[bluejak]

Sadly, I do not know the hands, but the question I was asked seemed interesting.

Declarer is in 3NT at rubber bridge, but the players would be happy for a ruling under duplicate Laws. The defence take the first four tricks in diamonds.

Now declarer says "Well, I suppose you take your diamond, and then I have eight top tricks".

The snag, of course, is that declarer has miscounted the diamonds, and there is no fourteenth diamond to cash!

When declarer discovers this he says "In that case I take the heart finesse for nine tricks". The heart finesse is a simple AQ combination, and it is working. Assuming there is no other sensible line for nine tricks, do we give him nine tricks?

A second question occurred to me. Supposing the hearts were KJxx opposite A8xx, and the heart finesse works but the queen does not drop, do we give him his nine tricks? Again, assume no alternative in any other suit.

[CamHenry]

bluejak, on 2012-December-22, 15:08, said:

Sadly, I do not know the hands, but the question I was asked seemed interesting.

Declarer is in 3NT at rubber bridge, but the players would be happy for a ruling under duplicate Laws. The defence take the first four tricks in diamonds.

Now declarer says "Well, I suppose you take your diamond, and then I have eight top tricks".

The snag, of course, is that declarer has miscounted the diamonds, and there is no fourteenth diamond to cash!

When declarer discovers this he says "In that case I take the heart finesse for nine tricks". The heart finesse is a simple AQ combination, and it is working. Assuming there is no other sensible line for nine tricks, do we give him nine tricks?

A second question occurred to me. Supposing the hearts were KJxx opposite A8xx, and the heart finesse works but the queen does not drop, do we give him his nine tricks? Again, assume no alternative in any other suit.

For Q1, I think 9 tricks is sound.

For Q2, I'm not quite sure what you mean: are you envisaging a position like:

Ax
KJxx
-
Axx

Kx
A8xx
-
KQx

In this case, I'm ruling 8 tricks: 2 spades, 3 hearts, three clubs, and the HQ to lose at the end.

[axman]

CamHenry, on 2012-December-22, 15:44, said:

For Q1, I think 9 tricks is sound.

I seem to recall that top tricks were claimed. Does that mean that all cards are played from the top?

[gnasher]

(1) Yes, we give him nine tricks. His claim told us what he would do if the defence cashed another diamond. He omitted to tell us what he would do if they didn't, so we consider what the normal lines of play are and see if any of them fail. None of them do. He's allowed to take the finesse because it would be irrational not to do so.

(2) When he has Axxx opposite KJxx, we don't let him take the finesse, because playing the suit from the top is a "normal" line.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-December-22, 16:31, said:

(1) Yes, we give him nine tricks. His claim told us what he would do if the defence cashed another diamond. He omitted to tell us what he would do if they didn't, so we consider what the normal lines of play are and see if any of them fail. None of them do. He's allowed to take the finesse because it would be irrational not to do so.

TFLB L70E1 said:

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.
For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved

The ♥K is a particular card but, arguably, if there were several ♥ missing, then failure to finesse might be deemed irrational... unless you rate declarer is a rank beginner. IMO, another intriguing question is whether "then I have eight top tricks" can be treated as a claim statement. And, if so, whether the director should permit declarer to modify it, later.

gnasher, on 2012-December-22, 16:31, said:

(2) When he has Axxx opposite KJxx, we don't let him take the finesse, because playing the suit from the top is a "normal" line.

Under current law, IMO, it seems that the director should rule against declarer, whether the finesse works or not, unless ♥Q is on-side and doubleton... but what if you rate declarer as world-class?

Again, I suppose such rulings are a question of trying to interpret the law, taking into account how well you know the players.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-December-22, 15:08, said:

Sadly, I do not know the hands, but the question I was asked seemed interesting.

Declarer is in 3NT at rubber bridge, but the players would be happy for a ruling under duplicate Laws. The defence take the first four tricks in diamonds.

Now declarer says "Well, I suppose you take your diamond, and then I have eight top tricks".

The snag, of course, is that declarer has miscounted the diamonds, and there is no fourteenth diamond to cash!

When declarer discovers this he says "In that case I take the heart finesse for nine tricks". The heart finesse is a simple AQ combination, and it is working. Assuming there is no other sensible line for nine tricks, do we give him nine tricks?

A second question occurred to me. Supposing the hearts were KJxx opposite A8xx, and the heart finesse works but the queen does not drop, do we give him his nine tricks? Again, assume no alternative in any other suit.

There is nothing in the opening post to suggest that declarer had faced his hand. Does declarer's statement constitute a claim? "Well, I suppose you take your diamond, and then I have eight top tricks" implies to me that declarer is saying that he will claim the rest if and when the defence cash a fifth diamond trick. As the defender on lead will not be playing another diamond, he should lead a card of his choice and play should then continue.

[Sjoerds]

If leader miscounted his tricks why go down an extra trick for -2 and finish!
In both cases I therefore opt for 8 tricks unless there is no reasonable way to avoid that.

[jallerton]

nige1, on 2012-December-22, 18:33, said:

...but what if you rate declarer as world-class?

Given the evidence available from the "counting" of the diamond suit, I would temporarily rate a declarer of this standard well below "world class" for the purposes of adjudicating this hand.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2012-December-23, 08:08, said:

There is nothing in the opening post to suggest that declarer had faced his hand. Does declarer's statement constitute a claim? "Well, I suppose you take your diamond, and then I have eight top tricks" implies to me that declarer is saying that he will claim the rest if and when the defence cash a fifth diamond trick. As the defender on lead will not be playing another diamond, he should lead a card of his choice and play should then continue.

Law 68: For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress…
The statement does refer to tricks other than the one currently in progress.
If it does so, then: Law 68A Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.
Any statement. While I think your position is reasonable, so is the position that the statement constitutes a claim. How do we decide? As a player, I would be concerned that if I lead, and the director later rules that the statement was a claim, I may jeopardize my equity in the claim resolution (see Law 70D3). So unless you, as a player, are absolutely certain there has been no claim, you should call the director and ask him.

[blackshoe]

Interesting. The references in my previous post are to the duplicate laws. The rubber laws say:
Law 68: Declarer makes a claim or a concession whenever he announces that he will win or lose one or more of the remaining tricks, or suggests that play be curtailed or faces his hand. Declarer should not make a claim or concession if there is any doubt as to the number of tricks to be won or lost.

Law 69, in part: When declarer has made a claim or a concession, play is temporarily suspended and declarer must place and leave his hand face up on the table and forthwith make a comprehensive statement as to his proposed plan of play, including the order in which he will play the remaining cards.
Declarer’s claim or concession is allowed, and the deal is scored accordingly if both defenders agree to it. The claim or concession must be allowed if either defender has permitted any of his remaining cards to be mixed with another player’s cards; otherwise, if either defender disputes declarer’s claim or concession, it is not allowed. Then, play continues.
When his claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face up on the table. At any time, either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner, and declarer may not impose a penalty for any irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced.

Jeffrey points out that we have no evidence that declarer faced his hand. In view of the rubber Law 69, this may suggest we should decide the answer to the question "is it a claim" in favor of Jeffrey's position, i.e., "no, it's not".

Supplementary question: is "and then I have eight tricks" a line of play statement? I would say it's not.

[bluejak]

I said it was a claim: it was a claim. I did not think I needed to detail how I knew it was a claim. Let us assume declarer showed his hand as he spoke, ok?

I know you like to prove the Laws wrong every time you post, Nigel, but this is ridiculous: whether declarer is world class is clearly irrelevant, and merely a red herring of your own.

As to a hand to show the second position, I was surprised it was needed, but ok, how about this:

Ax
KJxx
--
AKQ

KQx
A8xx
--
xx

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-23, 09:57, said:

[snip] Interesting. The references in my previous post are to the duplicate laws. The rubber laws say: Law 68: Declarer makes a claim or a concession whenever he announces that he will win or lose one or more of the remaining tricks, or suggests that play be curtailed or faces his hand. Declarer should not make a claim or concession if there is any doubt as to the number of tricks to be won or lost.[snip]

"Take your diamond trick and I have the remaining tricks on top" is a common kind of claim. IMO, according to current duplicate and rubber-bridge law, declarer claimed.

[nige1]

TFLB L70E1 said:

For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved

nige1, on 2012-December-22, 18:33, said:

• [SNIP] unless you rate declarer as a rank beginner? [SNIP].
• [SNIP] but what if you rate declarer as world-class? [SNIP]

Again, I suppose such rulings are a question of trying to interpret the law, taking into account how well you know the players.

jallerton, on 2012-December-23, 08:13, said:

Given the evidence available from the "counting" of the diamond suit, I would temporarily rate a declarer of this standard well below "world class" for the purposes of adjudicating this hand.

bluejak, on 2012-December-23, 12:07, said:

I know you like to prove the Laws wrong every time you post, Nigel, but this is ridiculous: whether declarer is world class is clearly irrelevant, and merely a red herring of your own.

I'm surprised that bluejak and jallerton believe that the law foot-note is irrelevant to the director's ruling. Whether declarer is a beginner or world-class, he clearly lost the place. Players of all classes sometimes have mental aberrations. I completely agree with jallerton that It is common sense that a player who makes a ridiculous claim has probably suffered a breakdown in concentration and shouldn't be allowed to recover and start firing on all cylinders. Unfortunately, the law doesn't spell that out. IMO "careless and inferior" for a world-class player and a beginner are different. But the scope for judgement is too wide..

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-December-23, 12:07, said:

I said it was a claim: it was a claim. I did not think I needed to detail how I knew it was a claim. Let us assume declarer showed his hand as he spoke, ok?

Sorry, I couldn't see the word "claim" in the text of your opening post. The word "claim" does appear in the title, but the WBFLC tell us to concentrate on the text and ignore headings!

Assuming there was a claim, I rule as follows:

bluejak, on 2012-December-22, 15:08, said:

Declarer is in 3NT at rubber bridge, but the players would be happy for a ruling under duplicate Laws.

I rule that the Laws of Rubber Bridge apply and that the players have no right to request that some other basis (such as the Laws of Duplicate Bridge) can be used to judge the claim. Ed has kindly looked up the relevant Law for me, so I apply the Rubber Law 69 he quotes above: declarer plays the hand out ouvert and can choose to play the heart suit however he likes. The players get on with the play and the TD doesn't need to worry about the wooly concept of "normal" lines of play.

[bluejak]

It is often easier to discuss matters here when there is a real case. I thinks this quite an interesting case under duplicate Laws. Replies that refuse to rule in the way asked are singularly unhelpful.

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2012-December-23, 12:57, said:

Sorry, I couldn't see the word "claim" in the text of your opening post. The word "claim" does appear in the title, but the WBFLC tell us to concentrate on the text and ignore headings! Assuming there was a claim, I rule as follows:I rule that the Laws of Rubber Bridge apply and that the players have no right to request that some other basis (such as the Laws of Duplicate Bridge) can be used to judge the claim. Ed has kindly looked up the relevant Law for me, so I apply the Rubber Law 69 he quotes above: declarer plays the hand out ouvert and can choose to play the heart suit however he likes. The players get on with the play and the TD doesn't need to worry about the wooly concept of "normal" lines of play.

On reflection, I agree with Jallerton. And the rubber-bridge claim-law is a vast improvement on the duplicate version