[McBruce]

I think it is nearly a moot point. Anyone who claims when the order of the remaining tricks is important (by which I mean not completely obvious and can be screwed up) without elaborately stating the line of play is taking a risk-he'd be well advised to continue playing, especially if in order to claim he had to type in a lengthy, careful statement.

North on lead, declarer (having apparently not noticed that hearts were 5-1) claims seven tricks without a statement before North leads.

---

In this case, with the opponents on lead, I don't think the Director can possibly infer an order of tricks from declarer's inventory, when his line of play may well depend on the lead. If the opponents lead a club, it would be silly to force declarer to win in hand and then immediately abandon all of his hearts to cash spades as soon as possible, only because spades was mentioned first. However, claiming all the rest does clearly imply that he thinks all of his hearts are good, and this leads to only three more tricks for declarer on a club lead (A♣ and two hearts).

So my principles here are:
--the number of tricks takes precedence over the statement if there is a mismatch
--the order in which declarer can take his tricks can be specified, but a simple count of tricks does NOT necessarily imply an order if it is quite clear that careful handling of entries is required.

(Hey, I'm from Vancouver. The Flames beat the locals in the opening round. I was only cheering for the Flames because it has been eleven years since a Canadian team won. Next season--whenever that may be with a hockey strike/lockout looming--the Flames are dead meat...)

[mpefritz]

I am trying to pick through the statements. Perhaps this case is not so easy as NORTH has not led.

If NORTH had led a diamond, and then "CLAIM 7 tricks" had shown up, then you could accept that 6 tricks would be taken (the only order that makes sense).

If NORTH led a club, then "CLAIM 7 tricks" had shown up, West would be getting only 3 more tricks.

If declarer wrote "CLAIM 7 tricks:1C+2H+2S+1D" (only 2H listed in his sum) before the lead, I think you'd give him 6 more tricks?

The other question is, in general, whether there is a different standard for irrational play at IMPs and MPs. I could see in this case that down 1 at IMPs might be a little more irrational play than at MPs (but I can also see that if he thinks his hearts are good, we likely wouldn't abandon the extra overtrick even at IMPs).

I do suggest that in other cases, when there is a card on the table OR declarer is about to lead, order should matter is settling disputes of claiming. Especially online where people are trying to save time, and often abbreviate what they are trying to say.

fritz

[DrTodd13]

West can't logically put any order to the suits unless he knew what North would lead but West claimed before he saw the lead. If North leads a diamond then declarer can save the ♥2 until last. If North leads a club then hearts must be taken before diamonds or spades. It is interesting that people are assuming that the order of cards listed is explicitly listing a line of play. If I want to state a line of play I'll describe very specifically the tricks I'll take along with entry descriptions, etc.

On the question of different standards for IMPs or MPs, I think in certain cases it may be useful to use a different standard but when you're in a 20pt 3N with no club lead and a 2nd heart being covered and spades splitting and have a guaranteed 3N+1 (assuredly a near top) then it doesn't make any sense to risk the contract for what will likely be a meaningless extra 30 points with 3N+2.

There are definitely differences of opinion here so we have to get everyone on the same page that 1C+2H+2S+1D is specifying an order. What would you say if you didn't want to specify an order? Are you saying I can't either claim a fixed number of tricks or specify the extra order and number of tricks but there is no middle ground?

[the hog]

"What would you say if you didn't want to specify an order? Are you saying I can't either claim a fixed number of tricks or specify the extra order and number of tricks but there is no middle ground? "

Basically I think you should always state an order unless you can make an abvious statement like "dummy is high" or "crossing to hand and conceding the losing ? at the end" - but even that is specifying an order I guess.

[mink]

Hi McBruce,

I like to answer to your suggestion that the playing should end if a claim is rejected.

What we are talking about here - declarer following a different line of play than his claim (with or without statement) implies and using UI that way - does occur very seldom. My observation is the most rejections are made because of not seeing the line of play of a failsafe claim. Far fewer rejections are correct, and the claimer follows an obvoius line of play and thereby gets the number of tricks he should have got anyway. Even if there are several lines of play, in some of these cases the claimer will find an unlucky line, so no reason for opps to call the director.

If software would really disallow the playing to continue after an rejected claim, the vast majority of cases that now would have to be handled by the director would be trivial ones, and only a small minority of cases are such where the director is really needed.

I consider a minute of director's time to be a lot in a tourney. And I have no idea how in surviver tourney the software should handle such pending claims when deciding on who has to leave.

Therefore I suggest the following: The software should add the claim statement and the time of the claim to the .lin file, so that it pops up in the chat area, e.g. "Player xyz claimed all remaining tricks after card 2 of trick 7, saying: 'crossruff'". Players are encouraged to play on after a rejected claim without calling the director. If, after the board is finished, a player thinks that the claimer chose a superior line of play when several possible lines of play were available, he can call the director, who will handle the case as if the play had ended after the claim and disregard what was actually played after the claim.

This is essentially that the playing in fact ends after the claim as required by the laws, but the directors relieved of the majority of cases where a correct result can be achieved by just playing on.

Karl

[McBruce]

Mink's point seems to be that we should let players claim, record the claim statement they made and the position at the time, and then allow the defenders to reject and for play to continue. If declarer takes a line inconsistent with his statement, the defenders can call the Director and ask the TD to have a look.

Seems fine to me. I would suggest though, that the procedure include a stern warning to declarer (in whatever language he has chosen) urging him to make at least some statement. There might even be buttons for common statements like "Dummy is good," "My hand is good," etc.

If declarer disregards the warning and makes no statement at all, I think ANY line of play could reasonably be said to be based on the fact that the claim was rejected. So ANY normal line of play that leads to the least total tricks is what the result is. In that case only, declarer should NOT be allowed to play further and the TD should decide.

[bearmum]

McBruce, on Jun 13 2004, 11:42 PM, said:

Mink's point seems to be that we should let players claim, record the claim statement they made and the position at the time, and then allow the defenders to reject and for play to continue.  If declarer takes a line inconsistent with his statement, the defenders can call the Director and ask the TD to have a look.

Seems fine to me.  I would suggest though, that the procedure include a stern warning to declarer (in whatever language he has chosen) urging him to make at least some statement.  There might even be buttons for common statements like "Dummy is good," "My hand is good," etc.

If declarer disregards the warning and makes no statement at all, I think ANY line of play could reasonably be said to be based on the fact that the claim was rejected.  So ANY normal line of play that leads to the least total tricks is what the result is.  In that case only, declarer should NOT be allowed to play further and the TD should decide.

HI all - I haven't read ALL this thread ---- but IMHO maybe claims should be disallowed in tournaments on BBO ( UNLESS the director ALLOWS claims{even without stating line of play} --- in which case THEY(the directors ) can deal with ambigious claims

That way the declarer just plays ALL the cards --- this means that the 'line of play' does NOT have to be stated and ------ NO director needs to be called ( I HOPE all you wonderful folks who VOLUNTEER to direct agree with me ) so they are free to attend OTHER calls which seem to be NUMEROUS

AND IMHO this would be considerable shorter in LOTS of cases that the problems an 'ambigious' claim (without telling opps HOW declarer intends to continue) than actually PLAYING the hand

[1eyedjack]

McBruce, on Jun 13 2004, 05:42 AM, said:

Mink's point seems to be that we should let players claim, record the claim statement they made and the position at the time, and then allow the defenders to reject and for play to continue. If declarer takes a line inconsistent with his statement, the defenders can call the Director and ask the TD to have a look.

Strikes me that this will prolong matters. If declarer goes to the trouble (as he should) of explaining his line in sufficient detail that a subsequent play continuation can possibly be judged to be at odds with that explanation, then there seems little point in letting play continue at all.

[inquiry]

On line bridge is different, we all agree. One big difference not discussed is we can see that minute clock ticking off. A problem we all recongnize is intentional slow play by one side or the other to gain in computer assigned score. Average or Average minus might be better than what they get if they play it out. So claims should be a natural part of the game towards the end of the hand as time is ticking away. Say with two minutes left, we should encourage claims. So we need to keep the claim issue alive here. I think a claim, with a "protested accepted" to allow the TD to adjucate the final result would be a fine option. In other words, the defenders accept with a message to the TD that they accepted to end the hand, but the claim was faulty and the result should be x or y. Also declarer could do the same. We usually do this at the table by rejecting the claim, and making a counter claim (This happens when someone claims one less or one more than they will get). This speeds things up nicely... no fuss no muss.

Ben