[BunnyGo]

I thought this discussion on Bridgewinners about claiming or not was very interesting. If anybody hasn't seen it yet, I recommend the read.

http://www.bridgewin...nt-counterpoint

[nige1]

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-06, 06:11, said:

I thought this discussion on Bridgewinners about claiming or not was very interesting. If anybody hasn't seen it yet, I recommend the read. http://www.bridgewin...nt-counterpoint

Thank you Bunnygo. If you are cold for n tricks and more than n tricks would require a defender's revoke then I think that you should claim. (Face-to-face claim-law discourages claims. I would like face-to-face bridge to adopt a variant of the on-line claim-rule: declarer simply faces his hand, stating a number of tricks. Defenders dispute the claim by playing on, double-dummy, while declarer continues to play single-dummy).

It's against the rules for a player, himself, to forgo redress for an opponent's infraction, to which attention has been drawn. He can, however, ask the director. I feel that the director should normally accede to such a request.

I agree with Michael Rosenberg, however, that...

• When there is a legitimate chance for more tricks, then you have legal and moral right to play on.
• When appropriate technology becomes avalable, Bridge should become a timed game.

[aguahombre]

There are different considerations at the level, and with the hand which spawned the Bridgewinners discussion. We have the improbability that the defenders will make a complete novice error and allow an overtrick, but there is nothing really improper about hoping that will be the case. Also, there is "history" between the players.

In general, however, I believe obvious claims are a good thing and that defensive concessions are appropriate where Declarer is obviously just dragging things out. When there is a trick to be lost to the defense, Declarer is well within his/her rights to hope for a screwup.

If I am the only defender with an obvious trick coming, politely saying "I am keeping the..." speeds things up.

[nigel_k]

Some thoughts:

1. There is a legal requirement to claim when you know for certain that further play will not affect the outcome. Not claiming in that situation will 'prolong play unnecessarily'.

2. I wouldn't use the word 'ethical' in this discussion at all. Questioning someone's ethics just doesn't belong in a discussion about whether or not to claim. Not claiming in Rosenberg's situation is at worst inconsiderate.

3. I personally lack the patience to sit around for 10 minutes while opponents decide what to discard, when I have only a miniscule chance of an overtrick. But I would also regard it as inconsiderate and wouldn't do it for that reason.

4. Whether you have had unrelated issues with these opponents in the past, or whether they have a reputation for relying on the letter of the law to gain an advantage, should not be a factor. I would think less of someone who chose not to claim for that reason.

5. Declarer saying they have the rest is definitely not a solution, because of the inference when he doesn't say it and because of jdonn's point that the defenders can't really afford to rely on this kind of statement.

6. I do like Kit's idea of simplying not scoring overtricks. Nobody will bid 2NT instead of 1NT in order to try to score an extra IMP.

[Mbodell]

Most of the time my opponents are, obviously, not as good as the opponents in the bridgewinner thread. That said, I have seen tons of players I consider good allow "impossible" overtricks, and I know I've made stupid no-win discards on defense before. Playing for the overtrick seems reasonable to me in general.

I do think top matches (I.e., BB ko, trials ko, etc.) should have time observers from the beginning. Hopefully the new camera technology that tracks play could also track time.

I don't think you should stop counting overtricks, but if you did, I think it would be best to award only the lowest level to any contract (I.e., every contract is at the 1 level, at the game level, or at a slam level). So 2nt= and 2nt+3 and 1nt= and 1nt+1 and 1nt+5 all score the same amount. 1nt= beats 2nt-1 though so 1nt is a "better" contract that "2nt" in all situations.

And if you did enforce time issues, I don't see why you can't say the team/pair that goes over time loses, like in chess. The time limits might need to be longer (like 5 minutes a board, per side - i.e., 10 minutes total for a table) and if you go over your time limits, you lose.

[AlexJonson]

nigel_k, on 2011-November-06, 13:21, said:

Some thoughts:

1. There is a legal requirement to claim when you know for certain that further play will not affect the outcome. Not claiming in that situation will 'prolong play unnecessarily'.

You just made this up nigel_k. The Laws don't say that.

[JLOGIC]

"In recent years, there has been no love lost between us, and I am not disposed to do him any favors."

[Yu18772]

nigel_k, on 2011-November-06, 13:21, said:

Some thoughts:

1. There is a legal requirement to claim when you know for certain that further play will not affect the outcome. Not claiming in that situation will 'prolong play unnecessarily'.

I am not aware of any such requirement.

I try not to claim, unless we are actually behind. If I cant claim all the tricks, may be ops will misdefend and give me more - and there is nothing wrong with that hope imo.
If I think I have all the tricks, I usually scrue up the claim, so I just dont claim.
About the actual post - it seems it was more an issue of what Justin quoted....

[nigel_k]

AlexJonson, on 2011-November-06, 17:51, said:

You just made this up nigel_k. The Laws don't say that.

Law 74 (I forget the exact section) says you can't play on for the purpose of disconcerting the opponents. I think this is intended to make allowance for people who actually don't know they have a claim or are just day-dreaming and forgot to claim. But when the player knows they have a claim, and knows that not claiming will in fact annoy the opponents, and has no other reason not to claim (I can't actually think of one at the moment), then law 74 covers it.

Also note that law 74 is not limited to the specific examples given. I would suggest that any truly unnecessary time wasting is a law 74 violation and that includes failure to claim.

To be clear, I am not talking about the Rosenberg situation where there was a small chance of an overtrick. That's why I specified the player has to 'know for certain that further play will not affect the outcome'.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2011-November-06, 12:02, said:

(Face-to-face claim-law discourages claims.

No it doesn't.

[Antrax]

I don't know about the general case, but it certainly discourages me. To me it seems easier to screw up a claim than it is to screw up the play. Also, once I claim the defenders can't make mistakes. So, I never claim in real life until it's down to "all trumps" or "dummy is high" etc.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2011-November-07, 02:05, said:

No it doesn't.

It very much does as if you didn't state exactly what you would do (and have calculated your tricks correctly), the laws don't encourage an enforcement of equity, the non claiming side gets the benefit of "doubt" in circumstances where they would never have won tricks had the hand been played out.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-November-06, 12:02, said:

...Face-to-face claim-law discourages claims...

gordontd, on 2011-November-07, 02:05, said:

No it doesn't.

Yu18772, on 2011-November-06, 19:26, said:

...If I think I have all the tricks, I usually screw up the claim, so I just dont claim...

Current face-to-face claim-law deters claims. Players share Yu18772's reluctance to claim because...

• The explanation would be difficult and take too long or
• Opponents speak a different language or
• Opponents are likely to dispute the claim, necessitating a director call.
• Even directors admit that they rarely claim, for such reasons.

In contrast, the suggested claim-rule (similar to the on-line protocol) would positively encourage claims. Declarer would be happy to show his hand and state a number of tricks (without stating a line of play, unless he wants to do so). If defenders want to dispute the claim, then they can play on, with declarer's hand exposed, as well as the dummy, until the claim is clear. This helps defenders and speeds up the game.

[gnasher]

nigel_k said:

1. There is a legal requirement to claim when you know for certain that further play will not affect the outcome. Not claiming in that situation will 'prolong play unnecessarily'.

Yu18772, on 2011-November-06, 19:26, said:

I am not aware of any such requirement.

I try not to claim, unless we are actually behind. If I cant claim all the tricks, may be ops will misdefend and give me more - and there is nothing wrong with that hope imo.
If I think I have all the tricks, I usually scrue up the claim, so I just dont claim.

Those are good reasons for not claiming, but they don't conflict with what Nigel said - the rules refer to prolonging play unnecessarily. If claiming risks costing a trick, playing on is necessary to avoid that risk.

[nige1]

Amusing ending, illustrating ...
- The rationale for playing on, when declaring, in spite of poor prospects and
- The perils of a premature claim when defending.
♠ South, declarer in a ♠ contract, leads ♣2 from dummy.
Declarer is known to have only black cards left in his hand.
Defending in the West seat, you may feel it is safe to claim the rest. Unfortunately, a dozy East ruffs with ♠K!

---