[VixTD]

Swiss Teams:

---

South was playing in 6♠ and had already lost two tricks (♥A and a diamond finesse) in the position below:

...............♠J ♥- ♦72 ♣J2

♠- ♥8 ♦8 ♣K86...............♠- ♥- ♦J6♣Q95

...............♠K108 ♥- ♦A9 ♣-

With the lead in hand he faced his cards without statement. When asked later he said his intention had been to cross to the ♠J and finesse ♦9.

Do you award the defence any more tricks?

[blackshoe]

Yes, one more trick.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-17, 06:59, said:

Yes, one more trick.

Same here.

Rik

[WellSpyder]

 VixTD, on 2013-October-17, 06:57, said:

With the lead in hand he faced his cards without statement. When asked later he said his intention had been to cross to the ♠J and finesse ♦9.

And what did he say when asked why he thought that facing his cards without a statement indicated this intention?

1 more trick to the defence seems an easy ruling, here.

[billw55]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-17, 06:59, said:

Yes, one more trick.

... and possibly the easiest ruling of the entire event. Although it might not even cost them an IMP.

[barmar]

At first I thought this was totally ridiculous. But then I looked at the diamonds, and it appears that he lost to the king by running the ten. He probably thought that this proved that the jack is in the slot, and I guess he thought this was obvious to everyone.

However, there's a well known defensive coup where you win a finesse with an unnecessarily high card, to trick declarer into repeating the finesse instead of switching to another strategy that you can see will succeed. The Law on claims only says that you can claim on a finesse only when the other opponent has shown out of the suit, not just because the finesse succeeded previously.

So the claim isn't as nonsensical as I first thought, but it's still not valid.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2013-October-17, 08:49, said:

But then I looked at the diamonds, and it appears that he lost to the king by running the ten.

It appears me to me that he led the ten but then played the queen from hand. However, I would rule that failure to take a second diamond finesse was worse than careless, so it would be only one off. The declarer is only prevented from taking the diamond finesse if there is an alternative normal line. I don't see one. Maybe, like barmar, I should look again at the diamonds.

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2013-October-17, 08:49, said:

At first I thought this was totally ridiculous. But then I looked at the diamonds, and it appears that he lost to the king by running the ten.

When did he play ♦Q ?

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2013-October-17, 09:33, said:

It appears me to me that he led the ten but then played the queen from hand. However, I would rule that failure to take a second diamond finesse was worse than careless, so it would be only one off. The declarer is only prevented from taking the diamond finesse if there is an alternative normal line. I don't see one. Maybe, like barmar, I should look again at the diamonds.

If, from the previous play in diamonds, there is compelling reason to think the jack in onside, I could consider this reasoning. Without such information, and just looking at the end position given in the OP, dropping the jack certainly seems like an alternative normal line.

[WellSpyder]

 lamford, on 2013-October-17, 09:33, said:

The declarer is only prevented from taking the diamond finesse if there is an alternative normal line. I don't see one.

Playing for ♦J to drop under the Ace? Playing ♦ from the top because he has forgotten the Jack is still outstanding?

[lamford]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-October-17, 09:50, said:

Playing for ♦J to drop under the Ace? Playing ♦ from the top because he has forgotten the Jack is still outstanding?

Law 70E, broadly, prevents you from taking a finesse unless failure to do so would be irrational. It does not prevent you from taking a finesse. The TD has to decide what is irrational for the class of player in question. If you think that he thinks the jack of diamonds has been played, then you would rule as you do. I do not think playing for a doubleton jack is rational, however, even for a beginner. Or you would rule that with AQ doubleton opposite xx in a side suit, a declarer, who had miscounted his tricks, could start with the ace first.

If declarer's only sensible line is a finesse, he is allowed to take it.

[iviehoff]

But why did he claim without statement? Surely such a claim tends to imply certainty over the number of tricks he will take, rather than implying he will take a finesse and concede a trick if itis wrong.

It seems to me more likely that he has forgotten the J is out, and on seeing resistance to his claim, then remembered it. Taking the finesse which is the only sensible line if you have remembered the J is still out, but if you have forgotten you will just play the diamonds from the top. This isn't like other "forget" situations where people in practice aren't going to lose a trick to a forgotten card because they routinely draw lurkers and cash good suits from the top. I have often made the error of taking a finesse and then forgotten that the card I finessed against is still out. This situation is not exactly that, but it is similar.

So I think it is plausible to suppose that this declarer forgot the J and was just going to play the diamonds from the top.

[pran]

 iviehoff, on 2013-October-18, 03:28, said:

But why did he claim without statement? Surely such a claim tends to imply certainty over the number of tricks he will take, rather than implying he will take a finesse and concede a trick if itis wrong.

It seems to me more likely that he has forgotten the J is out, and on seeing resistance to his claim, then remembered it. Taking the finesse which is the only sensible line if you have remembered the J is still out, but if you have forgotten you will just play the diamonds from the top. This isn't like other "forget" situations where people in practice aren't going to lose a trick to a forgotten card because they routinely draw lurkers and cash good suits from the top. I have often made the error of taking a finesse and then forgotten that the card I finessed against is still out. This situation is not exactly that, but it is similar.

So I think it is plausible to suppose that this declarer forgot the J and was just going to play the diamonds from the top.

Precisely!

[mr1303]

Apologies if this is rubbish, but if we assume declarer has forgotten about the J of diamonds, don't we rule 3 more tricks to the defence? After all, surely declarer could play A of diamonds, 9 of diamonds (losing to the jack) then the defence has 3 tricks to cash?

[billw55]

 mr1303, on 2013-October-18, 05:40, said:

Apologies if this is rubbish, but if we assume declarer has forgotten about the J of diamonds, don't we rule 3 more tricks to the defence? After all, surely declarer could play A of diamonds, 9 of diamonds (losing to the jack) then the defence has 3 tricks to cash?

No. Contract is ♠, not NT.

And more about the claim. Besides the direct considerations, I think in situations like this we need be careful not to give declarer a "two-way claim." South spreads his hand, saying nothing, and waits to see which defender objects. He then chooses whether to say "taking the finesse" or "playing from the top obviously," according to which defender seems to hold the jack (they might even show him). This will work at least sometimes, unless we always rule against declarer about a card in the slightest doubt.

[mr1303]

Oops

[ggwhiz]

Besides players that claim with no statement need to be taught a sharp lesson as in your stated line came too late.

[c_corgi]

And apologies from me if this is also rubbish, but I don't think the stated end position can be reached without irregularity. I was going to put it down to less relevant cards being transcribed wrongly, but on second thoughts it does seem somewhat unlikely that a materially similar end position would arise with the lead in hand. Perhaps there are murkier aspects to this ruling than I thought!

[VixTD]

I nearly forgot to give the ruling on this one: It was ruled two down. Although I had a lot of sympathy for Lamford's view that cashing the ace is not a normal play, I suppose it is if the jack has been forgotten. (I was pretty sure it hadn't.) All the other directors I consulted thought it was clear to rule two down.