[Hanoi5]

---

Bidding goes:

Pass 1♠ Pass! 2♣
Pass 2♥ Pass 4NT
Pass 5♥ Pass 6♥
All Pass

You were thinking about the last hand and didn't prempt. You lead a club which declarer wins at the table, your partner discouraging with the ♣2. Heart finesse is taken right away. You win, lead another club to declarer's Queen and the ♥J finishes trumps. Declarer discards a spade on the ♣A and tables his hand:

AKJ7
A9x
x
---

What do you do?

[maggieb]

I was looking forward to a defensive problem.

[ASkolnick]

You call the director and if no line of play was stated, it should be down 1 or 2. Although slightly inferior, a reasonable line of play could be to play spades from the top.
I don't believe you can assume a finesse.

[blackshoe]

Call the TD.

[shintaro]

agree with blackshoe call in the pigs

[NickRW]

Hanoi5, on Dec 3 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

What do you do?

Call the TD, wtp?

[kenberg]

In many venues I guess I might say "You intend to do what?". But certainly calling the TD is the correct action. If I were the TD (I never have been one) I would rule down 1 losing to the Q of spades but allowing the ruff of the last losing spade. This all seems clear to me. Less clear is what the director should do if I held the Qx of spades. The rules forbid taking an unannounced finesse. but the player might well take one if someone wakes him up to the fact there are three spades on the board.

I recently congratulated a an online partner: He claimed, stated a failing line of play, had his claim rejected, and then followed his stated line exactly even as he realized it would not work. It's what should always be done of course but in the informal setting of online play it is not always the case.

In the opposite direction this happened some years back: Halfway through a hand I paused to work out the details of a throw-in, and my rho claimed two defensive tricks. I summoned the director, pointed out that I could hold my losers to one by a throw-in. The opponents then explained they could defeat this throw-in by a suitable jettisoning of high cards. The director accepted this defensive line. Since one of my opponents was his wife I figured he was on the spot and I let it go.

[Trinidad]

Call the TD, write down 1 on scoresheet.

Rik

[bid_em_up]

deleted.

[TimG]

bid_em_up, on Dec 3 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

deleted.

I guess you can at least sympathize with declarer's claim...

[Cascade]

kenberg, on Dec 4 2008, 06:00 AM, said:

Less clear is what the director should do if I held the Qx of spades. The rules forbid taking an unannounced finesse. but the player might well take one if someone wakes him up to the fact there are three spades on the board.

The law doesn't actually mention finesses in this context.

What the law actually says is:

". Unstated Line of Play
1. 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."

As director I would force a trick to be lost to the Qx of spades offside on the basis that the drop versus the finesse is playing for the queen to be doubleton offside.

If the queen is doubleton onside then any play works.

[jdonn]

Calling the director is fine.

Of course, this is why I hate to be a director. So as director I would have to decide if for this particular declarer it's rational or not to try to drop the queen of spades offside? I'm sure it is rational for some, and I'm sure it's not rational for most, so I have no idea where that leaves me.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

Calling the director is fine.

Of course, this is why I hate to be a director. So as director I would have to decide if for this particular declarer it's rational or not to try to drop the queen of spades offside? I'm sure it is rational for some, and I'm sure it's not rational for most, so I have no idea where that leaves me.

Well, the fact that declarer couldn't count his tricks might help your decision. If he couldn't count them before he claimed, who says he would count them right before he got to the spade suit?

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Dec 3 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

Calling the director is fine.

Of course, this is why I hate to be a director. So as director I would have to decide if for this particular declarer it's rational or not to try to drop the queen of spades offside? I'm sure it is rational for some, and I'm sure it's not rational for most, so I have no idea where that leaves me.

Well, the fact that declarer couldn't count his tricks might help your decision. If he couldn't count them before he claimed, who says he would count them right before he got to the spade suit?

I suspect that's the right ruling (although in his favor, he seems to have managed to count trumps!) And of course he will say "Obviously I was finessing, I was just saving time so you could claim a trick if it was off" or something, but I suppose I'm not supposed to believe him.

[Trinidad]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 3 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

Calling the director is fine.

Of course, this is why I hate to be a director. So as director I would have to decide if for this particular declarer it's rational or not to try to drop the queen of spades offside? I'm sure it is rational for some, and I'm sure it's not rational for most, so I have no idea where that leaves me.

Well, the fact that declarer couldn't count his tricks might help your decision. If he couldn't count them before he claimed, who says he would count them right before he got to the spade suit?

I suspect that's the right ruling (although in his favor, he seems to have managed to count trumps!) And of course he will say "Obviously I was finessing, I was just saving time so you could claim a trick if it was off" or something, but I suppose I'm not supposed to believe him.

Then he should have stated that in his claim. (And also which finesse to take!)

There is nothing wrong with a claim like: "I am going to finesse in spades. If he has the queen, I'll take the rest. If she has it, you get one trick."

If the player truely believes that he was always going to finesse and that the opponents were entitled to claim a trick in case the finesse lost, he will now have learned the hard way that he shouldn't claim like that.

Rik

[Gerben42]

Quote

Of course, this is why I hate to be a director. So as director I would have to decide if for this particular declarer it's rational or not to try to drop the queen of spades offside? I'm sure it is rational for some, and I'm sure it's not rational for most, so I have no idea where that leaves me.

No, this is an easy case. Declarer didn't state a line of play so he is down. The "irrational" in the Laws is meant for cases like not playing AKQxxxx vs x correctly (i.e. losing to Jxx), not for this.

Quote

If the player truely believes that he was always going to finesse and that the opponents were entitled to claim a trick in case the finesse lost, he will now have learned the hard way that he shouldn't claim like that.

That summarizes it. This is something every player must go through. In my case, it only cost a grand slam and the subsequent 1st prize in the Dutch U20 pairs. That's life. Fool me twice, shame on me!

[jdonn]

Gerben42, on Dec 4 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

Quote

Of course, this is why I hate to be a director. So as director I would have to decide if for this particular declarer it's rational or not to try to drop the queen of spades offside? I'm sure it is rational for some, and I'm sure it's not rational for most, so I have no idea where that leaves me.

No, this is an easy case. Declarer didn't state a line of play so he is down. The "irrational" in the Laws is meant for cases like not playing AKQxxxx vs x correctly (i.e. losing to Jxx), not for this.

Isn't irrational different for different classes of players? What if Fred was declarer (not that he would ever fail to state a line of play), should I then rule he makes?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 5 2008, 05:01 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Dec 4 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

Quote

Of course, this is why I hate to be a director. So as director I would have to decide if for this particular declarer it's rational or not to try to drop the queen of spades offside? I'm sure it is rational for some, and I'm sure it's not rational for most, so I have no idea where that leaves me.

No, this is an easy case. Declarer didn't state a line of play so he is down. The "irrational" in the Laws is meant for cases like not playing AKQxxxx vs x correctly (i.e. losing to Jxx), not for this.

Isn't irrational different for different classes of players? What if Fred was declarer (not that he would ever fail to state a line of play), should I then rule he makes?

"E. Unstated Line of Play
1. 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."

It is "normal" not "irrational" that is dependent on the "class of player".