[lamford]

pran, on 2012-September-04, 08:22, said:

So we must turn to

Quote

Law 70 E 1 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.

and rule that it is not irrational to repeat the club finessee.

The problem about applying that is that the success of cashing the ace does not depend upon finding one opponent rather than the other with the king of clubs. It makes 12 tricks regardless of who has that card, and makes an overtrick when the king falls, whoever has it. I think 70D1 is the right approach:
"The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful."

[billw55]

IMO any conditional line of play (i.e. if the first finesse works, cash the ace next) should only be accepted if explicitly described in the original claim statement. In my experience it is usually simpler for declarer to resolve any conditionals in play before claiming. This is likely also faster on average, since disagreement and director calls are reduced.

[aguahombre]

I wonder if the same director ruled that only one finesse was allowed on the other thread where declarer just said he would finesse, and required two finesses on this thread where declarer deliberately used a singular article in his claim.

[semeai]

The problem here is that the first club finesse is not for the overtrick --- it's necessary to make the hand.

This means the claim is not just incomplete, but rather also somewhat incoherent. A finesse for an overtrick would necessarily be the second finesse, since the first one is just what you need to do to make the contract (though you don't care if it wins or loses).

I generally don't like being unforgiving, but here I'd have to say it's down 1 because of this.

[iviehoff]

Declarer has to take one club finesse merely to make his contract. So "a finesse for the overtrick" could well refer to taking the second finesse after the first one succeeds.

The line of taking one finesse and refusing a second finesse in the same suit if the first one succeeds is a sufficiently complex one it needs to be spelled out quite clearly for it to be accepted as having been stated. The phrase declarer used to describe the line he is taking is not sufficiently clear to be associated with sufficient certainty to this line.

[mrdct]

I'm going to rule one down.

In these situations the benefit of any doubt is resolved in favour of the non-claiming side (Law 70A).

If declarer's intent was to try the finesse only once and secure his 12 tricks, he should've said so. Declarer quite possibly didn't think things through when he made his claim and to let him succeed would deny East the opportunity to find a clever duck; which experience shows will work quite a lot of the time as many players of pretty much all standards have a mindset of "if the finesse works once chances are it will work again".

It's not entirely clear that repeating the ♣ finesse at IMPs is the wrong play anyway. We are all taught to guarantee our contracts at IMPs; but we also observe many major championships being won or lost by an IMP so going for overtricks perhaps isn't a silly as some may think. The fact that declarer's claim statement explicitly refers to an attempt to make an overtrick rather than a safe line to guarantee 12 tricks makes me think that declarer did have the overtrick on his mind. It's obviously hard to assess the odds at the table, but if the risk of going off in your cold slam to make an overtrick is say, less than 3%, then you should probably do it as in the long run you will be ahead.

This is well within the circumstance contemplated by Law 70D1 as there is clearly an alternative normal (includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved) line of play that would be less successful that is embranced in the original claim statement.

[lalldonn]

This is definitely down 1. Who cares if he said "a" or "the"? Since he said "for the overtrick" he is obviously intending to repeat it since that would be the normal play for the overtrick if the king hadn't yet appeared. I'm not even seeing any doubt here, he said he was going for the overtrick so he has to go for it.

[mrdct]

Another way of looking at this is that the 1st ♣ finesse is for the contract and the 2nd ♣ finesse is for the overtrick. So when declarer says he will take a ♣ finesse for the overtrick he can only be referring to taking a ♣ finesse after he's wrapped-up his 12 tricks by successfully running the ♣J - i.e. the 2nd ♣ finesse which will fail whenever East has ducked.

[blackshoe]

RunemPard, on 2012-September-04, 07:23, said:

So my logic says making any claim where you have not fully stated your plans on the play should result in a penalty.

Unfortunately, your logic does not follow the law. If it did, 99% of claims would incur a penalty. Of course, a ruling that the claim fails is not a penalty, it's just a rectification. The legal position on (procedural) penalties for a bad claim statement is that such an infraction is not often penalized, because the relevant law (68C) uses the words "a claim should be accompanied…"

The claimer stated he would take a finesse. He didn't say what he would do after that. Law 70 provides that in such a case, the worst (for him) "normal" line is deemed to be followed. In this case, that means taking a second finesse. So the claim fails, and he is down one. Yes, I've changed my mind. Sorry Campboy. But the assertion that "a finesse" means only one came after declarer learned that the K was offside, but would fall after the first finesse. So I now think we gave it too much weight.

There is a lesson to be learned here, one that should be taught to every bridge player: when you claim, make sure you state exactly how you intend the play to go, even if you think it's "obvious".

[lalldonn]

Btw this was a terrible spot to claim anyway. People defend much better staring at four hands than having to decide in the heat of the moment. A lot fewer people would actually duck the club than would claim they would have ducked it.

[Mbodell]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-04, 23:30, said:

Btw this was a terrible spot to claim anyway. People defend much better staring at four hands than having to decide in the heat of the moment. A lot fewer people would actually duck the club than would claim they would have ducked it.

To say nothing of the fact that you win on Kx onside and Kx offside if the RHO ducks the first round hoping to set the contract (assuming you finesse first and then play for the drop). If you claim the line of finesse the first time then A then you only win on Kx onside, never on Kx off.

[campboy]

semeai, on 2012-September-04, 09:50, said:

The problem here is that the first club finesse is not for the overtrick --- it's necessary to make the hand.

This means the claim is not just incomplete, but rather also somewhat incoherent. A finesse for an overtrick would necessarily be the second finesse, since the first one is just what you need to do to make the contract (though you don't care if it wins or loses).

That's a very good point, and convinces me that I was wrong.

[gnasher]

Rather than focussing on declarer's exact wording, shouldn't we be considering what was in his mind at the point that he claimed? Or does Law 70 tell us that we can only consider his actual words?

It seems very likely that his thoughts went no further than "If the club is wrong I have 12 tricks; if it's onside I have 13", and it simply didn't occur to him that East might duck with the king.

[iviehoff]

One is sometimes entitled to expect the TD to rely upon one's wording to define one's line of play, but only if you have unambiguously and completely defined a line of play. In the present case the claimant has not done that, and exposes himself to precisely the doubt you identify.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2012-September-04, 21:47, said:

Another way of looking at this is that the 1st ♣ finesse is for the contract and the 2nd ♣ finesse is for the overtrick. So when declarer says he will take a ♣ finesse for the overtrick he can only be referring to taking a ♣ finesse after he's wrapped-up his 12 tricks by successfully running the ♣J - i.e. the 2nd ♣ finesse which will fail whenever East has ducked.

Sounds perfect to me.



Please permit me a somewhat off-topic question.

Over the years I have seen the second finesse as "finessing the queen" and "finessing the king". Which nomenclature do you believe to be correct?

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-September-06, 17:06, said:

Over the years I have seen the second finesse as "finessing the queen" and "finessing the king". Which nomenclature do you believe to be correct?

According to wikipedia "to finesse a card is to play that card". So when you lead the Jack towards the ace-queen, and let it ride when LHO doesn't cover, you're finessing the jack. When you lead a card towards the AQ, and play the Queen when the King doesn't turn up, you're finessing the Queen. In both cases, you're finessing against the King. This is the way I've always understood the term, but of course wikipedia and I could both be wrong.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-September-06, 17:06, said:

Please permit me a somewhat off-topic question.

Over the years I have seen the second finesse as "finessing the queen" and "finessing the king". Which nomenclature do you believe to be correct?

There is discussion of that topic here:

http://www.bridgebas...nesse-the-queen

[aguahombre]

Strange that I never listened to myself or others that closely to consider which was more common.

The only time it would not be clear what we meant would be when we hold something like:

JX AQXX...."Finessing" the queen or the jack would indicate what card(s) we were playing; but "finessing" the King would not.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-September-07, 01:55, said:

There is discussion of that topic here:

http://www.bridgebas...nesse-the-queen

Thanks. Interesting how close the vote is!

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-September-07, 09:26, said:

Thanks. Interesting how close the vote is!

Probably because you can use either meaning, and it will always be understood, based on whether you happen to hold the card you name or not.

But does anyone ever actually say "finessing the Jack" when they're actually "running the Jack"? I suspect people always use the term to refer either to the opponent's card or the one they're leading up to, and use "running" when it's the card being led (except maybe in a ruffing finesse -- does anyone say "ruffing finesse the King"?).