respect? normal behavior?

[Brandal]

Asking partner about a convention is never innocent, it will effect your action and the score. Asking the opponents who has the club king will not affect the score at all, it just speeds up the game. Even though the rules might treat these actions similarly, one of them is much more in the spirit of the game than the other.

Online,noone has ever asked me or my partners

who holds a king,noone has ever asked if they can

claim,they just play or claim,and in my opinion that

is the spirit of the game.

 

I have my doubts if asking me if I have this king or

that king will speed up the game....

 

I would be reluctant to answer,and definitely dislike

the question

 

:lol:

[Gerardo]

Certainly either f2f or online, a claim must follow IMMEDIATELY after the answer to "Which defender hold this card?"

[rigour6]

I have found that it's best not to claim unless and until it's obvious you're all winners (or all winners but one). The reason is time. It takes many opps longer to figure out long claims than it does to play them.

 

By sticking with my guidelines (only claim when it's obviously all winners or all less one) I still find about 20% of my claims get rejected. That dissuades me from claiming in more complicated cases. That, and the fact that I myself am unaware that I might claim in such cases.

[mycroft]

I think I am agreeing with the tenor of this thread; I would have taken "can I claim on a squeeze?" as "If I claim on the squeeze, is it actually going to save any time, or are you going to be uncomfortable trying to resolve it?", not "is the squeeze going to work?" or whatever. I would take "please play" as anything from "I can't be bothered to work it out" to "I don't understand what you just said" to "no, it isn't going to work" - although I'd expect a "not on" response instead to that one - to "I've got a high trump here that you've obviously forgotten about, this is going to be fun".

 

After all, there are bridge players out there who can't see a squeeze if they have just played one - the "I just played out my winners and oh my, the heart was good. Why didn't they keep the heart winner?" type.

 

If I'm playing against Juniors D and S, I will do the "SK with the long diamond?" and claim the appropriate after the answer. If I'm playing anybody I've seen talking to them or their table, I'll do the same thing. If I'm in a tournament, the cards go down until I see if it works or not.

 

I've asked "where's the DK?" before to shocked surprise that I would deign to ask (and 6 sure tricks later, I find out); I've had kibitzers be shocked by a similar question, in a game where we all knew what I was asking; I've had times when the answer was a quick "offside" and a claim.

 

Maybe I just assume less nasty of my opponents than I should.

 

Michael.

[mycroft]

By sticking with my guidelines (only claim when it's obviously all winners or all less one) I still find about 20% of my claims get rejected. That dissuades me from claiming in more complicated cases. That, and the fact that I myself am unaware that I might claim in such cases.

My standard unspoken rule on these - online - is "okay, I'll play it out, you claim when you get it."

 

Side note: I hate "reclaim". There's a nice button on the bottom of their screens as well - they can claim when they know what's going on. I'll do it, but I'm always silently asking "why don't you, then?" Especially when "reclaim"er's partner rejects the reclaim...

 

Michael.

[rigour6]

Another thing I have done occasionally (more often in ftf) is when I see a newer player sweating over a discard and I was about to claim anyway I say to them, "Don't worry about what to keep, at this point it doesn't matter."

 

This is the kind of sentence I want to be awfully sure about before I say, however.

[G_R__E_G]

I've found that f2f even though I wait until it's painfully obvious the ops still often have trouble. I've just taken to facing my hand and continuing to play until they surrender. I wish they would add that option on BBO, for declarer to face their hand without claiming.

[inquiry]

I've found that f2f even though I wait until it's painfully obvious the ops still often have trouble.  I've just taken to facing my hand and continuing to play until they surrender.  I wish they would add that option on BBO, for declarer to face their hand without claiming.

Isn't this what we do on BBO. You claim, they can see your cards, they either accept or not... if not, you play on... At some point, they will etiher give, or not.

 

BTW I was playing last night and dummy was good except for the a losing ♣. PArtner had denied intrest in clubs at a time where he would not have done so with the ACE.... So I told declarer to go ahead and claim with the ♣ACE... .Eight tricks later, with just an ace remaining (last trick) he claimed.

 

I should have claimed ZERO.... Sigh.

[han]

Perhaps I should have conceeded after you made that comment. Watching those last 8 tricks go by was painful.

 

 

[edit by Hannie]

[G_R__E_G]

Isn't this what we do on BBO. You claim, they can see your cards, they either accept or not... if not, you play on... At some point, they will etiher give, or not.

 

I know it's virtually the same thing, but sometimes it's more "comfortable" to just show your cards. For example, you don't know your opponents skill level but you know what the outcome of the hand will be. Rather than force them to decide whether to accept your claim or not, you show your hand and at least if they don't surrender it helps them decide on their discards quicker.

[Guest Jlall]

sometimes I claim and then reject (myself) so that they can see my hand and claim the appropriate amount.

[G_R__E_G]

sometimes I claim and then reject (myself) so that they can see my hand and claim the appropriate amount.

 

That works too. However, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the ops don't know who rejected the claim. So if they are pick-up partners it might give them the wrong impression of their partner's abilities.

[jillybean]

All very confusing and maybe quicker to play the hand out :D

[han]

sometimes I claim and then reject (myself) so that they can see my hand and claim the appropriate amount.

Ah, I've seen you do that and thought that you were just miscounting. I should have known better I guess.

[candybar]

I've found that f2f even though I wait until it's painfully obvious the ops still often have trouble. I've just taken to facing my hand and continuing to play until they surrender. I wish they would add that option on BBO, for declarer to face their hand without claiming.

Deliberately facing your hand constitutes a claim.

[Finch]

Another thing I have done occasionally (more often in ftf) is when I see a newer player sweating over a discard and I was about to claim anyway I say to them, "Don't worry about what to keep, at this point it doesn't matter."

 

This is the kind of sentence I want to be awfully sure about before I say, however.

I really hate it when people say that. My immediate response is always to say (with varying degrees of politeness depending on their standard) "well, claim then".

 

I only play f2f so online might be different, but unless I'm playing a (near)-beginner, I feel that if my opponent isn't claiming, it's because it matters what I play (or my partner plays) and therefore there is something to think about. If it doesn't matter what I play, they should claim accordingly.

[rigour6]

Well, there just goes to show there's 2 sides to every story. Here I thought I was doing folks a favour, and turns out they're offended.

 

You have to remember, my goal is to smooth and speed play. If the claim I make is just going to confuse them more, I've done neither.

[han]

How about this one:

 

"Better give your partner a ruff because otherwise I'm going to claim"

 

Using the 10-th grader approach this should be forbidden, but I like it (of course, only use this if it is VERY unlikely that there actually is a ruff).

[mycroft]

candybar: "A contestant also claims ... when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." The exception is important. I think there are those who are saying "I claim, but you're going to gripe; concede when you want" - which they technically shouldn't do, but sometimes it's the only way that works; but "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you my cards so you can defend better" is different. It is, however, a borderline I wouldn't really want to rule on; the only reason these people *aren't* claiming is that they've had too many "stupid" rulings from following the rules (be it malformed claims ruled against or opponents asking to "play it out" or whatever).

 

rigour: "Don't worry about what you pitch" gets an immediate response of "show me then" from me. If you are saying "it doesn't matter", then you should be able to explain why to me. Again, I know there are those who want to play 13 tricks because they've paid to play, not to claim; I don't know what to do about those except say "I have 5 clubs and 4 diamonds".

 

On the off chance that you've got a "you're irrelevant, as your partner is squeezed" setup; maybe my defence is better than your squeeze play. Pardon me while I think about it?

 

Yes, I know it's well-meaning; but it sounds like "I'm smarter than you; I can see the claim but you can't".

 

Michael.

[barmar]

rigour: "Don't worry about what you pitch" gets an immediate response of "show me then" from me.

Often it's simply the fact that he's our of the suit that provides the distribution information you need in order to claim. You can tell that he's probably looking for a pitch, but you can't *really* claim until you see him discard for sure.

[helene_t]

Deliberately facing your hand constitutes a claim.

Interesting. There was an incident (final of the Dutch teams championship I think) a couple of years ago:

 

A player desperately needed to go to the gents room so after bidding the final contract he laid down his cards as dummy (he thought his partner was to declare) and left, without waiting for the opening lead. When he came back, the TD had arrived and told him that he was declarer so he had to play. No problem, the declarer is allowed to show his hand. He picked up the cards, played and made the contract. At the other table, the declarer (in the same contract) went down without showing his hand to the opps.

 

Btw: "Facing" is apparently an ambiguous word in English. Learned something new today ;)

[candybar]

Law 68A. 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).

 

I think your case, Helene, would not qualify as a claim. My word 'deliberate' should not be construed as 'mistaken' facing of the cards. Perhaps I should have said it more carefully, sorry.

 

However, "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you my cards so you can defend better" is different. That would clearly constitute a claim, and in fact it was so ruled at the US Nationals this summer when my partner did exactly that.

 

PS. From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.

Face .... 6. Games To turn (a playing card) so that the face is up.

[david_c]

However, "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you my cards so you can defend better" is different.  That would clearly constitute a claim, and in fact it was so ruled at the US Nationals this summer when my partner did exactly that.

I don't get it - if someone says "I'm not claiming", then surely this satisfies the condition "he demonstrably did not intend to claim"? ;)

[helene_t]

Thanks for clarifying, Candybar.

 

Wow, at least six different meanings of "to face". That's a comprehensive dictionary ;)

[Finch]

Well, there just goes to show there's 2 sides to every story. Here I thought I was doing folks a favour, and turns out they're offended.

 

You have to remember, my goal is to smooth and speed play. If the claim I make is just going to confuse them more, I've done neither.

I'm not offended, I just find it irritating, for much the same reasons as mycroft.

 

Offensive would be to say: "It doesn't matter what you play, but I'm not going to bother claiming because you wouldn't understand it"