[frank0]

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?

---

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?

---

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

---

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?

---

[the hog]

Claim 1 and 2 always, claim 3 against decent opps. Claim 4 by stating that I unblock the Cs

[mfa1010]

1&2: Claim early.
3: I never claim on a squeeze in serious bridge. Squeezes involve counting pips and this could go wrong. It is not like I expect to miscount a lot but the opponents are entitled to see declarer handling it through imo. If a squeezed opponent tanks in the end position I would usually interrupt though, but at that point it is easy to state/indicate something like: If you pitch the club I'll cash my ♣2, if not I will play ♦ from top.
4: Claim, stating the unblock. Any decent player would know that this statement is required here because of the obvious pitfall. This layout could potentially be a director call if an opponent fail to state the unblock. But in general I'm pretty large with the opponents' claims.

[manudude03]

I'd claim on 1,2 and 4. You don't even need to specify to unblock on 4. There's only 2 cards missing so you can play the 6 to the AK, then low to the T and then run the rest overtaking the 9. I have a personal rule not to think the claimer is a moron.

[mgoetze]

I pretty much always claim when the rest I want to take is in top tricks, even if that's not all the tricks, or when I just need to drive out one high card and my hand is then high. Anything else depends on the quality of the opposition.

One time I was playing a large international team tournament. I was in an 11-card fit missing the 5 and the 3. The opponents took 2 tricks, and then LHO went into the tank. I took pity on him and showed my hand, not bothering to say anything because I considered everything obvious, including the fact that I wouldn't be ruffing with the 2 or 4 if they played the 3rd round of their suit. LHO said "Just a moment" and started scrutinizing my cards, at which point I immediately stated a line of play (starting with "I ruff high" or something like that). He insisted on calling the TD anyway...

[billw55]

In my own experience, so many players fuss over claims (perfectly good ones) that I have developed the habit of only claiming when it is logically impossible to lose another trick by any play whatsoever. Then when they fuss, I just leave my cards spread on the table while they work it out. Even then many of them say "let's play it out." While I know that is not correct, I let it go since it is faster than a director call and gets the same result. Sometimes I even let them play all four hands.

Of course this depends on the opponents to an extent. If I am confident my opponents are claim-competent, I may claim earlier and more often. But I do lean to the conservative side and have been chastised a couple of times by good players for not claiming.

[mfa1010]

manudude03, on 2011-August-19, 06:06, said:

I have a personal rule not to think the claimer is a moron.

Good rule.

[mfa1010]

manudude03, on 2011-August-19, 06:06, said:

You don't even need to specify to unblock on 4. There's only 2 cards missing so you can play the 6 to the AK, then low to the T and then run the rest overtaking the 9.

You are right of course. Didn't realise we had so many clubs. We don't need to make any statement about unblocking in 4.

[ArtK78]

For what it is worth, here is Law 74B4 in the Proprieties:

LAW 74 CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE

B. Etiquette

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

So, a player is under an obligation to claim when he knows with a certainty that some specific number of tricks are his and some specific number of tricks belong to the opponents.

Technically, a player is under an obligation to claim if playing on would be solely for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. But it can be argued that any unnecessary prolongation of play would be for that purpose.

As a practical matter, if you are playing against unexperienced opponents, it may be more expedient to continue to play rather than claim and try to explain how you are going to take the tricks that you are claiming. That is a judgment call.

[Free]

I'd claim on 1 and 2, I'd play out the 3rd hand.

Note: you played the 2nd hand wrong: you should take the lead in your hand, not with ♠T, to handle a 3-0 split.

[Bbradley62]

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

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

This might depend of what level tournament you are playing. Everyone who has responded so far is a high-level player who probably mostly plays against other high-level players in tournaments. If you are playing in a lower-level tournament, you should take this into account.

ArtK78, on 2011-August-19, 08:09, said:

As a practical matter, if you are playing against unexperienced opponents, it may be more expedient to continue to play rather than claim and try to explain how you are going to take the tricks that you are claiming. That is a judgment call.

I agree that playing against inexperienced opponents there are times when it is not right to claim, but there are also times when you simply should make a more complete (by-the-book) claim. OP's Hand 2 is a good example of this. Against inexperienced opponents, you might claim at Trick 6 by facing your hand and explaining that you're going to play a low ♠ to the 5♠ on Trick 6, ruff out opp's last ♣ on Trick 7, play low to ♦A on Trick 8, cash fifth ♣ discarding ♦2 on Trick 9, and then everything is good. Depending on the opps, you may or may not physically remove cards from your hand as you play them in your explanation. This should be faster than playing out the hand, is compliant with the rules and etiquette of the game, and it helps inexperienced opps get used to the concept of claims.

[Phil]

1. Is a normal claim. Against really good opponents I would just hold out my hand. Against club players I would say I'm ruffing a club and they get a heart and a diamond.

2. Against good opponents, I'll say "ruff the clubs out" and expect quick agreement. Against weaker players, I'll ruff out the clubs, because it will take longer to explain the claim than it will to play the hand.

3. I will always play the hand out. Who knows, maybe they have a guess about which suit to abandon.

4. I don't understand the claim problem on this hand. Only someone that has played bridge less than a day would lock themselves in their hand. To play hands like this out is insulting and annoying.

[ggwhiz]

Depending on my opponents I try to make the cards good ie. ruffing that 5th club good before claiming.

Just in case I try to sort my hand in the order my cards will be played before fanning it face up. Usually any possible dispute is solved quickly or the Director can follow the line of play.

[frank0]

Free, on 2011-August-19, 08:37, said:

I'd claim on 1 and 2, I'd play out the 3rd hand.

Note: you played the 2nd hand wrong: you should take the lead in your hand, not with ♠T, to handle a 3-0 split.

Thanks for pointing that out. I just fixed it.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2011-August-19, 08:09, said:

For what it is worth, here is Law 74B4 in the Proprieties:

LAW 74 CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE

B. Etiquette

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

So, a player is under an obligation to claim when he knows with a certainty that some specific number of tricks are his and some specific number of tricks belong to the opponents.

Technically, a player is under an obligation to claim if playing on would be solely for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. But it can be argued that any unnecessary prolongation of play would be for that purpose.

As a practical matter, if you are playing against unexperienced opponents, it may be more expedient to continue to play rather than claim and try to explain how you are going to take the tricks that you are claiming. That is a judgment call.

But some weaker opponents get disconcerted by claims that they don't understand. Early claims tend to confuse them, and they feel intimidated. And because they'll have trouble understanding the claim and start asking questions, and then you'll have to call the TD, it probably won't save time.

So you have to tailor your actions to the situation. None of these claims would be a problem in a flight B or A tournament, but playing against novices in a club game it's often best to wait until you're claiming top tricks.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2011-August-19, 08:09, said:

But it can be argued that any unnecessary prolongation of play would be for that purpose.

You can argue it. I don't buy it.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-19, 16:21, said:

You can argue it. I don't buy it.

The key term is "unnecessary." If a player prolongs play unnecessarily, one has to determine why he did so. It cannot be because he did not realize he had a claim, because that would not be an "unnecessary" prolongation of play. So, why would one "unnecessarily" prolong play if not to disconcert an opponent?

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2011-August-20, 11:55, said:

So, why would one "unnecessarily" prolong play if not to disconcert an opponent?

In order not to fall foul of the claim laws. Also, in my case, I am an Englishman playing in Germany and thus it is usually confusing for my opps when i claim. The times I have tried to claim early have simply ended in a Director call and thus taken longer than simply playing the cards out. Online I tend to claim more often.

[rduran1216]

I rarely play a contract to 13 tricks. I wouldn't claim on the 7S until id set up the 5th club, and wouldn't claim on 7NT at all. But I almost always claim unless there's work to be done.

[nige1]

You should claim as soon as the play is effectively over. It is unfair to subject opponents to pointless brain-strain. Nevertheless IMO, it is quite fair...

• To play a hand out, hoping for a defensive error. Bridge is a game of mistakes -- I make many and expert defenders make some.
• To claim (with an adequate explanation) just to avoid making a later careless mistake, yourself.

Frank0's examples...

1. 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?

Don't claim. Draw trumps. Concede ♦A. Run ♦. Ruff a ♣. ♥A. Cash last trump.

---

2. You are in 7S . They lead a trump and you win in your hand, cash CA ruff a C with high trump, spade to 9 and ruff a C with another high trump. C are 4-3?

Claim.

---

3. You are in 7NT. You can claim at trick 1 and state the possible E/W distributions that let you make? If you are director and E, who has 44 in minors doesn't understand South's claim what' ll you do?
a.Claim only when success is guaranteed.
b. IMO, TD should allow and try to explain the claim.

---

4. Your opp plays 3N. After a spade lead south claims 10 tricks at trick one without saying how to play C?
a. Claim only when no possibility of extra overtricks (Duck at trick one).
b. IMO the director should allow the 10 trick claim.

---