[billw55]

 lalldonn, on 2012-September-03, 10:43, said:

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.

I started thinking about my own habits as declarer in situations like this.

I agree that claiming is a courtesy that should be used when possible. (Although admittedly, I consider my ops and the likelihood that playing is actually faster, if they have a known habit of contesting.)

So how does this relate to concessions? Well, if I think I have one or more losers, I will make a claim statement which includes the loss of those tricks. For brevity, simply "losing a heart" would be very normal wording.

Now let's say that I think my ops may fuss over such a claim/concession, or that for any other reason I choose not to make it immediately. What would I do in actual play? I know the answer for myself: I would lose my loser immediately so that I could claim all remaining tricks sooner. Which means that I would lose a trick to the stiff K in this situation. Am I in a 5 percent or smaller minority in this regard? I would tend to doubt it but I suppose I cannot be certain.

For clarity, I would like to think that in real play, I would always consider the possibility of a stiff K, and therefore lay down the ace during play. But of course I do make mistakes, and I suppose something like this could happen to me. If it did, I would never consider for an instant trying to recover the trick by a ruling. I conceded it, I live with it.

[kenrexford]

This is kind of funny.

I write an ongoing bridge story ("Gil's Epic Game") for our local newsletter. It can be found at www.limadbc.blogspot.com.

In THIS MONTH"S Newsletter, a situation is described that is relevant to this very discussion.

Two deals were played between rivals. On the first, our hero held K-x in what would be the heart suit (in the instant example) in LHO's seat. When Declarer played the Ace from Ace-10-x, our hero jettisoned the King under the Ace to avoid the endplay and cross-ruff.

On the very next hand, the nemesis was now defending and sat behind LHO with the K-x. Our Declarer, having Ace-Queen-x, with J-x-x in Dummy, played the Ace, under which LHO jettisoned the King, enabling Declarer to pick up the entire suit without a loser. The same situation works with A-Q-J, btw.

The instant discussion then makes me wonder whether there is any merit to Declarer playing the Queen or Jack in an attempt to catch LHO with K-x and DUCKING the first heart. If so, then playing hearts from the top is not clear.

I initially thought of Declarer with Q-J-x. In that situation, LHO could duck with K-10-x, allowing his partner to win the Ace and then lead through the J-x in Declarer's hand. However, there are two problems with that analysis. First, the 10 in Dummy kills that idea. Second, that only induces a duck at trick one, which is insufficient for Declarer's purposes with A-Q-J in hand.

I cannot really come up with a reason to duck the Queen in this situation with K-x. So, I then thought about Declarer leading out the Jack. That would be a really deep position to take, but imagine from LHO's perspective a Declarer with A-J-x. Declarer might be playing for Declarer's RHO to have K-Q-x and operating a throw-in. If LHO takes the King, the hand is over. But, if he ducks, then RHO would win his Queen and fire back small, giving Declarer a losing option.

So, I suppose that Declarer might well try the ruse of the heart Jack, planning on this surprisingly winning and then catching LHO having ducked from K-x. Of course, a lot of other factors about knowns and unknowns and the like would be critical to determining whether Declarer playing the Jack makes sense. But, it seems possible that a good Declarer might not always play the Ace of hearts first but might legitimately play the Jack first.

[lalldonn]

 billw55, on 2012-September-04, 09:23, said:

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?

I would never accept a trick I'm sure they wouldn't have lost. I would let others speak for themselves.

[Codo]

I watched and play bridge. There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom. This is plain silly. But maybe these people live elsewhere, so they make different rulings there.

I would really "love" a TD, who claims 3 tricks for the claimer here and is wondering why int. players do not claim...

[gordontd]

 Codo, on 2012-September-04, 13:01, said:

There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom.

I think that's a bit of an over-statement. In general people in that position claim, rather than play it out. However, when they do play it out and they have an unavoidable loser (as this declarer seemed to think he had), they do sometimes play to lose it first, perhaps for the clarity of making the rest of their hand good.

[kenrexford]

 Codo, on 2012-September-04, 13:01, said:

I watched and play bridge. There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom. This is plain silly...

Do you disagree that there is a legitimate (meaning a potential gainer) reason for Declarer to consider the Jack at this point as his first heart?

[billw55]

 lalldonn, on 2012-September-04, 12:10, said:

I would never accept a trick I'm sure they wouldn't have lost. I would let others speak for themselves.

Admirable! Now consider this: from east's point of view in the OP, it may be possible that declarer holds (say) a high trump, a small heart, and two top diamonds. This would result in the same claim statement - "you get a heart." In such a case, a defender holding the stiff ♥K will make no difference. Is it the defender's responsibility to inspect declarer's hand and determine whether or not he should lose a trick that he has conceded?

 Codo, on 2012-September-04, 13:01, said:

There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom.

I am one such person. See post #40 for my reasons. Maybe I am just dumb, dunno.

[lalldonn]

 kenrexford, on 2012-September-04, 13:30, said:

Do you disagree that there is a legitimate (meaning a potential gainer) reason for Declarer to consider the Jack at this point as his first heart?

If he is trying to steal a trick, which this person obviously isn't or he wouldn't have conceded.

 billw55, on 2012-September-04, 14:14, said:

Admirable! Now consider this: from east's point of view in the OP, it may be possible that declarer holds (say) a high trump, a small heart, and two top diamonds. This would result in the same claim statement - "you get a heart." In such a case, a defender holding the stiff ♥K will make no difference. Is it the defender's responsibility to inspect declarer's hand and determine whether or not he should lose a trick that he has conceded?

Shouldn't the defenders do that anyway? They might be entitled to 2 tricks after all. I think it's everyone's responsibility to make sure claims and concessions and scores are correct. Accepting a concession without making sure it's right is like not checking your scores only when you have won an event, just in case you find a mistake and didn't really win.

[kenrexford]

 lalldonn, on 2012-September-04, 16:02, said:

If he is trying to steal a trick, which this person obviously isn't or he wouldn't have conceded.

But, wouldn't that be an even better ruse?

My observation was simply to counter the claim that playing the Ace is 100% obvious. That has nothing to do with the ruling, directly. But, since the play of the Jack has theory, the analysis is not whether a line is plausible but rather plausible in context of the words spoken, which is different. That difference might apply in a different situation.

[iviehoff]

 billw55, on 2012-September-04, 09:23, said:

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?

It is illegal to accept the concession of a trick you cannot possibly win. This is hidden away at L79A2, well away from the bit on concessions, so is easily overlooked.

But if you could possibly win it, then you can fold your cards and put them in the board with a good conscience. The position of not accepting the trick conceded that you believe you wouldn't win in practice is going beyond what the law requires.

But having said that, if someone concedes a trick in error, particularly when they are already upset about something, and really just wants to forget this hand and move on to the next hand, then it can be kinder quietly to accept it and move on rather than expend time (and possibly rub further salt in) explaining why the concession is impossible.

[Codo]

 kenrexford, on 2012-September-04, 13:30, said:

Do you disagree that there is a legitimate (meaning a potential gainer) reason for Declarer to consider the Jack at this point as his first heart?

Yes. I read your posting, but I never meet these guys at the table who play low from Kx in a four card end position. If they can count, they know whether there are other cards, which can be played without a problem and if they cannot count, they simply grab their king.

There may be cases where declarer is void in a side suit, a finesse in this suit is lying in Dummy and I have to lead towards this suit. But this is not the case here.

[barmar]

Last night I was declaring 3♣ from the West in the following hand:

---

After North led [HA] and a low ♥, I played ♣A and another ♣, which North won perforce. Then she played ♠Q! I conceded a ♦ and tried to claim making 3 -- I didn't realize that I never lost a ♠. Luckily, everyone else noticed, although the overtrick turned out not to matter, +110 would also have been a top. I suppose she can be forgiven for not expecting a singleton -- she bid her suit twice, how many of us would keep silent with the South hand (4-card support and a singleton in our suit) -- but how can it gain? But she's not crazy, so I guess this makes it careless.

[aguahombre]

 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.

Unlike rwbarton, I am not sorry for this thread drift.

I am sure there are tactful ways of responding to that wife's inane reply, but I probably wouldn't find one. On a good day, I might simply say, "Yes, he does." On a bad day I might start with "It is mildly interesting that he always wastes our time, but....."

Yes, ZT is lurking for me; but that genre of comment (the wife's) is a pet peeve.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-September-05, 11:20

[kenrexford]

 Codo, on 2012-September-05, 09:43, said:

Yes. I read your posting, but I never meet these guys at the table who play low from Kx in a four card end position. If they can count, they know whether there are other cards, which can be played without a problem and if they cannot count, they simply grab their king.

There may be cases where declarer is void in a side suit, a finesse in this suit is lying in Dummy and I have to lead towards this suit. But this is not the case here.

In the post, LHO's holding in that suit was not given. If there are 4-5 cards let in the opponent's hands, then LHO could have K-x and could read his partner for whichever of Q-x or Q-x-x would remain. Either way, ducking makes some sense for LHO. This would require LHO to actually have three cards in that suit in the end position actually given, assuming count was properly shown earlier, but that is possible, as then LHO with K-x would be playing for partner having Q-x at this point. Granted, the actual RHO holding suggests count that was different, but then from LHO's perspective (and hence that of Declarer in the hypo), people with Kings and Queens in the critical suit do not always give Declarer true count or true attitude.

As far as the situational issue of being stuck in hand, we have no idea why Declarer is stuck in hand. Something must have caused that, as he in fact was stuck in hand at this point. That issue would be no less significant if Declarer had AJx as opposed to AQJ. In fact, stuck in hand with AQJ makes less sense than stuc in hand with AJx, as with the latter the play is equally effective from either side. Thus, the "case' is actually stronger here for A-J-x as an illusion.

[Phil]

This thread is making me laugh. Some of the world's best laws authorities can't agree on a very simple claim and Ken Rexford walks in and talks about the tricky and metaphysical aspects of playing the Q/J and getting the opponents to duck.

I wonder why I love this place so much.

Maybe we can move this one over to "changing laws and regulations"?

[kenrexford]

 Phil, on 2012-September-05, 12:58, said:

This thread is making me laugh. Some of the world's best laws authorities can't agree on a very simple claim and Ken Rexford walks in and talks about the tricky and metaphysical aspects of playing the Q/J and getting the opponents to duck.

I wonder why I love this place so much.

Maybe we can move this one over to "changing laws and regulations"?

"The Director shall not accept from claimer anysuccessful line of play not embraced in the originalclarification statement if there is an alternativenormal* line of play that would be less successful."

Obviously, playing the Jack from AQJ to catch LHO with K-x ducking is not a "normal" line of play that would be less successful. That is, unless I was declaring. Thus, I suppose I should have to lose the heart King.

[Fluffy]

I don't know wich kind of opponents you do have, but I have seens the queen being led fom AQJ having 11 cards combined, I partner an old lady who has made many plays such as lead low towards the queen with Axxx vs QJ10xx to claim the rest with the rest being totally cold including double stoppers wih no entry issues. In her mind she duck the trick she is missing to be able to claim the rest.

There was someone who said that 3 tricks for the defence is acceptable, that is a complete nonsense, declarer has obviouly stated his intention to lose a trick to ♥K quickly in order to conserve ♠A as a stopper for the other.

[CamHenry]

 Fluffy, on 2012-September-05, 21:32, said:

I don't know wich kind of opponents you do have, but I have seens the queen being led fom AQJ having 11 cards combined, I partner an old lady who has made many plays such as lead low towards the queen with Axxx vs QJ10xx to claim the rest with the rest being totally cold including double stoppers wih no entry issues. In her mind she duck the trick she is missing to be able to claim the rest.

There was someone who said that 3 tricks for the defence is acceptable, that is a complete nonsense, declarer has obviouly stated his intention to lose a trick to ♥K quickly in order to conserve ♠A as a stopper for the other.

Apparently my meaning was unclear - I said that if we accept one trick to the defence, we should then award three.

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-01, 07:32, said:

Follow-on question: Is it possible to concede some, but not all, of the remaining tricks without claiming the rest?

Not in my view, if it is a real concession. But I suppose it is really a question of what defines a concession.

 axman, on 2012-September-01, 19:23, said:

You.

LAW 49 - ... when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50);


LAW 50D.1. (a) A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played.

Quote

LAW 68: CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS
For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress **.

** If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.

Note especially the words "do not become penalty cards".

 Codo, on 2012-September-04, 13:01, said:

I watched and play bridge. There are no people who are able to claim and do play the hearts from the bottom. This is plain silly. But maybe these people live elsewhere, so they make different rulings there.

I would really "love" a TD, who claims 3 tricks for the claimer here and is wondering why int. players do not claim...

This has nothing to do with why int. players do not claim. I see 2000 claims a year at my table and it is well over a year since the last one got challenged. Int. players do not claim because of lack of confidence and a failure to realise there is any advantage in playing faster, ie they do not claim for the same reason that they put the contract in the Bridgemate before leading and putting dummy down.

 Phil, on 2012-September-05, 12:58, said:

This thread is making me laugh. Some of the world's best laws authorities can't agree on a very simple claim and Ken Rexford walks in and talks about the tricky and metaphysical aspects of playing the Q/J and getting the opponents to duck.

I wonder why I love this place so much.

Maybe we can move this one over to "changing laws and regulations"?

The legalities are clear, and we are arguing about bridge judgement. Why not? What do you think all those threads in other forums are about? It is nothing to do with the level of authority Laws-wise.

[Bad_Wolf]

Back in the 80s I was taught that accepting a trick here was tantamount to cheating. I would still never do it. I would kick the ***** out of anyone who accepted the claim and folded up their cards.