[Lurpoa]

Phil, on 2012-August-31, 15:33, said:

♠2
♥T62


.............♥K
.............♦432

♠A
♥AQJ

Spades are trump. Flight B (maybe A-) declarer.

Declarer faces his hand and says "you get a heart".

Do they?

And I give you one back:


♥

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2012-August-31, 17:41, said:

Agreed. Some people will claim that it's extremely careless, but not irrational to play hearts from the bottom if you think you're destined to lose a heart. They're just being silly.

I'm silly enough to disagree with you.

A declarer daft enough to make such a concession in the first place is daft enough to play hearts from the bottom in my view. Many people actually do this, so I would say it lay within the bounds of usual carelessness, even if I don't disagree with "extremely careless" in a broader sense. "Irrational" is a difficult word, because any play that falls short of best play could be described as "irrational" in some definitions of the word. But when the law-makers use the word, I think they have in mind some exceedingly bizarre play you just don't see.

In terms of OP's original question, the defence certainly get the trick if no one says anything - I would not say there is any obligation on the defence to refuse the concession as there is a way they can win the trick. A kind defender might refuse the concession. If that doesn't happen, declarer will have to seek to withdraw the concession if he wants the trick back. My experience is that TDs are not kind to declarers seeking to withdraw concessions unless the loss of the trick really is impossible (and even then they are reluctant - a TD once ruled I couldn't withdraw my concession of trick 14). As TD, I wouldn't agree to the withdrawal for the reason given in the first sentence of my second para.

[CamHenry]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-03, 02:34, said:

I'm silly enough to disagree with you.

A declarer daft enough to make such a concession in the first place is daft enough to play hearts from the bottom in my view. Many people actually do this, so I would say it lay within the bounds of usual carelessness, even if I don't disagree with "extremely careless" in a broader sense. "Irrational" is a difficult word, because any play that falls short of best play could be described as "irrational" in some definitions of the word. But when the law-makers use the word, I think they have in mind some exceedingly bizarre play you just don't see.

In terms of OP's original question, the defence certainly get the trick if no one says anything - I would not say there is any obligation on the defence to refuse the concession as there is a way they can win the trick. A kind defender might refuse the concession. If that doesn't happen, declarer will have to seek to withdraw the concession if he wants the trick back. My experience is that TDs are not kind to declarers seeking to withdraw concessions unless the loss of the trick really is impossible (and even then they are reluctant - a TD once ruled I couldn't withdraw my concession of trick 14). As TD, I wouldn't agree to the withdrawal for the reason given in the first sentence of my second para.

I think we're missing an important point here: if declarer is silly enough to play hearts from the bottom up, he's silly enough to check for an outstanding trump "just in case". He then loses three of the remaining tricks, as E pitches a small diamond on the spade then wins the ♥K, with two diamonds left to cash.

I don't see how it is possible to justify a ruling that declarer loses exactly one trick in this situation.

[ahydra]

CamHenry, on 2012-September-03, 03:16, said:

I think we're missing an important point here: if declarer is silly enough to play hearts from the bottom up, he's silly enough to check for an outstanding trump "just in case". He then loses three of the remaining tricks, as E pitches a small diamond on the spade then wins the ♥K, with two diamonds left to cash.

I don't see how it is possible to justify a ruling that declarer loses exactly one trick in this situation.

IMHO this is taking things a bit too far. Indeed one might be able to tell from the play that declarer has pulled trumps and counted them correctly.

As for the actual claim, since there is a plausible line of play where declarer can lose a heart, he loses a heart. If he'd just said "the rest are mine" then I would give him all four tricks.

ahydra

[phil_20686]

Ruling that you lose a heart here seems pretty bad at club level. Its just the kind of ruling that creates lots of ill feeling for no reason. Claiming is basically a courtesy to the defence. I would like club players to claim a lot more. I have lost count of the times I have tanked in defence for several minutes, on potentially very difficult end positions, when in fact declarer had all the rest of the tricks, or a hand where the position was basically a non event, but they don't claim because they had one of these rulings and now "don;t ever claim".

Its different if you are playing in a high level tournament, where it is legitimate to take pretty much any excuse to make your opponents waste brain power, or to take advantage of their poor claims.

No one likes these rulings. Declarer is usually annoyed that you are enforcing a frankly bizarre line of play. The other tables don't like as it basically randomises the results for no reason. Often the defenders don't even like it. If you have defended well and already saved a trick and were hoping for a good score, and your efforts are rendered irrelevant, and rob you of a good story.

[phil_20686]

I remember a hand in a club where I had Jx opposite AQTxx, and I claimed very early as we were a bit late saying "Ill take the club finesse and it it wins I have x tricks and it loses I have y tricks." and the director ruled that my line of play meant playing low to the queen and if it won, cashing the ace rather than repeating the finesse. (i needed three club tricks to have x tricks), and so that I should get Y tricks with Kxx in the slot.

Pretty much still angry about it two years later.

[pran]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-03, 04:24, said:

I remember a hand in a club where I had Jx opposite AQTxx, and I claimed very early as we were a bit late saying "Ill take the club finesse and it it wins I have x tricks and it loses I have y tricks." and the director ruled that my line of play meant playing low to the queen and if it won, cashing the ace rather than repeating the finesse. (i needed three club tricks to have x tricks), and so that I should get Y tricks with Kxx in the slot.

Pretty much still angry about it two years later.

Most understandable, I consider this a TD error:

Without much thinking I would have ruled the result as if you led the Jack and let it run (unless covered), then small to the Ace/Ten.

Next board please.

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-03, 04:17, said:

Claiming is basically a courtesy to the defence. I would like club players to claim a lot more. I have lost count of the times I have tanked in defence for several minutes, on potentially very difficult end positions, when in fact declarer had all the rest of the tricks, or a hand where the position was basically a non event, but they don't claim because they had one of these rulings and now "don;t ever claim".

Its different if you are playing in a high level tournament, where it is legitimate to take pretty much any excuse to make your opponents waste brain power ...

Are you saying that you think it's legitimate to play on when you could claim, in order to make the opponents waste their mental energy? That would be a breach of Law 74B4.

[semeai]

gnasher, on 2012-September-03, 07:33, said:

Are you saying that you think it's legitimate to play on when you could claim, in order to make the opponents waste their mental energy? That would be a breach of Law 74B4.

There was an example heavily discussed at bridgewinners a while ago of I believe Michael Rosenberg playing on when an overtrick in 6NT was technically possible if Meckwell defended horribly, but that otherwise the result 6NT= was certain. If I recall correctly, the hand took 10-15 minutes to play out, with the defense taking lots of thinking time.

This isn't the same, and is surely not illegal at least since there was the barest possibility of the 1 imp pickup, but is close to what Phil is talking about.

Added: Here's the link.

[iviehoff]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-03, 04:17, said:

Ruling that you lose a heart here seems pretty bad at club level. Its just the kind of ruling that creates lots of ill feeling for no reason.

Really? The guy conceded a trick. Now he is trying to cancel his concession. I think in general the ruling "you conceded a trick, you lose it" is a ruling more likely to be accepted with (overall) equanimity than allowing him to cancel the concession, when the opposition have got sufficiently used to the idea that this trick conceded is theirs to call the director over it.

When I attempted to cancel my concession of trick 14, the opps called the TD, because this idiot facing them had conceded a trick and they were used to the idea it was very hard to unconcede a trick and they wanted it. What exactly happened here was there were 6 tricks remaining, and I stated in order which card was going to win each trick. I then found I was waving around a card in my hand, which in fact was the card I played to trick 7 which I'd never got around to quitting, and I couldn't find a winner to cover it so I conceded it. I think that the ruling I got, that I couldn't cancel my concession of a trick, even a trick that didn't exist, was the one least likely to cause upset, even if it was quite wrong.

I do agree with you that claims are a courtesy to the defence, but the courtesy fails to be present if you get it wrong.

[iviehoff]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-03, 04:24, said:

Pretty much still angry about it two years later.

I hope it is yourself not the TD you are angry with. Because the TD gave you a technically correct ruling, even if some might disagree with the judgment element. But forget your anger and take it as one of those mistakes that teach you a lesson: you have to say "I will repeat the finesse", then there is no risk of being ruled that you won't. In fact, you have to go even further: you have to think about lines where player on the right holds up the first finesse and wins the second, considering also the possibility that a player with a doubleton K does this.

[Phil]

This seems like a straightforward matter and I am surprised that there is so much disagreement.

[iviehoff]

Phil, on 2012-September-03, 08:53, said:

This seems like a straightforward matter and I am surprised that there is so much disagreement.

You shouldn't be surprised. Claim rulings involve a judgment aspect. It is hard to find a claim ruling on the forum where there is unanimity on the judgment aspect.

[lalldonn]

I really think people should remember in general that claims are a courtesy to everyone. I wish we would focus on encouraging them, not discouraging them, especially given all the complaints about slow play. I hate when it becomes a sort of challenge to think of the order the claimer's cards could be played in that would lose him the most tricks, no matter that it is so bizarre that no one but gib would play in that order.

It's not like this is a case where declarer thought his hearts were good and you could then argue he might play them in any order. He said he was losing one so he knew the king was out. No one who knows the king is out would do anything but play the ace first (except if he is trying to sneak past Kx on his left, but anyone who is making that play would not concede the trick of course.) I would never even dream of calling the director here. This is not how I want to win my tricks.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Today, I suggested to my LHO, North, who was on lead, that he lead before entering the contract in the Bridgepad. He ignored me. His partner, who is also his wife, chuckled and said "he never leads first, he always enters or writes down the contract". And he's slower than most.

[jallerton]

CamHenry, on 2012-September-03, 03:16, said:

I think we're missing an important point here: if declarer is silly enough to play hearts from the bottom up, he's silly enough to check for an outstanding trump "just in case". He then loses three of the remaining tricks, as E pitches a small diamond on the spade then wins the ♥K, with two diamonds left to cash.

I don't see how it is possible to justify a ruling that declarer loses exactly one trick in this situation.

I think you're missing an important point here. Declarer stated "you get a heart". Implicit in this statement was that he would retain trump control so as to be able to enjoy the established heart(s). [If you swap ♥A and ♥K round in the position, surely no-one would consider awarding anything other than 1 trick to the defence.] In this context, playing the last round of trumps is not a normal line, whilst the play of ♥Q or ♥J may be normal, albeit inferior, when made by a player who did not appreciate that singleton K was even a possibility.

phil_20686, on 2012-September-03, 04:17, said:

Ruling that you lose a heart here seems pretty bad at club level. Its just the kind of ruling that creates lots of ill feeling for no reason. Claiming is basically a courtesy to the defence. I would like club players to claim a lot more. I have lost count of the times I have tanked in defence for several minutes, on potentially very difficult end positions, when in fact declarer had all the rest of the tricks, or a hand where the position was basically a non event, but they don't claim because they had one of these rulings and now "don;t ever claim".

Its different if you are playing in a high level tournament, where it is legitimate to take pretty much any excuse to make your opponents waste brain power, or to take advantage of their poor claims.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If it's legitimate to "take advantage of poor claims" at high levels, it's equally legitimate to do so at club level.

phil_20686, on 2012-September-03, 04:17, said:

No one likes these rulings. Declarer is usually annoyed that you are enforcing a frankly bizarre line of play. The other tables don't like as it basically randomises the results for no reason. Often the defenders don't even like it. If you have defended well and already saved a trick and were hoping for a good score, and your efforts are rendered irrelevant, and rob you of a good story.

Is that the old "protecting the field" argument? We haven't see the full hand, but quite possibly declarer "randomised" the result earlier by failing to take the heart finesse when dummy had the lead.

phil_20686, on 2012-September-03, 04:24, said:

I remember a hand in a club where I had Jx opposite AQTxx, and I claimed very early as we were a bit late saying "Ill take the club finesse and it it wins I have x tricks and it loses I have y tricks." and the director ruled that my line of play meant playing low to the queen and if it won, cashing the ace rather than repeating the finesse. (i needed three club tricks to have x tricks), and so that I should get Y tricks with Kxx in the slot.

Pretty much still angry about it two years later.

That was an obviously incorrect ruling (perhaps the TD didn't understand the suit combination), but each claim has to be assessed on its merits.

[phil_20686]

jallerton, on 2012-September-03, 15:51, said:

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If it's legitimate to "take advantage of poor claims" at high levels, it's equally legitimate to do so at club level.

I don't think that there is any contradiction. The aim of playing at a club bridge is to have a good time. It is not competitive in any real sense of the word, and at least 70% of any given time are basically there to play social bridge. That is obviously different at a tournament.

[rwbarton]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-03, 14:45, said:

Heh. Today, I suggested to my LHO, North, who was on lead, that he lead before entering the contract in the Bridgepad. He ignored me. His partner, who is also his wife, chuckled and said "he never leads first, he always enters or writes down the contract". And he's slower than most.

Oh god.

LHO: "1♣"
Partner: "Pass"
RHO: "Caddy please!" Then proceeds to sit there and wait while holding boards 1-3 in the air. I plead with him to make a call on the board that is already in front of us but he painstakingly explains that the other table needs to play these boards and he is calling the caddy now so that they won't have to wait for these boards later. I point out that he is certainly wasting our time now but this seems to make no impression. After a couple minutes the caddy arrives and now he looks at his hand and works out what to bid.

Of course, the caddy needs to take board 4 from us later anyways.

(Sorry for the thread drift, I just had to vent a little.)

[helene_t]

90% of our club players, when sitting North and being dummy, enter the contract in the bridgemate before putting down the dummy. If they were computer litterates and could enter the contract in 5 secs it wouldn't matter but many of them struggle with the bridgemate for a minute before asking one of the other players for help or even calling the director.

[billw55]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-01, 09:17, said:

I would never give the defense a trick here. I think the type of players who aren't good enough to think of singleton K here are the same ones who don't just randomly play suits in any order but top down. Every time I say that someone tries to provide a counterexample but I still think it's true 95++% of the time.

Out of curiosity, do you think there is an ethical burden on the defender holding the stiff K? Let's say that when declarer makes his concession, the defender just folds his cards and puts them back in the board. Kosher or not? Does the level of event make any difference?