[jogs]

Not sure director should allow the claim on Ex. 4. If declarer is too careless to explain the claim, he may be too careless to remember to unblock. If all sloppy claims are accepted, one should claim anytime he doesn't know how to make the contract.

[Fluffy]

When dummy is full of winners, I play all the winners on my hand untill dummy is completelly solid or almost solid, in the end dummy will look like ♠KQJ♥-♦AQ5 ♣A, Next I show ♦K from my hand and another non heart. But it doesn't always work, some opponents will want to see my hand to realice why they aren't making ♥Q

[Bbradley62]

Fluffy, on 2011-August-26, 06:30, said:

Next I show ♦K from my hand and another non heart. But it doesn't always work, some opponents will want to see my hand...

You should always show your whole hand when you claim, even if you separate the ♦K and another small card to help clarify.

[jallerton]

Bbradley62, on 2011-August-26, 06:43, said:

You should always show your whole hand when you claim, even if you separate the ♦K and another small card to help clarify.

Why? I can't think of any Law which requires this. Law 68C states that:

Law 68C said:

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

In his example Fluffy is explaining his proposed line of play sufficiently, is he not?

[blackshoe]

Technically, the only time claimer is required to show his cards is when the TD says so. OTOH, showing your hand certainly makes it easier for the putzes on your left and right to see what's going on.

[mycroft]

Well, for one, I won't accept a claim unless declarer shows his hand.

Yes, I'm a bit anal-retentive, but it wouldn't be the first time someone's tried to hide a revoke at my table by playing all the winners out of hand and claiming dummy high - or claiming dummy high with no way to get there.

But by and large, it's just Good Manners, and not doing so slows the claim. I do realise that showing my hand frequently causes opponents to wonder why they aren't getting a heart, where just looking at dummy without the distraction of my hand would make it clear, but not for long, usually.

[Foxx]

My claiming habits are normal, except for one thing. I never claim when there is a trump out (unless, of course, it's a master trump, which is trivially conceded). NEVER. To explain why, let me tell you about a rubber bridge game I once played in, in Colorado.

I was in a vulnerable slam, and claimed with a trump out. According to the rules in place, such a claim was invalid, and a defender claimed a ruff. I argued in vain, and eventually had to concede the one-trick set, at gunpoint.

While this rule isn't enforced at your garden-variety duplicate club, I always play as if it is in effect.

[nige1]

TFLB, L68C said:

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

jallerton, on 2011-August-26, 14:24, said:

Why? I can't think of any Law which requires this. Law 68C [is as above]. In his example Fluffy is explaining his proposed line of play sufficiently, is he not?

blackshoe, on 2011-August-26, 15:17, said:

Technically, the only time claimer is required to show his cards is when the TD says so. OTOH, showing your hand certainly makes it easier for the putzes on your left and right to see what's going on.

mycroft, on 2011-August-30, 14:54, said:

Well, for one, I won't accept a claim unless declarer shows his hand. Yes, I'm a bit anal-retentive, but it wouldn't be the first time someone's tried to hide a revoke at my table by playing all the winners out of hand and claiming dummy high - or claiming dummy high with no way to get there. But by and large, it's just Good Manners, and not doing so slows the claim. I do realise that showing my hand frequently causes opponents to wonder why they aren't getting a heart, where just looking at dummy without the distraction of my hand would make it clear, but not for long, usually.

I agree with mycroft if I've understood him correctly. Intentionally concealing a revoke by claiming is probably against the law but few understand the law and judging intention is a subjective matter.

What does the law mean by a clear statement. IMO it should mean clear to the claimer's opponents.

A claimer need not go into tedious detail provided opponents understand his claim. But to those, like me, with little imagination, it won't be clear what cards the claimer intends to play, or the order in which he intends to play them, unless the claimer shows his hand. Waving it around for a second or two, won't suffice. I like to see the hand static, spread-out, face-up on the table.

Jallerton believes that declarer is within his rights to refuse to show his hand. Nevertheless, I suppose, as a last resort, I can legitimately dispute the claim. I can tell the director that the claim is unclear to me until I've seen claimer's hand. If that does not work, I can explain that I suspect a possible revoke.

[mgoetze]

Foxx, on 2011-August-30, 16:39, said:

While this rule isn't enforced at your garden-variety duplicate club, I always play as if it is in effect.

Um, this rule is not "not enforced" at a duplicate club, it simply doesn't exist there. I would hope that any place calling itself a "duplicate bridge club" adheres to the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge".

[jallerton]

Foxx, on 2011-August-30, 16:39, said:

My claiming habits are normal, except for one thing. I never claim when there is a trump out (unless, of course, it's a master trump, which is trivially conceded). NEVER. To explain why, let me tell you about a rubber bridge game I once played in, in Colorado.

I was in a vulnerable slam, and claimed with a trump out. According to the rules in place, such a claim was invalid, and a defender claimed a ruff. I argued in vain, and eventually had to concede the one-trick set, at gunpoint.

While this rule isn't enforced at your garden-variety duplicate club, I always play as if it is in effect.

I frequently claim when there are trumps out, but I address the problem you mention by making a claim statement starting with "drawing trumps".

Suppose you are in 7♠ in a solid 6-3 trump fit with 7 certain outside winners. Trumps are 4-0 and LHO thinks for a while about what to discard on each trick. Do you really waste everybody's time and LHO's mental energy by playing the hand out until RHO has played all four of his small trumps?

[iviehoff]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-31, 01:03, said:

Um, this rule is not "not enforced" at a duplicate club, it simply doesn't exist there. I would hope that any place calling itself a "duplicate bridge club" adheres to the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge".

But there is a rule of Duplicate Bridge (L70C) that reads:

When a trump remains in one of the opponents’ hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if:
1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and
2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and
3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play.

So while you can claim in duplicate bridge with a trump out, if you fail to mention it, you may well be ruled against on the assumption you were unaware about it and your line of play would be careless. (...“normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.)

I think if there was a claim on hand 4, and the player couldn't be bothered to say "unblocking", and the opponents did not accede to it, a TD would not be wrong to rule that blocking the suit was merely "careless". The TD has discretion here, he can also rule the other way.

Personally, in claiming, I always explain anything that may matter:
I don't always draw trumps, but in such cases I always say "drawing trumps in at most X rounds", in order to make it clear I know precisely how many trumps remain and will draw them
I don't always establish what is the exact break in a critical suit, but I always play far enough to ensure that I can establish it, and would usually play on if the line of play depended on the break, unless very obvious.
If a card has to be ruffed out, I say so
If a suit has to be unblocked, I say so
If I will make tricks by ruffing, I say so
If there is any back and forth in the order of play to avoid blocking yourself in the wrong hand, I say so
If the claim statement would be long, I play enough to make it reasonably short.

Nevertheless I sometimes make wrong claim, because I have forgotten something about the remaining cards. The usual problem is that I make a successful finesse, and then forget that the card is still outstanding in the defender's hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Claim 1-2, play 3. 4 has been covered, if the club fit is AKQ7xx opposite 1098x I only say something if clubs are 3-0 offside, and then only if I think opps aren't good enough to get it right automatically.

I found out in odd fashion that the most solid looking claims can and should be disputed. Declarer (my partner) played 6 tricks of a 3N contract and claimed the rest. Dummy was manifestly high, opps kind of disputed it, director told him to play on (facepalm), he played another 2 tricks and claimed again which opps conceded. We thought no more about it. In the car afterwards, we reconstructed the hand and thought "How the hell did we make that". At this point it became clear, earlier in the play, there was a lot of noise associated with a director call at another table, and I must have accidentally played 2 cards to a previous trick, so dummy was indeed high as it was a loser short.

When declarer claims with dummy's winners, check how many cards you and dummy hold

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-02, 05:49, said:

Dummy was manifestly high, opps kind of disputed it, director told him to play on (facepalm),

What kind of a ruling was that?

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2011-September-02, 10:15, said:

What kind of a ruling was that?

A bad one.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2011-September-02, 10:15, said:

What kind of a ruling was that?

Normal for Norfolk in all meanings of that phrase

[Gerben42]

frank0, on 2011-August-19, 02:13, said:

What's your habit on claim in off-line bridge? Do you only claim when you can take all the tricks(e.g. you have all outstanding trump, top honor) or you claim when you think it saves time(It cost less time explaining to opp than playing the hand)? Even more do you claim to show off your declare playing skill ?

In real tournament I claim to save time but usually realize I need more time to explain to opp than actually cashing my tricks .

I make up some hand and feel free to discuss what's your choice in real tournament.

You are in 4S after trump lead you discover trump break 3-2. Do you claim making 5 now or after losing tricks in H and D?

---

First I try if they want to duck ♦A twice first. If so, I eliminate ♣ and play 2 rounds of ♥ before putting opponents in
When they take the ♦A earlier, I claim immediately, stating which tricks I will lose.

Quote

You are in 7S . They lead a trump and you win in your hand, then cash CA ruff a C with high trump, spade to 9 and ruff a C with another high trump.C are 4-3. Do you claim and try to explain now or just play the rest of the hand?

---

Obvious to claim here.

Quote

You are in 7NT. If you know simple squeeze you can claim at trick 1 and state the possible E/W distribution that can let you make/down 1.At what level of tournament are you going to claim this way?

Never. I will play three rounds of each major first and if someone starts to tank, claim explaining that it doesn't matter which minor he discards.

Quote

If you are director and E, who has 44 in minors ,don't understand South's claim what'll you do?

---

Give declarer a warning that he shouldn't claim on a squeeze against opps who don't understand it. And suggest the defender to work it out based on the hand records after the session.

Quote

Your opp plays 3N. After a spade lead south claim 10 tricks at trick one without saying how to play C, what will you do?

---

Call the director.

[blackshoe]

Gerben42, on 2011-September-12, 10:23, said:

Give declarer a warning that he shouldn't claim on a squeeze against opps who don't understand it.

Why ever not? And how do you know what opponents do and do not understand?

I have had opponents lock down their brains when I claim, not listening at all to my claim statement, and then ask me to "play it out" because they "can't see it". To Hell with that.

Okay, playing against Mrs. Guggenheim, I rarely claim, because in all but the most obvious cases, claiming loses more time than it gains. But that's the exception, not the rule.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-12, 12:53, said:

Why ever not? And how do you know what opponents do and do not understand?

L74A2. Making a claim on a squeeze against opponents that do not understand is liable to embarrass or annoy them, or interfere with their enjoyment. I think you don't do this unless you are pretty sure that they are opponents that do understand. The present case is even more egregious, because it was a conditional claim which in effect asked the opps to agree whether or not the squeeze was working. Further, conditional claims in general are a somewhat dubious area, as the law does not provide for them.

[iviehoff]

mycroft, on 2011-August-30, 14:54, said:

Well, for one, I won't accept a claim unless declarer shows his hand.

I recall an anecdote about the late international player John Collings, who apparently routinely claimed without showing his cards. It appears that at high levels of bridge there is some kind of a "gentleman's agreement" between the players to treat claims with a degree of laxity not apparent in the laws, as it saves a lot of fuss. When some lesser opponent once queried one of Collings' blind claims, Collings replied something like "All right, I'll show you, just this once."

[mycroft]

Collings, and the good Baron, and many others were very good bridge players, but there's a reason why the Proprieties, an Appendix to the Laws in their time, have become explicitly part of the Laws; with numbers and non-binding titles, and everything.