[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-13, 07:55, said:

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.

The laws require you to state a line of play. If the line of play is "I'm going to play this and this and this, and you are squeezed in the red suits", or whatever, that is a perfectly legitimate claim. Opponents can decide what cards they will follow with, what cards they will discard and when, and so should be able to figure out whether the squeeze is on or not. If they can't figure it out, they can ask the director for help. And I think we need to be very careful about how far we take application of L74A2.

[barmar]

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

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

If you're playing in your regular club game, you generally know the levels of most of your opponents. In a local tournament, I'll usually be familiar with at least 75% of the opponents. And if you're playing a long team match against unfamiliar opponents, I think you'll have a decent idea of what they'll understand by the 5th board or so.

[chasetb]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-13, 23:43, said:

The laws require you to state a line of play. If the line of play is "I'm going to play this and this and this, and you are squeezed in the red suits", or whatever, that is a perfectly legitimate claim. Opponents can decide what cards they will follow with, what cards they will discard and when, and so should be able to figure out whether the squeeze is on or not. If they can't figure it out, they can ask the director for help. And I think we need to be very careful about how far we take application of L74A2.

You are pretty naive to think that 74A2 can't be applied in a situation like this, it has against my partner for making a claim, and getting a little frustrated when they didn't understand the claim. It also didn't help that he mumbled "Diamond" just before the director was called (they wanted to play it out), and both opponents thought he said "I win". Also, not all directors know about squeezes, or completely know the rules at that. This is one area where I follow KISS to the letter.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-September-13, 23:59, said:

If you're playing in your regular club game, you generally know the levels of most of your opponents. In a local tournament, I'll usually be familiar with at least 75% of the opponents. And if you're playing a long team match against unfamiliar opponents, I think you'll have a decent idea of what they'll understand by the 5th board or so.

None of which says whether you know anything about the particular opponents in any given case.

[blackshoe]

chasetb, on 2011-September-14, 01:28, said:

You are pretty naive to think that 74A2 can't be applied in a situation like this, it has against my partner for making a claim, and getting a little frustrated when they didn't understand the claim. It also didn't help that he mumbled "Diamond" just before the director was called (they wanted to play it out), and both opponents thought he said "I win". Also, not all directors know about squeezes, or completely know the rules at that. This is one area where I follow KISS to the letter.

I had a director tell me once "I can make any ruling I want". I replied "yes, you can, but that doesn't make your ruling legal."

Here, we advise directors to carry a rule book, and to read their rulings from it. I know that the culture in North America is to avoid that, but it's a good idea, particularly if the director concerned doesn't "completely know the rules".

It appears to me that the 74A2 ruling against your partnership was based on your partner "getting a little frustrated".

I do not think it appropriate to rule a violation of 74A2 for saying something that opponents misheard, although I might caution a player against mumbling when — actually because — he could be misunderstood.

I find I more frequently have to (to one degree or another) tell upset players to "get a life" then I find it appropriate to rule against their opponents. Maybe that's just the players I have to deal with.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 18:22, said:

I had a director tell me once "I can make any ruling I want". I replied "yes, you can, but that doesn't make your ruling legal."

Here, we advise directors to carry a rule book, and to read their rulings from it. I know that the culture in North America is to avoid that, but it's a good idea, particularly if the director concerned doesn't "completely know the rules".

This is certainly a good idea, and all the good directors I know here do it (I guess I've been extremely lucky, I've rarely played in the kinds of clubs that give American bridge such a bad reputation -- maybe they're all in retirement communities, catering to people who have been playing for 100 years and can't deal with any progress in the game).

But it's not much help in the case of laws that require the TD to make subjective, psychological assessments. 74A2 doesn't even say that the action has to annoy or embarass the opponent, it just says that you should avoid remarks or actions that might have that effect. Luckily it's a "should" rather than a "must". And what kind of crazy person would call the director and say "While I wasn't actually annoyed by what Joe said, some people might be, so I think he deserves a DP"?

We had this discussion recently in one of the law forums down below, where someone pointed out that many normal bridge actions violate the letter of 74A2 (isn't it annoying when the opponents double you and you go for a number?). I doubt the lawmakers really intended this interpretation, and the law is meant to apply only to actions that are not normal parts of the game. E.g. doubling the opponents is OK, gloating during the post mortem is not, and giving lessons is a grey area that depends on the relationship between the players (our club has lots of novices who are eager for advice on how they could have avoided their disaster, and I know who they are when I'm playing against them).

[blackshoe]

Generally, I don't offer advice on how to bid or play unless I'm asked. Some of the better players around here will offer advice "if you'd like". Different styles, I guess.

Judgement as to when player A should be censured for "annoying" player B, and when player B should be censured for becoming annoyed at something he should have let slide.

Speaking of "let slide", some time ago I was accused of cheating — not with that word, but the intent was clear. Then my accuser called her long-time friend the TD. When I objected to the accusation, the TD said "we're just gonna let that slide". I wasn't annoyed, I was livid. So angry that I got up and left the table until I calmed down, and I'm usually pretty easy going. I guess I should have got a PP or DP for becoming annoyed at something I should have let slide.

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on 2011-September-15, 09:49, said:

giving lessons is a grey area that depends on the relationship between the players (our club has lots of novices who are eager for advice on how they could have avoided their disaster, and I know who they are when I'm playing against them).

I think giving lessons is very definitely no OK unless they are asked. Sometimes an opponent will specifically ask me what they should have done on a hand, and I'll tell them where they went wrong (it's usually something fairly obvious). But if you aren't asked, I think you should keep quiet.

I got very cross at a congress recently when a player I didn't know at all criticised my bidding when dummy went down.

[FrancesHinden]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-13, 08:07, said:

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."

It's not uncommon for claims just to happen in passing with neither declarer nor the defence showing their hand. Typically you are sitting there as declarer, trying to think of some possible layout of the remaining cards to make the contract, and a defender says "you are one off" and everyone agrees.

It's extremely bad manners to try and do that against someone who isn't equally aware of the position.
But if declarer's has gone wrong somewhere (lost count of trumps, missed a winner) the TD will get called and he will lose the trick(s), expert or not.

[gwnn]

I would always claim 1 and 4 (mentioning the unblock).

On 2 I would ruff out clubs before I claim. It's my experience that against most opps it takes less time to play it out than to explain. If one opp or another starts to think, I show the hand and explain instead. Maybe this is inconsistent.

Claiming on a squeeze has always struck me as somewhat pompous (sorry the hog I don't mean it personally! just the action).

[Gerben42]

gwnn, on 2011-September-15, 16:00, said:

I would always claim 1 and 4 (mentioning the unblock).

Yes, better mention the unblock or I will rule against you.
If you don't mention the unblock, you are assumed to have missed the point of the hand.

Quote

On 2 I would ruff out clubs before I claim. It's my experience that against most opps it takes less time to play it out than to explain. If one opp or another starts to think, I show the hand and explain instead. Maybe this is inconsistent.

No this is not inconsistent. The point of claiming is that it is unsporting to let your opponents waste brain power when you know there is nothing left to think about. So if opponent starts to think, you can cut it short.

Quote

Claiming on a squeeze has always struck me as somewhat pompous (sorry the hog I don't mean it personally! just the action).

Sort of yes, but if the squeeze has already materialized, I think it's OK.

[blackshoe]

gwnn, on 2011-September-15, 16:00, said:

Claiming on a squeeze has always struck me as somewhat pompous (sorry the hog I don't mean it personally! just the action).

Gerben42, on 2011-September-18, 08:00, said:

Sort of yes, but if the squeeze has already materialized, I think it's OK.

Hm. If claiming on a squeeze is pompous, what is not claiming on a squeeze? "I knew there was a squeeze, but I didn't claim because I figured you were too stupid to see it"?

[gwnn]

No it is more like "I knew there was a squeeze but I didn't claim because I am stupid enough to screw it up sometimes (by e.g. missing an early discard)", and "because perhaps you will discard erroneously".

[Flameous]

I don't usually like the claim on squeeze like here deal 3. Here I have to count the cards to know if suit's 4th card is strong, and I don't think you can expect opps to trust you to be able to always do that without error.
If clubs had 10 in it, then I'd accept the claim stating that after playing all majors and three rounds of clubs, if CJ is still up, I'll play diamonds from the top. Here you have to only look for one card and I trust anyone can do that.

[PeterGill]

1. At IMPS I claim 11 tricks. At match points, I try for 12 tricks of course. My line is a slight variation of Gerben's. I play RHO for DAxxxx and Hxxx or HJxx. Draw trumps ending in dummy. D towards the king. Back to CA for D through the (ducked?) ace, to my jack (the principle is that RHO might play "2nd hand plays low" twice when I lead towards the hidden hand). Now I want to duck a heart to LHO. So low H, duck if Q played, else go up with HA and duck a heart on the way back. LHO might have no diamonds or might exit in C or H not D ---> 12 tricks if H 3-3.

2. Claim is dependent on my knowledge of my opponents (based in part on previous hands against them). If they are novices, I wait until my hand is all high before I claim. Against better players I claim as soon as clubs are seen to be 4-3.

3. I would never ever claim in a dodgy 7NT - too much at stake. Which suit to play first? I think the best play is three rounds of clubs first. Claim if 3-3. Opponents can see the long clubs in dummy, so they would not throw clubs on D's, but might from 4441 with singleton club (or e.g. 3442 shape) pitch a D from say xxxx, xxxx, 9xxx, x. Next I cash the spades, not the hearts, as holding on to 8xxx in spades is unlikely. Then the hearts. Then hope for squeeze or 3-3 D. Unlike Hands (1) and (4), I'm confident that this is the best line of play.

4. At IMPS, I claim 10 tricks, stating how I unblock in clubs. If I'm directing, I would accept any claim without mention of any unblocking
statement, as it's obvious to play low to C10 on 3rd club after CJ drops.

At match points, I try for 11 tricks of course. I think winning the first spade will make the spade position less clear to the opponents. So I win SA then play C9 and C8 on the first two rounds of clubs, not C6. If RHO has 2 clubs, I cross to C10 so that LHO has to make 4 discards before RHO can make any helpful 2nd discard. If LHO has 2 clubs, I continue the top clubs from dummy, unblocking C10, so that RHO has to make 3 discards before seeing any discard from LHO.

They will have many discards to make and I will pitch a H early to maximize the chances of both opponents discarding down to 2 (or 1) hearts, and not keeping enough spades, in order to hang onto their D's. To keep 2 hearts and 3 spades, an opponent will have to void themselves in D. If my concentration is good, I will take in all their discards. If my focus is poor, possibly due to a late night, I will simply count how many spades and hearts each opponents discard, so that after Trick 8 I can deduce the D count. I will keep track of the number of spades each started with (from the pips led and discarded) and of any signalling method they use. I will play as fast and in tempo as possible, so that I pick up any telltale clues from a defensive tank. I expect to make 10 tricks about 80% of the time and 11 tricks occasionally.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-18, 11:17, said:

Hm. If claiming on a squeeze is pompous, what is not claiming on a squeeze? "I knew there was a squeeze, but I didn't claim because I figured you were too stupid to see it"?

You don't have to tell them you knew there was a squeeze, just act happy when the squeeze works.

No one is going to be offended that you didn't claim early on the squeeze. And against 90% of opponents, explaining that the squeeze is certain isn't going to save much time over playing it out until the squeezed opponent has to go into the tank deciding what to throw.

[mycroft]

Yeah, basically that's where the claim on a squeeze, except in the best events, should happen. Play it through, when the person gets to the "what do I do now?" point, you can explain the 3- or 4-card ending quickly and easily and it should work. If you are on trick 5 and claim on the marked red-suit squeeze, expect it to take longer than playing it out 95+% of the time at club or non-1st-division tournament.

[piratepete]

PeterGill, on 2011-September-19, 09:15, said:

3. I would never ever claim in a dodgy 7NT - too much at stake. Which suit to play first? I think the best play is three rounds of clubs first. Claim if 3-3. Opponents can see the long clubs in dummy, so they would not throw clubs on D's, but might from 4441 with singleton club (or e.g. 3442 shape) pitch a D from say xxxx, xxxx, 9xxx, x. Next I cash the spades, not the hearts, as holding on to 8xxx in spades is unlikely. Then the hearts. Then hope for squeeze or 3-3 D. Unlike Hands (1) and (4), I'm confident that this is the best line of play.

Aren't you actually giving up on the squeeze through this line? If the fourth ♦ isn't good, how do you get back to the ♣2? Doing exactly this but cashing only two rounds of clubs is a good try, though.

[PeterGill]

piratepete, on 2011-September-21, 07:41, said:

Aren't you actually giving up on the squeeze through this line? If the fourth ♦ isn't good, how do you get back to the ♣2? Doing exactly this but cashing only two rounds of clubs is a good try, though.

I cash the majors, ending up in dummy. Sorry, I thought that went without saying.