[xx1943]

Last month I posted here a problem Declarer claimed and afterwards finessed in spades. Many thanks for all replies. I didn't find this post yet.
Therefore I start a new one.

Today I directed a little tour an the following hand came up a yellow sitting East.

Scoring: MP

---

The bidding was: pass pass pass 4 Hearts
pass pass pass

the play:
1. ♠ J A 5 6 won by N
2. ♥ 7 5 4 A won by W
3. ♦ 2 5 Q A won by S
4. ♣ 6 4 9 K won by E
5. ♦ 6 9 10 7 won by W
6. ♦ K 8 ♣ 2 ♦ 3 won by W
7. ♣ Q 3 7 A won by S
8. ♣ 5 J 8 ♥ 6 won by E
9. ♠ 8
south claims all 5 tricks; claim rejected
9. ......... ♦ J ♠ 2 K won by N
10. ♥ 8 10 J ♣ 10 won by S
11. ♥ K ♦ 4 ♥ 9 Q won by S
12. 13 won by

I was called and the yellow (East) said finessing after claim is disallowed.
I looked the board most precisely.
I learned in TD-forum to look what the earlier play was. Declared finessed succesfull in hearts, therefore he knows East has the Q of ♥.
In this sense my decision is: The finesse is allowed.

I am not happy with my decision, because in my opinion in real life there is no finesse allowed after a claim. But I know also claims are desired in BBO. In real life there are very few claims at all.

Please repeat the notes to my last post (disapeared ?)


Al

[inquiry]

Your earlier post can be found here...

old post on hooking after claim

You can increase the search time.. the default is last 30 days, but you can search since the site was established, or you can search last 90 days. Etc. Also, when you come to the discussion group, like this one for BBO Tournment directors, you can pick how "old" of post to look at. The default is 30 days, but you can scroll down to the bottom of the page and pick a longer time from the drop down box.

Ben

[xx1943]

inquiry, on Jun 2 2004, 12:58 PM, said:

Your earlier post can be found here...

old post on hooking after claim

You can increase the search time.. the default is last 30 days, but you can search since the site was established, or you can search last 90 days. Etc. Also, when you come to the discussion group, like this one for BBO Tournment directors,  you can pick how "old" of post to look at. The default is 30 days, but you can scroll down to the bottom of the page and pick a longer time from the drop down box.

Ben

Hi Ben,

many thanks for this link.

Al

[mikestar]

Law 70E:

E. Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)
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 this line of play would be irrational.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational.


West has not shown out of hearts and will not show out until after the finesse is taken. West's play of the AH does not prove that East holds QH legally, and it also does not prove it factually. It is legal for West to win with the ace when holding AQ--if fact it may by tactically desirable, so that declarer misplays the hand by assuming the finesse for the Queen will win.

I believe that palying for this to have happened and going up with the King is anti-percentage but not irrational.

Therefor, the finesse should not have been allowed.

[Willem]

Of course the claim is valid (even having some doubts about declarers bridge-abilities looking at the bidding). No experienced director will refuse this one.

[Gerardo]

It is NOT, lacking a statement about finessing trumps

[xx1943]

Gerardo, on Jun 2 2004, 08:23 PM, said:

It is NOT, lacking a statement about finessing trumps

There are apparently different opinions among the experts.

It's very difficult for a TD-rookie like me to come to the right decision in this case.

I would like BBO would announce common rules about all such controversial things.

Al

[inquiry]

The BBO allows you, the TD, to pretty much establish your own rules. I would disagree with mike over the meaning of the play on the claim.

In fact, if WEST had won the ACE from AQ doubleton, and in fact, had South claimed all the remaining tricks, then forcing him not to take the hook would be the problem. The complaint then would be, surely he was going to finessee (it was obvious after WEST won the ACE after all).

IMHO, on line claiming is somwhat different from real world claiming. For instance, play can continue on line if claim rejected, this does not happen in F2F. Also, online it is harder, albeit not too much harder, to state the line you are going to play. 90% of online claims contain no stated line. Some people claim with trumps outstanding, knowing they are going to pull them.

I think the key here is the part of the law that adds, "or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. " In leiu of a proper statement of line (not unusual on BBO), and the geneneral unusual nature of online claims, I would not only allow a trump hook here, I would enforce it.

I will say this, however. The RULE quoted gives the power to the TD to decide. This decision has to be based upon a number off issues when you get the irrational part. The players should accept the TD ruling, whatever it is an move on. We have no appeals committee. But int this case, the irrational part is for the player who made the claim not to hook again. 99+% of the BBO players would never consider anything else but to re-finessee in trumps... that would easily fit my definition of irrational (not to hook).

Ben

[mikestar]

How hard is it claim saying "finessing in trumps" in BBO?

My understanding of the law is that if no line of play is stated and there are two or more rational lines of play, claimer is deemed to have chosen the losing option.

IMHO, the law is badly written--irrational needs definition. How crazy does it have to be? My own tendency is to interpret it narrowly.

[Willem]

I almost fully agree with Ben´s post, except on one part:

Quote

inquiry Posted on Jun 3 2004, 03:20 PM

...IMHO, on line claiming is somwhat different from real world claiming. For instance, play can continue on line if claim rejected, this does not happen in F2F....

I don't think play can continue after a claim, both f2f and online. After a claim the hand is over, and when disputed the director will have to decide.

In this particular case, if play is continued after the claim has been rufused, declarer might figure out West took the first H-trick with the Ace when holding AQ, because of the refusal. In general, declarer should not be allowed to have extra information from a refused claim. Therefore the play should be over after a claim. And if West, in this case, did possess H AQ, I will award EW an extra trick, because the obvious play is to finesse (and here I agree with Ben again).

[inquiry]

Willem, on Jun 3 2004, 04:07 PM, said:

I almost fully agree with Ben´s post, except on one part:

Quote

inquiry Posted on Jun 3 2004, 03:20 PM

...IMHO, on line claiming is somwhat different from real world claiming. For instance, play can continue on line if claim rejected, this does not happen in F2F....

I don't think play can continue after a claim, both f2f and online. After a claim the hand is over, and when disputed the director will have to decide.

In this particular case, if play is continued after the claim has been rufused, declarer might figure out West took the first H-trick with the Ace when holding AQ, because of the refusal. In general, declarer should not be allowed to have extra information from a refused claim. Therefore the play should be over after a claim. And if West, in this case, did possess H AQ, I will award EW an extra trick, because the obvious play is to finesse (and here I agree with Ben again).

I think LAW 68D handles this in F2F world....

D. Play Ceases
After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival.

When I use to play a lot, I know this is what was enforced, and i am fairly sure it is still the law of the land today.

Ben

[JRG]

This is clear-cut. Mike even quoted the law for you. This is NOT a director choice.

We have had similar discussions in the past. I started a thread on the topic of directing (hoping it would be objective and non-defensive) -- it started out as quite a good discussion but seemed to peter out.

In general, National Bridge Organizations (NBOs) are given a few choices they can make. However, the things that can be decided by the NBOs is strictly circumscribed. They are NOT allowed to change the Laws, except as explicitly stated in the Laws. Law 70E is NOT one that can be changed.

So, we get back to that other thread I mentioned: How do we define "Bridge" on BBO? I stated my bias in that thread (if it is NOT in accordance with the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" ("The Laws"), then it is NOT bridge). [There are issues with a FEW of the laws for online bridge (for example, the laws state that you are NOT allowed to continue play after a claim) which need to be worked out and the LAW for online bridge stated clearly.]

The finesse should NOT have been allowed.

[xx1943]

JRG, on Jun 3 2004, 09:32 PM, said:

We have had similar discussions in the past. I started a thread on the topic of directing (hoping it would be objective and non-defensive) -- it started out as quite a good discussion but seemed to peter out.

I would be very happy if the results of such discussion could be published so that newcomers hasn't to invent the wheel over and over.

I would like to have clear cut rules concerning the LAWS of bridge in BBO.
My opinion is that experts should state the rules for online-bridge just as ACBL does for real life bridge.

Al

[1eyedjack]

xx1943, on Jun 4 2004, 12:39 AM, said:

JRG, on Jun 3 2004, 09:32 PM, said:

We have had similar discussions in the past. I started a thread on the topic of directing (hoping it would be objective and non-defensive) -- it started out as quite a good discussion but seemed to peter out.

I would be very happy if the results of such discussion could be published so that newcomers hasn't to invent the wheel over and over.

I would like to have clear cut rules concerning the LAWS of bridge in BBO.
My opinion is that experts should state the rules for online-bridge just as ACBL does for real life bridge.

Al

First you have to address the question:

Is it "rational" to play for the drop in trumps after the finesse has already succeeded once? There are occasions that this can be the case, but I would not have said that this is one of them. If LHO started with AQ doubleton (the only combination where playing for the drop is a rational play after the initial successful finesse) then he would be mad to win the first round with the Ace.

Secondly, is there any reason to suppose that the rejection of the claim marked the finesse? Clearly not. You would also reject the claim with stiff Queen offside (if you had been stupid enough to win the first round with the Ace).

By taking the finesse all South is doing is stating the line that he should have stated at the outset but for laziness.

If this software is going to persist in allowing the cards to be played out after a claim then there is no loss of equity in permitting it to continue. Players simply need to be educated that finesses are permitted and to reject a claim if there is ANY reasonable line that would result in failure. But having rejected, accept it when declarer plays it right.

In face to face bridge it is more complex, because which individual defender rejects a claim can lead the declarer to the right line (although an expert defender should reject a claim based on his partner's trick-taking potential). In the online game the declarer does not even get to kwow who rejected.

I cannot see how the interests of "bridge" or equity are served by this law that play should cease, nor how they are damaged in the online game by allowing play to continue.

Allow the claim.