[thearb]

ACBL Speedball, couple of days ago.

---

We get to trick 5, declarer runs the ♥8 and claims d1. No line offered. Now, we've all seen these type of claims before in speedball, if the queen is onside the defence meekly accept the claim, and if it is contested, declarer modifies his line

Excuse me, what about the ♣Q? I decline the claim, director called and rules and I quote 'the finesse is forced' and moves to next board, assigning d1?

I appeal and am ignored, am I missing something here? Why should declarer get the benefit of playing for the finesse not drop

This post has been edited by barmar: 2016-April-04, 09:53
Reason for edit: removed usernames, inline handviewer, fixed suit symbols

[1eyedjack]

It is a laws forum post really, and I don't know the answer from a legal standpoint.

I would say that absent a claim I would expect declarer to take the finesse and expect it to succeed. To do otherwise would be to suggest that West would double 1H with just Qx doubleton Club (possible, certainly but less likely than xxx), and suggest that East would bid 3S with no values other than the Club Ace (also possible, I suppose). Combine the two rather unlikely factors and the finesse is clearly the right play. Would the drop be illogical? Dunno.

[pran]

Legally the claimer shall be ruled to select the most unfortunate play of ♣K or ♣J.

It is so simple to state with the claim that he will assume (and play) for the ♣Q in East, and when he doesn't he is subject to a ruling under Law 70E1 which says:

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.

Playing the ♣K here is unfortunate and inferior but not irrational (IMHO). Down 2

[kenberg]

I agree with down 2. I know it is a speedball and all of that, but it takes about a second to click on a small club and when the J holds, then make the claim.

I am willing to grant that declarer was being careless rather than trying to be clever, but the way to save time is to lead the spot from the board. If directors enforce this obvious fact, things will go more smoothly.

[barmar]

There's another flaw in the claim: he never said he was drawing the remaining trump before taking the purported ♣ finesse. So if he takes the finesse immediately and it loses, he could potentially be down 3 if West was 4441 and gives his partner a ruff.

When I play speedballs I tend to claim early and often, but I would never even think of making this claim.

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-April-03, 11:28, said:

unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

Playing the ♣K here is unfortunate and inferior but not irrational (IMHO). Down 2

Quite close, but West has switched to a low club at trick two, and is very unlikely to have ♣ Qx. The class of player matters here. It would not be normal for a strong player to play for the drop. More likely he thought he was getting a club pitch on the third diamond, but that is of course of no value. If not drawing the second round of trumps made a difference I would punish him for not stating that. I don't mind whether the TD decides that failure to take the club finesse is irrational or not and declarer should accept that judgement and make better claims in future.

[nige1]

I think Lamford spotted declarer's mistake. In a hurry, declarer thought he could discard his losing ♣ on ♦K. If forced to play it out he would be quite likely to notice his mistake and take the ♣ finesse as the best of his remaining options. Luckily, as Pran says, the laws are unequivocal. Playing for the drop is inferior and less successful but nevertheless a rational alternative

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-April-04, 16:12, said:

…I would punish him…

We try to teach players that an adverse ruling is not punishment. How successful can we be if well qualified directors keep using the word?

[kenberg]

lamford, on 2016-April-04, 16:12, said:

Quite close, but West has switched to a low club at trick two, and is very unlikely to have ♣ Qx. The class of player matters here. It would not be normal for a strong player to play for the drop. More likely he thought he was getting a club pitch on the third diamond, but that is of course of no value. If not drawing the second round of trumps made a difference I would punish him for not stating that. I don't mind whether the TD decides that failure to take the club finesse is irrational or not and declarer should accept that judgement and make better claims in future.

I have never cared much for this "how strong is the player" approach. For one thing, in speedballs even strong players slip. Also, if he has not noticed that pitching the club on a diamond will not do much for him, it would seem to me that this pretty much settles the strong player issue. But most importantly, I have always been comfortable with a director assessing how the rules apply. I would not be comfortable with a director assessing my intelligence.

Many years ago I had the following happen. About halfway through a hand I paused for some thought. Rho then exposed her hand, explaining how she was entitled to two tricks. Believe it or not, my pause for thought was that I was thinking through, and had pretty much decided on, a throw-in that would hold my losses to just the throw-in trick. We called the director and my opponent explained that she was a very good player, would see the endplay coming, would jettison her high card as I set up for the throw-in so that her partner would win that trick, thus foiling the endplay. The director accepted this explanation! I was not happy.

[lamford]

kenberg, on 2016-April-04, 19:20, said:

I have never cared much for this "how strong is the player" approach. For one thing, in speedballs even strong players slip. Also, if he has not noticed that pitching the club on a diamond will not do much for him, it would seem to me that this pretty much settles the strong player issue. But most importantly, I have always been comfortable with a director assessing how the rules apply. I would not be comfortable with a director assessing my intelligence.

I don't much care for the approach either. But the footnote to the relevant Laws states: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." So we are obliged to take that into account. And the class of player does not change because he or she made an error, however bad.

[kenberg]

lamford, on 2016-April-05, 06:03, said:

I don't much care for the approach either. But the footnote to the relevant Laws states: "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." So we are obliged to take that into account. And the class of player does not change because he or she made an error, however bad.

I rarely read the laws, so I was unaware of this, but I see your point. It seems to me this puts a huge burden on a director. In the endplay example I cited, the director then has to assess whether she would or would not have been routinely capable of seeing what was coming and taking evasive action. It's much simpler if he can just say "Having not mentioned anything about this at the time of your claim, you can not now assert that you would have coped with it". Straightforward and does not require him to say "No, I am ruling that you get only one trick because I think you are not smart enough to have figured it out". Of course he would phrase it better, but that's what it would amount to.

Generally I just let directors direct as they see fit. I have never had the slightest urge to be a director and I am grateful to those who do it. But I do sometimes find their rulings odd. I live with it.

When I play hands, especially online where back and forth conversation is more difficult, I first take what usually is only a few moments to draw the last trump, clear up any complex transportation issues, and take any finesse, even a marked one. This rarely takes long at all if the hand is truly "over", and it sometimes saves a lot of time by avoiding director calls. That, for me, is the main point for the OP. How hard would it have taken to draw the last trump and lead a club spot? Then everything goes smoothly, no one is feeling he was or maybe was scammed, we go on to the next board quickly and happily.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-April-05, 06:42, said:

That, for me, is the main point for the OP. How hard would it have taken to draw the last trump and lead a club spot? Then everything goes smoothly, no one is feeling he was or maybe was scammed, we go on to the next board quickly and happily.

Agreed -- it's stupid to make "the rest are mine" types of claims if there are any decisions that aren't completely obvious. The claim doesn't save any time if the opponents have to examine it carefully to see if there's a way for you to go wrong. If you're going to make a claim earlier than this, make a claim statement.

For some reason, 99% of BBO players seem to totally ignore the explanation field in the Claim box. (My regular f2f partner, who only plays on BBO rarely, goes to the opposite extreme, explaining every claim even when it's 100% obvious.)

What's also annoying is that sometimes I do put an explanation in there, but the opponents ignore it and reject the claim.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-April-05, 10:10, said:

Agreed -- it's stupid to make "the rest are mine" types of claims if there are any decisions that aren't completely obvious. The claim doesn't save any time if the opponents have to examine it carefully to see if there's a way for you to go wrong. If you're going to make a claim earlier than this, make a claim statement.

For some reason, 99% of BBO players seem to totally ignore the explanation field in the Claim box. (My regular f2f partner, who only plays on BBO rarely, goes to the opposite extreme, explaining every claim even when it's 100% obvious.)

What's also annoying is that sometimes I do put an explanation in there, but the opponents ignore it and reject the claim.

I usually take a little longer on BBO before I make the claim, simply because I want to to be obvious. Playing f2f, I announce "I am claiming the rest of the tricks" or "I am claiming all but one trick" or some such. I expose my hand, and start in on where the tricks are coming from Three spades, two hearts etc. I include statements about transportation and timing if relevant. But I am watching them to see if they are following, they are watching me as I point to the cards I am talking about, and so on. Problems are seldom and they can generally be cleared up quickly. I think somewhere in the rules it says you are to explain trick by trick what you will do, and some people do that, but this has always seemed less rather than more clear. "I will take the three top spades" is easier than I will play the "A of spades from my hand and the 3 from the board, then the King of spades from my hand and the 6 from the board...."

On BBO it is not so easy. Typing in my claim, waiting while they read it, then maybe they type back a question, I type something back. Yuk. I am a lousy typist. Usually it is possible to quickly play some obvious cards that will not force them to waste time on a hand that I am about to claim. After paring it down, I can usually claim w/o explanation. But yes, sometimes I use the box. And right, nobody reads it.

F2f, it is all that not unusual to claim after 3 or 4 tricks or even fewer. Sometimes I do this on BBO as well, but I am more cautious. It has to be quite obvious, if not it saves time to just play a few cards until it becomes obvious.

[blackshoe]

I claimed the other day at about trick 8, stating my line and ending with "and you get a diamond at the end". RHO says "wait, what about my ace of diamonds?"

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-05, 23:13, said:

I claimed the other day at about trick 8, stating my line and ending with "and you get a diamond at the end". RHO says "wait, what about my ace of diamonds?"

She also plays in our club.

[weejonnie]

kenberg, on 2016-April-04, 19:20, said:

I have never cared much for this "how strong is the player" approach. For one thing, in speedballs even strong players slip. Also, if he has not noticed that pitching the club on a diamond will not do much for him, it would seem to me that this pretty much settles the strong player issue. But most importantly, I have always been comfortable with a director assessing how the rules apply. I would not be comfortable with a director assessing my intelligence.

Many years ago I had the following happen. About halfway through a hand I paused for some thought. Rho then exposed her hand, explaining how she was entitled to two tricks. Believe it or not, my pause for thought was that I was thinking through, and had pretty much decided on, a throw-in that would hold my losses to just the throw-in trick. We called the director and my opponent explained that she was a very good player, would see the endplay coming, would jettison her high card as I set up for the throw-in so that her partner would win that trick, thus foiling the endplay. The director accepted this explanation! I was not happy.

If she stated when she exposed her hand that she expected a throw in attempt and would throw a high card away then I would probably NOT allow it BECAUSE

Law 70D2

2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

Why shouldn't the claimer's partner not throw away their slightly lower high card - or not overtake if they thought that the side would win the trick anyway (depending on the cards that the players hold)? And note the words are "does not accept" - there is no mention about the ability of the defender.

e.g. Defender Hold K8. Declarer cashes the Ace on which the King is discarded and then leads the 4. the 8 covers it and dummy ducks. NOW the defence requires RHO to overtake - sorry that is forbidden.

[barmar]

The statement about jettisoning works if her partner's cards are high enough that she can't help overtaking.

[kenberg]

weejonnie, on 2016-April-06, 11:30, said:

If she stated when she exposed her hand that she expected a throw in attempt and would throw a high card away then I would probably NOT allow it BECAUSE

Law 70D2

2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender's claim that depends on his partner's selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

Why shouldn't the claimer's partner not throw away their slightly lower high card - or not overtake if they thought that the side would win the trick anyway (depending on the cards that the players hold)? And note the words are "does not accept" - there is no mention about the ability of the defender.

e.g. Defender Hold K8. Declarer cashes the Ace on which the King is discarded and then leads the 4. the 8 covers it and dummy ducks. NOW the defence requires RHO to overtake - sorry that is forbidden.

I see your point. But anyway.

In the highly remote possibility that the throw-in had occurred to her and she still decided to claim anyway and then said she was prepared to toss her high cards in the throw-in suit I would have been so dumbstruck I would probably had said ok, if you have seen all that, you get the tricks. But of course this would never happen! Hands are sometimes claimed on a squeeze, in exceptionally clear cases maybe I have done so with suitable opponents, but a defensive claim that requires adequate pitches by her, and for that matter adequate cards in her partner's hand? Never happen. Surely she would just shut up and hope the throw in did not occur to me.


I only partially recall who the principles were but this seemed to clearly be a "home town" ruling. There have only been a few times in my bridge life that I felt sure of such a thing. There are times I disagree with a ruling, but I let it be. I usually trust the director to be doing his/her best, but this one was off the charts, as far as I was concerned.

There was another time at a regional where a hand went to a committee, everyone except me seemed to be old friends, chatting on a first name basis, laughing and joking, I expected them to open a can of beer. I lost the ruling. What a shock.

But I take some pride, or at least some pleasure, in rarely calling a director, rarely do my opponents feel the need for a director, rarely do I ask for a committee, rarely to I feel abused. But rarely isn't never.

[barmar]

These types of claims are sometimes made when you see an opponent agonizing. A good player can often infer what's causing the agony -- declarer must not have the necessary high spot card to make the throw-in a sure thing, so it must be in partner's hand, and unblocking is "obviously" necessary.

Of course, such inferences are taken at the player's own risk. He probably has to have a good idea of declarer's skill in being able to think of the throw-in. Thus, I wouldn't expect to see a claim like this between an expert and an average player, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it made (and accepted) in a late-round Spingold match, much like claiming/conceding on squeezes.

[thearb]

thearb, on 2016-April-03, 08:31, said:

ACBL Speedball, couple of days ago.

---

We get to trick 5, declarer runs the ♥8 and claims d1. No line offered. Now, we've all seen these type of claims before in speedball, if the queen is onside the defence meekly accept the claim, and if it is contested, declarer modifies his line

Excuse me, what about the ♣Q? I decline the claim, director called and rules and I quote 'the finesse is forced' and moves to next board, assigning d1?

I appeal and am ignored, am I missing something here? Why should declarer get the benefit of playing for the finesse not drop

Here we go again. ACBL Speedball today, names have been changed to protect the innocent.

http://tinyurl.com/hbry5f7

Trick 11, declarer claims D1. I decline. Call director and explain to her that declarer has clearly lost track of trumps, to which the answer is 'score stands, declarer ruffs and plays CJ, down 1' I am then ignored.

Excuse me?

Is it me? IS IT ME?

LAW 70C!! Hello. Hello.