[Catsceo]

Is their a rule analogous to the octect/18 electron rule?  I am having a hard time finding any info on it.  Are their any papers that I should read about f-block coordination chemistry in general?

[The Jar]

As a general rule there is no f-block coordination chemistry.   This is because f-electrons are too closely bound to the nucleus and do not form strong bonds.  Instead they are localized to the atom--which is why lanthanides are typically magnetic.

There are exceptions and caveats, of course.  For example I have heard of organometallic actinides that form bonds with appreciable f-electron character.  I don't know much about it, though.

Also there is something called heavy fermion behavior where the f-electrons contribute to some states at the fermi level in an extended solid.  This also doesn't have coordination consequences as far as I know because the bonding is mostly itinerant (not localized).

[ardbeg]

say what?

there are a f&#$ ton of lanthanide chemists who will argue with you mr jar. 

[AWK]

http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/icl/heyes/lanthact/lanthact.html

[The Jar]

I think there may be a misunderstanding of what I wrote.  I'll try to clarify so that I'm not misconstrued as saying that lanthanides don't have fun chemistry.

The f-block elements have plenty of interesting chemistry.  The question, though, was about the coordination chemistry of f-electrons themselves.  Specifically, how do you count them?  I take this as asking what is the f-electron character of bonds that f-block elements make and such and how does group theory predict the bonds that are made.

For MANY compounds the f-block electrons are too closely bound and so usually a very small amount of the electronic character in bonds is f type.  Instead they donate their two s electrons and usually a third electron which is actually d type.  This is true for most ionic lanthanides.  As I said before, the general rule breaks down in some cases, especially with actinide elements but also sometimes with lanthanides.  Cerium is a good example of a lanthanide.

Since the relevant orbitals are s,p, or d in character it is most accurate to say that as a general rule the coordination chemistry of lanthanide chemicals is dominated by s, p, and d coordination chemistry.  F-electrons participating strongly in bonding is the exception rather than the rule.  This is what I meant, and it is something that most lanthanide chemists I know (including myself)  would agree with as a general statement.

To delve into the specifics of f-electron bonding this paper is as good as any as a starting point:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X43-46G2TS5-98&_user=1082852&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1980&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1573673716&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000051401&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1082852&md5=504b94e515be397d90adf7f95224311e&searchtype=a

Notice, though, that f-electrons rarely contribute to the coordination of the compound until you get to something like Uranium.