[FrancesHinden]

rigour6, on Sep 30 2005, 09:48 AM, said:

Another thing I have done occasionally (more often in ftf) is when I see a newer player sweating over a discard and I was about to claim anyway I say to them, "Don't worry about what to keep, at this point it doesn't matter."

This is the kind of sentence I want to be awfully sure about before I say, however.

I really hate it when people say that. My immediate response is always to say (with varying degrees of politeness depending on their standard) "well, claim then".

I only play f2f so online might be different, but unless I'm playing a (near)-beginner, I feel that if my opponent isn't claiming, it's because it matters what I play (or my partner plays) and therefore there is something to think about. If it doesn't matter what I play, they should claim accordingly.

[rigour6]

Well, there just goes to show there's 2 sides to every story. Here I thought I was doing folks a favour, and turns out they're offended.

You have to remember, my goal is to smooth and speed play. If the claim I make is just going to confuse them more, I've done neither.

[han]

How about this one:

"Better give your partner a ruff because otherwise I'm going to claim"

Using the 10-th grader approach this should be forbidden, but I like it (of course, only use this if it is VERY unlikely that there actually is a ruff).

[mycroft]

candybar: "A contestant also claims ... when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." The exception is important. I think there are those who are saying "I claim, but you're going to gripe; concede when you want" - which they technically shouldn't do, but sometimes it's the only way that works; but "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you my cards so you can defend better" is different. It is, however, a borderline I wouldn't really want to rule on; the only reason these people *aren't* claiming is that they've had too many "stupid" rulings from following the rules (be it malformed claims ruled against or opponents asking to "play it out" or whatever).

rigour: "Don't worry about what you pitch" gets an immediate response of "show me then" from me. If you are saying "it doesn't matter", then you should be able to explain why to me. Again, I know there are those who want to play 13 tricks because they've paid to play, not to claim; I don't know what to do about those except say "I have 5 clubs and 4 diamonds".

On the off chance that you've got a "you're irrelevant, as your partner is squeezed" setup; maybe my defence is better than your squeeze play. Pardon me while I think about it?

Yes, I know it's well-meaning; but it sounds like "I'm smarter than you; I can see the claim but you can't".

Michael.

[barmar]

mycroft, on Oct 3 2005, 03:37 PM, said:

rigour: "Don't worry about what you pitch" gets an immediate response of "show me then" from me.

Often it's simply the fact that he's our of the suit that provides the distribution information you need in order to claim. You can tell that he's probably looking for a pitch, but you can't *really* claim until you see him discard for sure.

[helene_t]

candybar, on Sep 30 2005, 11:28 PM, said:

Deliberately facing your hand constitutes a claim.

Interesting. There was an incident (final of the Dutch teams championship I think) a couple of years ago:

A player desperately needed to go to the gents room so after bidding the final contract he laid down his cards as dummy (he thought his partner was to declare) and left, without waiting for the opening lead. When he came back, the TD had arrived and told him that he was declarer so he had to play. No problem, the declarer is allowed to show his hand. He picked up the cards, played and made the contract. At the other table, the declarer (in the same contract) went down without showing his hand to the opps.

Btw: "Facing" is apparently an ambiguous word in English. Learned something new today

[candybar]

Law 68A. Claim Defined
Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim).

I think your case, Helene, would not qualify as a claim. My word 'deliberate' should not be construed as 'mistaken' facing of the cards. Perhaps I should have said it more carefully, sorry.

However, "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you my cards so you can defend better" is different. That would clearly constitute a claim, and in fact it was so ruled at the US Nationals this summer when my partner did exactly that.

PS. From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.
Face .... 6. Games To turn (a playing card) so that the face is up.

[david_c]

candybar, on Oct 4 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

However, "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you my cards so you can defend better" is different.  That would clearly constitute a claim, and in fact it was so ruled at the US Nationals this summer when my partner did exactly that.

I don't get it - if someone says "I'm not claiming", then surely this satisfies the condition "he demonstrably did not intend to claim"?

[helene_t]

Thanks for clarifying, Candybar.

Wow, at least six different meanings of "to face". That's a comprehensive dictionary

[FrancesHinden]

rigour6, on Oct 3 2005, 02:21 PM, said:

Well, there just goes to show there's 2 sides to every story. Here I thought I was doing folks a favour, and turns out they're offended.

You have to remember, my goal is to smooth and speed play. If the claim I make is just going to confuse them more, I've done neither.

I'm not offended, I just find it irritating, for much the same reasons as mycroft.

Offensive would be to say: "It doesn't matter what you play, but I'm not going to bother claiming because you wouldn't understand it"

[Gerben42]

In some situations you have to just play on and endure the needless thinking because they wouldn't understand the claim. I mean, some people will ask questions even after a claim like this one:

---

Since no opponent can have 3♥ at this point you claim saying that you have 3♥ tricks and they STILL ask "well what about my ♦ Ace"? Against such opponents, do you think claiming on a squeeze is going to save time? I doubt it.

Besides, claiming on a squeeze is dangerous in another way. In the 2000 Olympiad in the match England - Belgium, Gunar Hallberg claimed [correctly) on a double squeeze but then they continued playing (!!!) and he went down. This caused a heated debate of course

[helene_t]

But Gerben, you can supply an explanation for your claim, like "3 ♥s". Otherwise they might wonder if you thought ♦Q was a winner. In fact you should do so (to avoid the possibility that the rejection of your claim makes you think once more and discover a hole in your plan).

I'm a little bit hypocratic since I usually don't supply an explanation myself.

[joker_gib]

Gerben42, on Oct 4 2005, 02:24 PM, said:

Besides, claiming on a squeeze is dangerous in another way. In the 2000 Olympiad in the match England - Belgium, Gunar Hallberg claimed [correctly) on a double squeeze but then they continued playing (!!!) and he went down. This caused a heated debate of course

I remember that very well as I was in the attendance !

This was for a place in semifinals !

Alain

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Oct 4 2005, 06:07 AM, said:

I'm a little bit hypocratic since I usually don't supply an explanation myself.

I rarely see an explanation accompanying a claim even though it is clearly required by the laws.

Law 68C. Clarification Required for Claim
A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to
the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through
which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

If there is outstanding trump in the opps hands, a finesse or drop required then the trick can be awarded to the opps. (if the trick could be lost by any normal play).

Perhaps most claims are made on clear lines, but certainly not all. Now the TD must make a decision based on normal play which can include careless and inferior but not irrational play.

jb

[candybar]

david_c, on Oct 4 2005, 06:05 AM, said:

candybar, on Oct 4 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

However, "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you my cards so you can defend better" is different.  That would clearly constitute a claim, and in fact it was so ruled at the US Nationals this summer when my partner did exactly that.

I don't get it - if someone says "I'm not claiming", then surely this satisfies the condition "he demonstrably did not intend to claim"?

In the ACBL (the only place I can speak with experience about), facing your hand is a claim, no matter if you say, "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you", because that is exactly what my partner did and a National Level Tournament Director ruled it a claim.

[candybar]

jillybean2, on Oct 4 2005, 09:02 AM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 4 2005, 06:07 AM, said:

I'm a little bit hypocratic since I usually don't supply an explanation myself.

I rarely see an explanation accompanying a claim even though it is clearly required by the laws.

In F2F, a claim causes play to cease and the rest of the hand is adjudicated by the TD if there is dispute. In online bridge, that is mostly impossible, so the system has become to continue play if the claim is rejected.

It's a little trickier if the online claimer states a line of play -- if the claim is rejected, is he required to follow his stated line? I've seen people who did not, and the TD did nothing about it. In my tournaments, I would require that the stated line of play be followed, or I would adjust accordingly, but I'm wondering if that is the best thing to do.

Perhaps in online bridge, no statement should be required, and if the opponents want to play it out, they can reject. That would make more sense with the way the software is set up, but it would make it safer not to state a line of play when claiming.

The Laws clearly state that when a claim is made play ceases and the stated line of play is the basis for the result on the hand. This may be one of those situations where the Laws are inadequate for online bridge.

[epeeist]

Gerben42, on Oct 4 2005, 07:24 AM, said:

In some situations you have to just play on and endure the needless thinking because they wouldn't understand the claim. I mean, some people will ask questions even after a claim like this one:

---

Since no opponent can have 3♥ at this point you claim saying that you have 3♥ tricks and they STILL ask "well what about my ♦ Ace"? Against such opponents, do you think claiming on a squeeze is going to save time? I doubt it.

Besides, claiming on a squeeze is dangerous in another way. In the 2000 Olympiad in the match England - Belgium, Gunar Hallberg claimed [correctly) on a double squeeze but then they continued playing (!!!) and he went down. This caused a heated debate of course

I've seen people, in situations like that which you describe, do something like lead the Q♦ to hand, overtaken by A♦, ruff low, and get overruffed by the last outstanding, higher trump like the 8 or something...their count of "3 heart tricks" included ruffing the queen of diamonds instead of just playing hearts...

Not skillful, sure. But it happens. Sometimes people miscount and think there's no trump out, or aren't thinking, or just got back from a party, or misclick, or [etc.].

So if there's enough time, unless there is a clear, unequivocal explanation of the claim that I can easily and quickly follow ("squeeze" is not necessarily clear and unequivocal; "progressive trump squeeze" might be clear and unequivocal, but I wouldn't be able to quickly follow it ) I reject.

In the hypothetical you present, unless time was extremely short (less than a minute) I'd reject -- with only 4 cards left, it would take less than a minute to play it out. It takes about as much time to make the claim, look at it, etc. than it would to just play the cards. I've sometimes had claims of a crossruff (after all outstanding trump drawn) rejected, no problem, I just played it out.

[jillybean]

candybar, on Oct 4 2005, 10:01 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Oct 4 2005, 09:02 AM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 4 2005, 06:07 AM, said:

I'm a little bit hypocratic since I usually don't supply an explanation myself.

I rarely see an explanation accompanying a claim even though it is clearly required by the laws.

In F2F, a claim causes play to cease and the rest of the hand is adjudicated by the TD if there is dispute. In online bridge, that is mostly impossible, so the system has become to continue play if the claim is rejected.

It's a little trickier if the online claimer states a line of play -- if the claim is rejected, is he required to follow his stated line? I've seen people who did not, and the TD did nothing about it. In my tournaments, I would require that the stated line of play be followed, or I would adjust accordingly, but I'm wondering if that is the best thing to do.

Perhaps in online bridge, no statement should be required, and if the opponents want to play it out, they can reject. That would make more sense with the way the software is set up, but it would make it safer not to state a line of play when claiming.

The Laws clearly state that when a claim is made play ceases and the stated line of play is the basis for the result on the hand. This may be one of those situations where the Laws are inadequate for online bridge.

Why change the rules if they cannot be enforced online, perhaps it would be better to disallow claims in tournaments.

An online claim can also create a situation where UI is passed. A claim is rejected and one partner types ?????? meanwhile his partner is holding an oustanding trump or other crucial card.

Similar to the dummy seeing the finesse working at trick 6 and typing wdp.