[twcho]

Scoring: IMP

W　N　E　S
　　　　　 2♥
P　P　3N　AP

2♥ was alerted and explained by north as 6-11 HCP, 54+ Majors

---

South led ♣K and partner encouraged. The director was summoned by North after 4 rounds of Clubs. North said that 3NT was played. And now North was on lead on the 5th trick, however, before North played to the 5th trick, the declarer, E, showed his remaining 9 cards to two opponents and the dummy. There was silence for a few seconds before declarer said "Afterall, I have to finesse".

At this point, director was summoned to the table. North said that there was about 8-10 seconds of break of tempo for the declarer to make this statement. South and West also agreed but E said that there were about 5-6 seconds before making the statement.

How will you rule?

[Cascade]

I rule against declarer.

If the claim needs a finesse the declarer needs to make this statement at once otherwise it is subject to the requirement that declarer cannot adopt a line of play the success of which requires finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card.

[JLOGIC]

Definitely rule for the defense, declarer seems to have miscounted his tricks then when his claim was not accepted he realized his mistake and said he'd finesse.

I mean, no one would claim in this spot on a finesse since if north switches to a spade and you claim on the finesse you are down 3, so it's pretty obvious what happened.

[Free]

agree with jlo

[ahydra]

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

Definitely rule for the defense, declarer seems to have miscounted his tricks then when his claim was not accepted he realized his mistake and said he'd finesse.

I mean, no one would claim in this spot on a finesse since if north switches to a spade and you claim on the finesse you are down 3, so it's pretty obvious what happened.

Is he not down 4? (The defence can cash the ♠Q followed by the 10 and 9) Declarer made no mention of cashing diamonds first

As a result, what number of tricks are we giving declarer if South actually held the Queen of Hearts? Does the "rule in favour of the defence" thing override the "not allowed to use any line of play in finding one opponent with a particular card" thing?

ahydra

[pran]

ahydra, on Aug 27 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 27 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

Definitely rule for the defense, declarer seems to have miscounted his tricks then when his claim was not accepted he realized his mistake and said he'd finesse.

I mean, no one would claim in this spot on a finesse since if north switches to a spade and you claim on the finesse you are down 3, so it's pretty obvious what happened.

Is he not down 4? (The defence can cash the ♠Q followed by the 10 and 9) Declarer made no mention of cashing diamonds first

As a result, what number of tricks are we giving declarer if South actually held the Queen of Hearts? Does the "rule in favour of the defence" thing override the "not allowed to use any line of play in finding one opponent with a particular card" thing?

ahydra

As the cards lie we shall rule him to cash his top two hearts first when he eventually get to play hearts.

If South had held the Queen we should rule him to try the heart finesse.

The only question is what cards he shall be ruled to play before playing his hearts.

[jeremy69]

IMO his claim statement makes two things clear

1. As others have said he initially miscounted his tricks
2. He intended to cash diamonds first

I would rule him down one

[Trecar]

Claimer failed to state "I will cash the diamonds the take the heart finesse and either make or be -3 (or -4?)"

He has therefore stated no line of play, and only the delay in acquiesence by N/S has "found" him a successful line of play.

I would rule -1 on the strength of Law 70E1.

[blackshoe]

Is there a normal line of play that does not involve the finesse?

[qwery_hi]

blackshoe, on Aug 30 2010, 04:54 AM, said:

Is there a normal line of play that does not involve the finesse?

if declarer thought he had 6 diamond tricks, then yes, cash 9 top tricks.

[blackshoe]

If. We have no evidence he thought that.

[qwery_hi]

blackshoe, on Aug 30 2010, 06:23 AM, said:

If. We have no evidence he thought that.

I'm not so sure - if declarer was always finessing for 9 tricks, he'd say so in his original claim statement. OTOH, if he thought he had 9 on top, he wouldn't.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on Aug 30 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

Is there a normal line of play that does not involve the finesse?

Sure - cash your top tricks in any order and then realise you're one short.

Or following a spade lead, start by unblocking the diamonds from dummy. By the time you've played three rounds it's too late to finesse.

[blackshoe]

qwery_hi, on Aug 30 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 30 2010, 06:23 AM, said:

If. We have no evidence he thought that.

I'm not so sure - if declarer was always finessing for 9 tricks, he'd say so in his original claim statement. OTOH, if he thought he had 9 on top, he wouldn't.

Since everyone is so found of speculating, suppose he thought his line of play was obvious?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on Aug 30 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

Since everyone is so found of speculating, suppose he thought his line of play was obvious?

There is evidence that he did not think he was obviously finessing.

If he thought his line was obvious, would he add "Afterall, I have to finesse"?

If he was finessing, he has no reason to think it would be successful, so would say "Eight or nine (depending on who has ♥Q)"

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on Aug 30 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

If he thought his line was obvious, would he add "Afterall, I have to finesse"?

He would if the opponents' silence convinced him it wasn't as obvious as he'd thought.

Quote

If he was finessing, he has no reason to think it would be successful, so would say "Eight or nine (depending on who has ♥Q)"

Maybe.

All I'm saying is that I don't think this ruling is as obvious as others do.

[aguahombre]

I think they just don't like giving the benefit of the doubt to the offending side, when the OS created the doubt.

[jdonn]

Frankly I don't think he counted his tricks at all, I suspect declarer just saw what looked to him like plenty of tricks and claimed. But it's quite obvious to me that at the initial time of the claim he didn't intend to finesse, for a variety of reasons (the delay in the explanation, the fact that few if any would claim on the finesse before north plays, that people who claim on a finesse tend to state how many tricks they are making depending on the result, etc.) On that basis I have to rule down 1 because if north played a heart now declarer wouldn't have known yet that he didn't need the finesse, he would only have figured it out if he ran his diamonds first.

[blackshoe]

Well, I want to ask him some questions. I may then rule one (or more) down, I may not. But I do think more investigation is warranted.

[qwery_hi]

blackshoe, on Aug 30 2010, 09:55 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Aug 30 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 30 2010, 06:23 AM, said:

If. We have no evidence he thought that.

I'm not so sure - if declarer was always finessing for 9 tricks, he'd say so in his original claim statement. OTOH, if he thought he had 9 on top, he wouldn't.

Since everyone is so found of speculating, suppose he thought his line of play was obvious?

Since when do the laws make an exception to stating a line of play if I think the line is obvious?