[captyogi]

Declarer makes a Claim without Stating Line of Play.

Can he Take the Finesse after the Claim has been contested and TD Called.

As per my knowledge : ( 1 ) Declarer CAN NOT Take Any Successful Finesse and ( 2 ) Declarers MUST TAKE Any Unsuccessful Finesse.

Thx n Brgds

Yogesh V. Abhyankar

[gordontd]

captyogi, on 2018-November-29, 04:28, said:

Declarer makes a Claim without Stating Line of Play.

Can he Take the Finesse after the Claim has been contested and TD Called.

As per my knowledge : ( 1 ) Declarer CAN NOT Take Any Successful Finesse and ( 2 ) Declarers MUST TAKE Any Unsuccessful Finesse.

Thx n Brgds

Yogesh V. Abhyankar

That's not exactly what the law 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.

[barmar]

But it also says:

Quote

The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful.

A successful finesse was not embraced in the original clarification statement (since there was none), and the unsuccessful finesse would be less successful. So this implies that he's forced to take the unsuccessful finesse, unless one of the exceptions Gordon quoted applies.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-November-29, 13:47, said:

But it also says:

A successful finesse was not embraced in the original clarification statement (since there was none), and the unsuccessful finesse would be less successful. So this implies that he's forced to take the unsuccessful finesse, unless one of the exceptions Gordon quoted applies.

No, it doesn't imply that. It implies that the director shall not allow the player to score based on a successful finesse, or on a successful alternate line of play that doesn't take the finesse. The director does not have the power to force anybody to do anything.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-29, 13:52, said:

No, it doesn't imply that. It implies that the director shall not allow the player to score based on a successful finesse, or on a successful alternate line of play that doesn't take the finesse. The director does not have the power to force anybody to do anything.

The director shall never "force" anybody to do anything.
He is supposed to rule according to the less successful line of play by the claimer when there are more than one line of play possible as specified in the claim statement given.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-29, 13:52, said:

No, it doesn't imply that. It implies that the director shall not allow the player to score based on a successful finesse, or on a successful alternate line of play that doesn't take the finesse. The director does not have the power to force anybody to do anything.

Semantics. The result assigned as if he "forced" him to take the unsuccessful finesse.

[blackshoe]

Semantics is an important field of study. Don't be so dismissive.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-December-01, 19:58, said:

Semantics is an important field of study. Don't be so dismissive.

A distinction that makes no difference is irrelevant. Saying you're "forcing" the claimer to do something is just a shorthand for saying you're ruling that the result is as if that were the line.

A similar thing comes up in UI rulings. Often we say we're prohibiting the player from doing X. That's just short for saying that if he does X, we'll adjust the score to the result of not doing so. We obviously didn't actually prohibit it, since the ruling comes after the action took place. But the result is the same either way.