or embarrassment to other players are infractions of this law. Such an infraction would rarely draw a PP (cf the word "should" in the law) but it's still an infraction.

The only scenario in which I can envision issuing a PP for unintentionallly violating this law is when a player has been warned about it already, and continues to do it. An intentional violation of this law would draw a severe penalty from me (it's also a violation of Law 72B1, which uses the term "must not").

[lamford]

Yes, I agree. I think I should have used a different word than intentionally; if something occurs inadvertently, such as a container of liquid being knocked over, that suggests to me that the player has not failed to "carefully avoid". But, as neither of us would impose a PP without a warning, I am not sure that the distinction is meaningful.