[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2014-July-10, 13:47, said:

I can imagine one single situation where I might enforce Law 74B4 reaction:

Half way through the Board both defenders have shown out of trumps (if in a trump contract) and there is no room for any loser in Dummy. With Dummy on the lead Declarer tediously plays one trick after the other instead of just stating that all Dummy's cards are high (as everybody can see).

Even then I would enforce playing out the Board if either defender insisted.

If there were no defensive concession, playing the hand out must not be annoying to them --that would be the easy way of avoiding imposition of penalty under 74B4 against Declarer. Now we get to answer the other question. Was the defenders' failure to concede meant to annoy, vex, or otherwise piss off Declarer?

That last sentence of yours does not compute. If a claim is made, nobody gets to play it out or enforce playing it out....the TD included.

[nige1]

 pran, on 2014-July-10, 13:47, said:

I can imagine one single situation where I might enforce Law 74B4 reaction: Half way through the Board both defenders have shown out of trumps (if in a trump contract) and there is no room for any loser in Dummy. With Dummy on the lead Declarer tediously plays one trick after the other instead of just stating that all Dummy's cards are high (as everybody can see). Even then I would enforce (rapidly) playing out the Board if either defender insisted.

Law 74B4's reliance on "intention" renders it toothless and pointless, in practice. Nevertheless, IMO, when dummy is certainly high and there is a competent Bridge-player at the table, who neither claims nor concedes, then the director should penalize him for time-wasting. (Similarly, If declarer is a competent player and his own hand is certainly high but he doesn't claim).

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2014-July-10, 13:56, said:

If there were no defensive concession, playing the hand out must not be annoying to them --that would be the easy way of avoiding imposition of penalty under 74B4 against Declarer. Now we get to answer the other question. Was the defenders' failure to concede meant to annoy, vex, or otherwise piss off Declarer?

That last sentence of yours does not compute. If a claim is made, nobody gets to play it out or enforce playing it out....the TD included.

 nige1, on 2014-July-10, 14:08, said:

Law 74B4's reliance on "intention" renders it toothless and pointless, in practice. Nevertheless, IMO, when dummy is certainly high and there is a competent Bridge-player at the table, who neither claims nor concedes, then the director should penalize him for time-wasting. (Similarly, If declarer is a competent player and his own hand is certainly high but he doesn't claim).

My point is that there are inexperienced players around who themselves never claim and (when defending) hardly understand even the most obvious claim by declarer.

They can be recognized by their request to "please play it out" when declarer tries to claim. And as they have the same right as everybody else to understand what is really going on during all thirteen tricks I consider it a violation of Law 74A2 (taking precedence over Law 74B4) if they are denied the privilege to see how the last tricks are played as well.

Remember that a claim statement shall be sufficient so that all four players around the table (even beginners if present) recognize the correctness of the claim

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2014-July-10, 15:10, said:

Remember that a claim statement shall be sufficient so that all four players around the table (even beginners if present) recognize the correctness of the claim

But also remember that a claim ends play of the hand.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-July-10, 13:47, said:

I can imagine one single situation where I might enforce Law 74B4 reaction:

Half way through the Board both defenders have shown out of trumps (if in a trump contract) and there is no room for any loser in Dummy. With Dummy on the lead Declarer tediously plays one trick after the other instead of just stating that all Dummy's cards are high (as everybody can see).

Even then I would enforce (rapidly) playing out the Board if either defender insisted.

Presumably you would not so rule after you ask declarer if dummy's cards are all good, and he says he doesn't know, or isn't sure.

Even if the other three players at the table, the director, three kibitzers and the janitor can see that dummy is good, that doesn't mean declarer can — and if he can't, he's not violating the law to play it out.

I would support a defender's insistence in the case if it appears that there is going to be a time problem. Otherwise not. "He's not playing fast enough to suit me" by a defender isn't reason enough.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-10, 23:18, said:

Presumably you would not so rule after you ask declarer if dummy's cards are all good, and he says he doesn't know, or isn't sure.

I was thinking of Dummy's cards being something like AKQJT..... or in suit(s) where all other players have shown out.

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-10, 23:18, said:

Even if the other three players at the table, the director, three kibitzers and the janitor can see that dummy is good, that doesn't mean declarer can — and if he can't, he's not violating the law to play it out.

Agreed, sure.

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-10, 23:18, said:

I would support a defender's insistence in the case if it appears that there is going to be a time problem. Otherwise not. "He's not playing fast enough to suit me" by a defender isn't reason enough.

Agreed, but "I would like to see each trick" is.


However, are we talking past each other? I am talking about a declarer wanting to claim and defender wanting to see all tricks so that he can more easily verify and accept the claim?

[axman]

 Vampyr, on 2014-July-09, 15:29, said:

I wonder what the "physics" of the game is supposed to mean. Is it a joke-y way to refer to the mechanics of the game?

Physics determines what is stable; and, the consequences upon that which is unstable.

Assume the belief that a claim is not an irregularity is true. Then a claim is proper procedure; and, the failure to claim is an irregularity [as they otherwise are mutually exclusive states]. Most would believe that punishing a failure to claim is wrong headed. Therefore, the idea that claiming is not an irregularity along with the idea that simultaneuosly failure to claim is not an irregularity are in conflict. This situation is unstable and the physics of bridge define such a state a false one, destined to change toward a stable one. Therefore the assumption is false.

Earlier, blackshoe suggested that it is a crime for a claimer to fail to provide a clarification and that the fix is to utilize the command 'shall' instead of 'should'. I suggest that this view is an outcome of holding the wrongheaded belief that claims are not an irregularity.

In other words, such beliefs affect the flavor of rules- if claims are irregularities then the rules are written with it in mind; and conversely, if they aren't, then they are written with that in mind.

I have suggested that criminalizing the failure to issue a clarification will not have the desired effect. The desired effect can only be had through first understanding the physics- as that is the only way to describe rules that are solutions to the player's problems.

An example of lack of understanding: there is a provision that permits SOs to write regulations defining a 'default' order of the cards when claimer doesn't supply one. Such a provision suggests that the law is inadequate in its language. That defeats the notion of justice by opening additional avenues of litigation as to when the 'default' doesn't happen to apply this time.

Another example: the WBFLC has declared that 'run the clubs' is actually several separate plays that the player can repudiate at any time. How can that be? when L68 says that it is a claim.

[pran]

Claiming is explicitly allowed in the laws so it is not an irregularity.

However, "normal" proceeding of a game consists of the auction and the play of thirteen tricks, so claiming is an alternative to the normal way of completing the play (by curtailing it before all thirteen tricks have been played).

[blackshoe]

If a claim has been made, you can have the claimer face his hand. If the opponent can't figure it out from there, then you (the TD) can go through the play card by card. And then you can penalize the opponent for delaying the game (I'm kidding, of course).

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-11, 14:10, said:

If a claim has been made, you can have the claimer face his hand. If the opponent can't figure it out from there, then you (the TD) can go through the play card by card. And then you can penalize the opponent for delaying the game (I'm kidding, of course).

Not neccessarily kidding!

If you find that an opponent acted not understanding in order to harass the claimer you have every reason to penalize him.

(I have never seen such behaviour!)

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-July-11, 15:09, said:

Not neccessarily kidding!

If you find that an opponent acted not understanding in order to harass the claimer you have every reason to penalize him.

(I have never seen such behaviour!)

I hope that I never do.