[Trumpace]

I am thinking about the hands (usually at Matchpoints) where the declarer does not claim when he can, misleading the defence into giving declarer an extra trick...

Yes, it might be unethical, but it is just for fun...

Does anyone have any examples?

[kenrexford]

Although this is WAY second hand, I have heard a story about a claim by Ron Anderson called the "High Cross Ruff."

You may think you know what a "High Cross Ruff" is. Mr. Anderson apparently held the A-K of trumps in dummy, and two small, say, diamonds. In his hand, he held the Q-J of trumps, and two more small diamonds. He claimed the last four tricks on a "High Cross Ruff," and this was accepted.

High trumps really do carry their weight.

[Gerben42]

That does not sound very logical. If no play changes the result anymore how can a claim make a difference?

If it CAN make a difference it is completely legal not to claim.

[HeartA]

There is nothing unethical if misdefense can give you more tricks. After all, every player is trying to reduce his own mistakes while takes the advantage of opponent's mistakes. That is how one wins.

[Flame]

this is just good play nothing else and nothing speciall, i think a player who claim like u suggest isnt playing for serious. I think ur wrong about thinking most claim like that, its the opposite, i doubt more then 10% would claim when they might get an overtrick if the turney mean something to them.

[david_c]

Yep, it is perfectly ethical to play on if there is any reasonable chance that you might get extra tricks.

Particularly when playing MP, one of the things that makes defence difficult is that you don't know whether you're trying to set the contract or just trying to prevent overtricks. It is perfectly fair for declarer to take advantage of this uncertainty.

[barmar]

Law 73F2:

Quote

if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score

So the question is whether failing to claim when you can falls into the category of "remark, manner, tempo, or the like". Or is hoping for a defensive error a "demonstrable bridge reason"? Some of my friends have referred to a "Sominex coup", where you take really long to play and the defenders get so tired that they screw up (Sominex is a sleeping pill).

[mikeh]

A good friend of mine once tried to claim a contract for down one. The opps were less-than-advanced, and very suspicious of this expert trying to put one over on them. Even tho he had shown his hand and announced his line of play, they insisted that he hold his cards back, and play it out.

The opps screwed up, even having seen all the cards, and he made.

So what do we call this coup?

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Aug 17 2006, 05:57 PM, said:

A good friend of mine once tried to claim a contract for down one. The opps were less-than-advanced, and very suspicious of this expert trying to put one over on them. Even tho he had shown his hand and announced his line of play, they insisted that he hold his cards back, and play it out.

The opps screwed up, even having seen all the cards, and he made.

So what do we call this coup?

Defensive compression play.

[barmar]

mikeh, on Aug 17 2006, 01:57 PM, said:

A good friend of mine once tried to claim a contract for down one. The opps were less-than-advanced, and very suspicious of this expert trying to put one over on them. Even tho he had shown his hand and announced his line of play, they insisted that he hold his cards back, and play it out.

The opps screwed up, even having seen all the cards, and he made.

So what do we call this coup?

If this were duplicate bridge, it's against the Laws. As soon as a claim is made, play STOPS. If the opponents dispute the claim, the Director is summoned to resolve the dispute. He presumably would have agreed with declarer's claim and all would be right.

In rubber bridge, on the other hand, you pay the penalty for your stupidity. Maybe this is a Gump Coup.

[EricK]

What is the situation if, say, fairly early on in a hand, after losing one trick, you claim saying something like "I claim 12 tricks on the double squeeze"? There really is a double squeeze, but the purpose of the claim is primarily to prevent yourself mucking up the ending by miscounting one of the suits or whatever.

It doesn't seem fair that you should be allowed to get away with this, but then there is also the rule about it being unethical to continue the hand and not claim, forcing your opponents to use up more mental energy, when you know all the remaining tricks are yours.

[Elianna]

Trumpace, on Aug 15 2006, 11:05 AM, said:

I am thinking about the hands (usually at Matchpoints) where the declarer does not claim when he can, misleading the defence into giving declarer an extra trick...

Yes, it might be unethical, but it is just for fun...

Does anyone have any examples?

I usually think of a "claim coup" as someone claiming a certain amount of tricks when he/she can't get them, and the defense going along without really examining the claim. You see that plenty of times kibbitzing juniors.

[Flame]

I played against maybe the best pair in my country in a pair tournament, i was playing 3NT and had exactly 9 tricks with nothing looks like it give me an extra trick, this pair is known to think alot, but i decided that their thinking alot should not get me to claim, why should i claim 9 tricks when we all know ppl sometimes sell tricks. It took long time and at one point i mistakely took out the wrong card from my hand, now i was suppose to go down but they couldnt believe i made that mistake and gave the contract back to me. they left the table making faces about how i didnt claim, i didnt feel good about it, but i honestly dont think thier long thinking should give them the benefit of opps claiming losing poetential overtricks.

[awm]

What people are describing here sounds more like a "not-claim coup." A claim coup would be when you use a claim to somehow get more tricks than you're entitled to. For example, claiming on a cross-ruff with mirror distribution in the two hands, or various other claims when you don't actually have the number of tricks claimed for. Claim coups are definitely unethical if done intentionally and the laws even allow for some redress (to adjust the result to the normal number of tricks).

On the other hand, failing to claim is never an infraction. A great number of IMPs/MPs are exchanged in bridge due to mistakes, and it seems reasonable to continue playing a hand even when you know there is no legitimate way to get more tricks in case the defense makes an error. Of course this carries the risk that declarer will make an error.

There is also a strategy (particularly in long team matches) to drain the defender's mental energy by playing out a cold hand. Another amusing tactic is an intentional "grosvenor coup" (this is when you have a cold line of play, but intentionally take a line where opponents can set you, yet they don't because they defend under the assumption that your line of play is logical). These sorts of things seem a bit ethically "shady" but there's nothing in the laws against them and they appear to be valid tactics for long team events. Note that usually you don't want to do this in pairs because it's to your advantage for the pair you just played to play well against all the other pairs sitting your direction once you leave their table.

[blackshoe]

awm, on Aug 18 2006, 05:26 PM, said:

On the other hand, failing to claim is never an infraction.

Unless it is done deliberately, with the intent of disconcerting an opponent [Law 74B4].

The strategy of drawing out the play to "drain their mental energy" would also, seems to me, violate this law.

[GreenMan]

EricK, on Aug 18 2006, 03:48 PM, said:

What is the situation if, say, fairly early on in a hand, after losing one trick, you claim saying something like "I claim 12 tricks on the double squeeze"? There really is a double squeeze, but the purpose of the claim is primarily to prevent yourself mucking up the ending by miscounting one of the suits or whatever.

It doesn't seem fair that you should be allowed to get away with this, but then there is also the rule about it being unethical to continue the hand and not claim, forcing your opponents to use up more mental energy, when you know all the remaining tricks are yours.

The claimer must state a line of play. "I claim on the double squeeze" doesn't qualify, IMHO. So claimer has some 'splaining to do.

[rbforster]

I thought about this for a while and decided that there is never any additional information the defense can or should draw from declarer's failure to claim. If declarer has a hand where he can claim say 9 tricks and no plausible defense can give up overtricks, he might as well claim. But if he doesn't and a defender is on lead, the defender might as well assume declarer holds a hand where the lead matters. Against the cases where the lead doesn't matter you break even, and you gain if you figure out the right lead against other likely holding declarer might have.

Obviously this rule only applies when the defense can't be expected to goof and give up extra tricks. Depending on your level of respect for the defenders' play, this may involve playing out more or less hands.

[the hog]

blackshoe, on Aug 19 2006, 09:35 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 18 2006, 05:26 PM, said:

On the other hand, failing to claim is never an infraction.

Unless it is done deliberately, with the intent of disconcerting an opponent [Law 74B4].

The strategy of drawing out the play to "drain their mental energy" would also, seems to me, violate this law.

Not at all. This is perfectly legitimate.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

[not claiming to drain opp's mental energy] Not at all. This is perfectly legitimate

Maybe in your eyes, but not in mine. I'd hate to see bridge become a contest of who is better at or more willing to use this type of tactic to annoy the opponents rather than a contest of who chooses better calls & better sequences of cards to play. Anyone does this against me, I assume to be either an idiot or an ass.

Kibitzing top players, I certainly have never seen this. They claim & get on with things.

[blackshoe]

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2006, 10:44 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 19 2006, 09:35 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 18 2006, 05:26 PM, said:

On the other hand, failing to claim is never an infraction.

Unless it is done deliberately, with the intent of disconcerting an opponent [Law 74B4].

The strategy of drawing out the play to "drain their mental energy" would also, seems to me, violate this law.

Not at all. This is perfectly legitimate.

"perfectly"?

"I don't think so, Tim."

What law says this is legitimate? More to the point, how does this strategy not violate Law 74B4?