[Flame]

This is something i began to do and i think its a good idea.
When an opponents claims against me, i accept it only if i believe he should have claimed, i will not accept a claim just because the cards are working for him, for example if a contract go down on a 5-1 suit break , i will not accept the claim even if the suit really is 4-2 or 3-3.
The resson i do this, is because some players claim too fast, they just claims and hope for good, if the claim is accepted then its good for them and if not, then they have some information that they should play carfully. sometimes people accept claims just because they dont like to check it, and sometimes they accept because when seeing all the hands the game looks ovious, but from declearer "blind" point of view he/she can still go wrong.

[Fluffy]

That isa good thing to do Flame, this way there is no ilegal information when someone rejects, another thing you can do is just randomly rejecting any claim, when you get used of both things to happen you don´t get the ilegal information anymore.

Hust remember to do that only in tournaments, and even more on tournaments you are caring about, on main bridge club there is absolutelly no point of playing a deal more than needed, so happens on friendly matches (specially when the other table has finished!), and on tournaments played for fun (mass individuals for example).

[JRG]

Flame is correct. Essentially he is rejecting improper claims (because declarer is making assumptions about distribution). His idea is an interesting one because he has highlighted something that has bothered me both online and in face-to-face bridge.

I really hate it when declarer makes a bad claim, but it happens to work -- especially when declarer doesn't appear to understand when I explain why it is a bad claim. Oh well!

Randomly rejecting claims seems to me to be a waste of time. I also think it is wrong. If a good claim is made, it seems unethical to reject it.

[BurnKryten]

I think what Flame is getting at is a good point, and I tend to reject certain claims for the same reasons. For example, a recent game my intrepid opponents bid to 7NT, and on the opening lead, simply hit the claim button. No explanation. In truth, they had quite a lot of high cards, but there were not 13 top tricks, and there were several possible sources for the extra tricks needed. It is not the defender's job to figure out which 13 tricks are being claimed.

Specifically, many claims happen that are incomplete. Simply clicking on claim without any explanation should be done only when the tricks to be taken will be quite obvious to the defenders. When I claim, most of the time I will include a statement of which tricks are being claimed, for example, "three hearts, ace of clubs, and four trumps". Even after seeing that I will make X tricks, I may play one or more tricks to make the position clear for the defense when I do claim - for example, disposing of potential losers in a side suit, or to allow a simple statement of claim. This is done not to delay play, but to allow us to move quickly and easily on to the next hand. I find this to be a far preferable method to claiming without explanation and letting the opponents figure it out.

[Dwayne]

Too right!

I always state a line of play when making a claim. Apart from being part of the Laws (yeah... OK I made that up but I'm sure I'm right and I'm too lazy to look it up) it's just plain polite.

I almost always reject non-obvious (non-clarified) claims too - not just on principle but see above.

Furthermore, whenever my explained claims are rejected and the opponents say "please play" I never do... I almost always say "no, I better call the Director (or a yellow), that's the Laws of bridge". Typically...this stops them in their tracks.

Stamp out claim non-explainers!

aaaah. I feel better already.

Dwayne-boy.

[mikestar]

Dwayne, you are not making it up: failure to make a claim statement is illegal though it usually won't incurr a procedural penalty (neither does a revoke)--though a director imposing one in a particularly egregious case would be in accord with the laws.


The relevant law [emphasis added]:

LAW 68
CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS
For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress . If it does refer to subsequent tricks:

A. Claim Defined
Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim).

B. Concession Defined
Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith.

C. Clarification Required for Claim
A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

D. Play Ceases
After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival.



From the preface to the laws, defining the use of "should" and similar terms [emphasis added]:


In the 1975 Laws and prior, words such as may, should, shall and must were used without much discrimination; in 1987 they were rationalized, and the practice is continued in the current Laws. When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction"), the failure to do it is in no way wrong. A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("... dummy spreads his hand in front of him ...") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized. When a player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom. In contrast, when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained ..."), a violation will be penalized more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious indeed. Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not".

[Free]

It doesn't make much difference imo, since your opps need to know you before they know why their claim is rejected. Also randomized rejecting doesn't work for the same reason.

And most important: when a player claims and it's rejected, he doesn't have the right to play a different line anyway, so why waste time to reject a claim which is correct?? Really don't see the point in all this...

[mikestar]

I believe Flame is refering to cases where no line is stated but the most likely line happens to work.

[Free]

mikestar, on Jun 12 2004, 05:59 PM, said:

I believe Flame is refering to cases where no line is stated but the most likely line happens to work.

Me to

[McBruce]

There are offline players who offend in the claiming arena as well. Once I was playing with a local hothead in a KO final (we would have been embarrassed not to get to the final at least in the low bracket we were put in). On the last board he was in 6♣ and I thought we were ahead but just possibly this might decide it. Partner lost a trump finesse and won the return, spreading his hand so that perhaps five cards were visible. Opponents were baffled and requested a line of play. Partner grabbed back his cards and grudgingly offered to play a few more tricks. When the Director was called, partner rose from his chair and said 'what is this? you are all children?' When the Director arrived I told partner to take off and he did. I let the opponents explain and when they were kind enough not to mention how much of a jerk partner was, I supplied the details. There was no way to go down and we won by 6. The Director told me later that had we won by less he would have seriously considered a penalty to change the result. I think I wish he had--partner deserved it.

[bearmum]

Flame, on Jun 9 2004, 11:33 AM, said:

This is something i began to do and i think its a good idea.
When an opponents claims against me, i accept it only if i believe he should have claimed, i will not accept a claim just because the cards are working for him, for example if a contract go down on a 5-1 suit break , i will not accept the claim even if the suit  really is 4-2 or 3-3.
The resson i do this, is because some players claim too fast, they just claims and hope for good, if the claim is accepted then its good for them and if not, then they have some information that they should play carfully. sometimes people accept claims just because they dont like to check it, and sometimes they accept because when seeing all the hands the game looks ovious, but from declearer "blind" point of view he/she can still go wrong.

OK - I am not sure what BBO rules are --------------- once a claim( presumably without a line of play is stated) is made AND rejected -- is it a case of calling director BEFORE ANYTHING else is done ??

And IF that is the case does the director bound by f2f rules??