[FrancesHinden]

In my experience, the better the overall standard at the table, the earlier and faster the claims. Poor players are frightened of claiming in case they are 'forced' to 'throw aces on kings', or have various misconceptions (you can't claim if it isn't your turn to play; you can't claim if you don't have all the remaining tricks etc). Good players frequently don't claim against weak players because it takes longer to explain and convince them that you have the rest of the tricks than it does to play it out.

Playing against good players I've seen the following:

Declarer (expert playing a 3S contract in a KO match with total points scoring) shows his hand and says "I'll make some sensible number of tricks, how many overtricks do I get?" (answer: one)

Me to the same player in a different event: "Either you are squeezed in the blacks or you aren't." Him "One off".

RHO (expert) to me (declarer) at about trick 7 playing in 3NT in an IMPs event: "do you have an opening bid?". Me: "yes". Him: "you can have your 12 on the simple squeeze". Me "OK" (I was playing it as a double)

[mikeh]

Playing a match against Soloway, his partner and mine left the table to get coffee once I made my lead and dummy came down. Soloway studied the dummy for about 15 seconds and then asked me if I had the ♦K. I said 'No' and he claimed 12 tricks... without showing me his hand.

Our partners came back to find us ready for the next board... and the only question was 'how many?'.

It was a push, but I bet they took longer to play it at the other table

[EricK]

mikeh, on Aug 21 2006, 03:06 PM, said:

Playing a match against Soloway, his partner and mine left the table to get coffee once I made my lead and dummy came down. Soloway studied the dummy for about 15 seconds and then asked me if I had the ♦K. I said 'No' and he claimed 12 tricks... without showing me his hand.

Our partners came back to find us ready for the next board... and the only question was 'how many?'.

It was a push, but I bet they took longer to play it at the other table

Do you always answer questions about the location of honour cards?

[mikeh]

EricK, on Aug 21 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 21 2006, 03:06 PM, said:

Playing a match against Soloway, his partner and mine left the table to get coffee once I made my lead and dummy came down. Soloway studied the dummy for about 15 seconds and then asked me if I had the ♦K. I said 'No' and he claimed 12 tricks... without showing me his hand.

Our partners came back to find us ready for the next board... and the only question was 'how many?'.

It was a push, but I bet they took longer to play it at the other table

Do you always answer questions about the location of honour cards?

Depends on who is asking: I trusted Soloway not to be coffee-housing me.

[the hog]

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

I have. There is one well known bridge author and co-author who categorically refuses to claim except with about 2-3 cards to go. His reasoning for this is tht it forces the opponents to think and use their brain cells. In a long match this causes opponents to get tired. There is NOTHING in the rules to force you to claim.
However I will admit that I much prefer those that do claim and endeavour to do it myself.
Ron

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

There is NOTHING in the rules to force you to claim

74B4, as others have mentioned. Check out comments by David Stevenson, an English director on the EBU Laws & Ethics committee, from this old rec.games.bridge thread.

[zasanya]

barmar, on Aug 17 2006, 01:22 PM, said:

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.

Alan Sontag in his book "Power Precision" has described a similar incident.In May 1975 ,playing in an important stage of Grand Nationals he conceded 1 down.Opponents insisted on playing out the hand , misdefended and allowed Sontag to make his 3 nt.Then opponents agreed to the 1 down concession! The director Maury Bernstein ruled that the contract had succeded and this ruling was referred to a higher authority ,a national law commission member,Edgar Kaplanof New York who confirmed the Director's ruling.
This book was published in 1979.Have the rules been amended since then?

[the hog]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 22 2006, 03:15 PM, said:

Quote

There is NOTHING in the rules to force you to claim

74B4, as others have mentioned. Check out comments by David Stevenson, an English director on the EBU Laws & Ethics committee, from this old rec.games.bridge thread.

No Stephen, what is the definition of "disconcerting" an opponent? Nothing and no one can FORCE you to claim a hand for obvious reasons. Declarer may not even be able to see an obvious claim. Further you can't impute motives to other people.

[Stephen Tu]

If the purpose of law 74B4 is not there to prevent a declarer from playing on when he knows all the tricks are surely his, as it specifically mentions, then what do you think it is there for? If this tactic were perfectly fine, why should there be a law mentioning it at all?

If you are trying to use semantics to argue that "draining opponents mental energy" != "disconcerting", thus its OK, I think that's ridiculous. You really think the people who drafted this law thought "well if it's precisely for 'disconcerting' it's illegal, but if you can come up with some other bogus reason that one can argue as not meeting the precise dictionary definition of 'disconcerting' it's perfectly fine?" They arguably should have drafted it better so people couldn't try to weasel out of it with such arguments.

Of course a declarer can always claim they can't see it or lost track of a card, but if someone like your top author who won't claim can't see 12 top tricks or whatever repeatedly during a KO they won't have much credibility.

[blackshoe]

zasanya, on Aug 22 2006, 01:43 AM, said:

This book was published in 1979.Have the rules been amended since then?

Twice, at least. Once in 1987, and once in 1997. There is another revision in progress as we speak. I think the revision prior to '87 was in '79, but I'm not sure.

As to whether the specific rule that play ceases when a claim is made was in place in 1975 when the incident described happened, I don't know. But I note that Edgar Kaplan was Co-chairman of the ACBL Laws Commission from 1978 until his death in 1998, and was Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee from 1988 to 1997. He was the primary architect of our current laws. If he said "result stands", I gotta agree.

[blackshoe]

Nothing can force a player to claim, just as nothing can force a player to always, to the best of his ability, play ethically. But I would say that deliberately not claiming, solely to "force" the opponents to tire more quickly, is not ethical. So I would suggest that players not do that, particularly where I am directing.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Aug 22 2006, 05:27 AM, said:

zasanya, on Aug 22 2006, 01:43 AM, said:

This book was published in 1979.Have the rules been amended since then?

Twice, at least. Once in 1987, and once in 1997. There is another revision in progress as we speak. I think the revision prior to '87 was in '79, but I'm not sure.

As to whether the specific rule that play ceases when a claim is made was in place in 1975 when the incident described happened, I don't know.

I have a feeling that was one of the laws that was changed in one of the recent revisions, and that the earlier law was more like the rubber bridge law. The play could continue with declarer's hand exposed, similar to the way refused claims are handled in the MBC.

[the hog]

blackshoe, on Aug 22 2006, 07:34 PM, said:

Nothing can force a player to claim, just as nothing can force a player to always, to the best of his ability, play ethically. But I would say that deliberately not claiming, solely to "force" the opponents to tire more quickly, is not ethical. So I would suggest that players not do that, particularly where I am directing.

This is precisely the point that I want to make. It may not be "ethical", but it is not illegal.

[Stephen Tu]

It is both unethical & an infraction of bridge law.
David Stevenson, EBU senior consultant director:

Quote

However, not to claim for other purposes [eg to wear the opponents out
or to make sure they never know in future whether you have all the
tricks] is in contravention of L74B4 [already quoted in this thread].
This is prolonging play unnecessarily and the Law actually quotes this
situation so there can be no ambiguity.

  One suggestion in one of the articles is that not claiming is not
ethical but not necessarily against the Laws.  One of the main changes
in the 1987 Laws is to give the Proprieties Law numbers: the reason
[both apparent and stated] is to make it clear that the Proprieties were
part of the Laws and failure to follow them is a breach of Law.

Directors should try to enforce this. I agree it will be hard to enforce unless declarer is being fairly egregious about doing this. Then again players won't complain unless it is egregious. Fortunately I have not detected this being done against me, at least not to the extent that I notice & am bothered; if I ever do certainly I will call a director to give the perpetrator a warning & procedural penalties if he persists.

[awm]

What if declarer has the rest of the tricks on a simple line, but is trying to execute a complex squeeze in order to score the beer card?

[jchiu]

Though the laws are inconclusive, i'm sure there are some "no dumping" clauses like the following, at least in ACBL land

5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest.

And clearly, not playing for the beer is considered dumping

[zasanya]

barmar, on Aug 17 2006, 01:22 PM, said:

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.

The claim or concession is made essentially to save time.If it is going to involve stopping play and calling Director ,then I dont think any time will be saved.Is there some provision whereby there is penaly against the defenders if legitimate claims are disputed?
It seems to me that it will be much easier to enforce a law which prohibits any claims or concessions and i dont see how it will be unfair to anybody.

[blackshoe]

The_Hog, on Aug 22 2006, 11:00 PM, said:

This is precisely the point that I want to make. It may not be "ethical", but it is not illegal.

The ethics of the game are defined by its laws. If it's illegal, it's unethical, and vice versa.

[blackshoe]

zasanya, on Aug 23 2006, 03:55 AM, said:

The claim or concession is made essentially to save time.If it is going to involve stopping play and calling Director ,then I dont think any time will be saved.Is there some provision whereby there is penaly against the defenders if legitimate claims are disputed?
It seems to me that it will be much easier to enforce a law which prohibits any claims or concessions and i dont see how it will be unfair to anybody.

The laws regarding claims don't say anything about saving time. As to whether time will be saved, are we talking about one particular case, or in general? In any given case, claiming may or may not save time. However, I submit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to know ahead of time whether a particular claim, or a particular director call, will or will not save time.

It might be easier to enforce a law which prohibits claims, but there is no such law. Nor, IMO, would a regulation prohibiting claims be legal. So claiming is a legitimate action, like it or not.

[mycroft]

No, but the Law being mentioned in the Proprieties makes it improper to *prolong play unnecessarily*. The example is about claiming, but the law is universal. And it talks about saving time (or at least not wasting it).

Michael.