respect? normal behavior?

[Gerben42]

In some situations you have to just play on and endure the needless thinking because they wouldn't understand the claim. I mean, some people will ask questions even after a claim like this one:

 

[hv=w=shatxdc&e=shkxdqc]266|100|[/hv]

Since no opponent can have 3♥ at this point you claim saying that you have 3♥ tricks and they STILL ask "well what about my ♦ Ace"? Against such opponents, do you think claiming on a squeeze is going to save time? I doubt it.

 

Besides, claiming on a squeeze is dangerous in another way. In the 2000 Olympiad in the match England - Belgium, Gunar Hallberg claimed [correctly) on a double squeeze but then they continued playing (!!!) and he went down. This caused a heated debate of course ;)

[helene_t]

But Gerben, you can supply an explanation for your claim, like "3 ♥s". Otherwise they might wonder if you thought ♦Q was a winner. In fact you should do so (to avoid the possibility that the rejection of your claim makes you think once more and discover a hole in your plan).

 

I'm a little bit hypocratic since I usually don't supply an explanation myself.

[joker_gib]

Besides, claiming on a squeeze is dangerous in another way. In the 2000 Olympiad in the match England - Belgium, Gunar Hallberg claimed [correctly) on a double squeeze but then they continued playing (!!!) and he went down. This caused a heated debate of course :)

I remember that very well as I was in the attendance !

 

This was for a place in semifinals !

 

Alain

[jillybean]

I'm a little bit hypocratic since I usually don't supply an explanation myself.

I rarely see an explanation accompanying a claim even though it is clearly required by the laws.

 

Law 68C. 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 defence through

which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

 

If there is outstanding trump in the opps hands, a finesse or drop required then the trick can be awarded to the opps. (if the trick could be lost by any normal play).

 

Perhaps most claims are made on clear lines, but certainly not all. Now the TD must make a decision based on normal play which can include careless and inferior but not irrational play. :)

 

jb

[candybar]

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"? :huh:

In the ACBL (the only place I can speak with experience about), facing your hand is a claim, no matter if you say, "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you", because that is exactly what my partner did and a National Level Tournament Director ruled it a claim.

[candybar]

I'm a little bit hypocratic since I usually don't supply an explanation myself.

I rarely see an explanation accompanying a claim even though it is clearly required by the laws.

In F2F, a claim causes play to cease and the rest of the hand is adjudicated by the TD if there is dispute. In online bridge, that is mostly impossible, so the system has become to continue play if the claim is rejected.

 

It's a little trickier if the online claimer states a line of play -- if the claim is rejected, is he required to follow his stated line? I've seen people who did not, and the TD did nothing about it. In my tournaments, I would require that the stated line of play be followed, or I would adjust accordingly, but I'm wondering if that is the best thing to do.

 

Perhaps in online bridge, no statement should be required, and if the opponents want to play it out, they can reject. That would make more sense with the way the software is set up, but it would make it safer not to state a line of play when claiming.

 

The Laws clearly state that when a claim is made play ceases and the stated line of play is the basis for the result on the hand. This may be one of those situations where the Laws are inadequate for online bridge.

[epeeist]

In some situations you have to just play on and endure the needless thinking because they wouldn't understand the claim. I mean, some people will ask questions even after a claim like this one:

 

[hv=w=shatxdc&e=shkxdqc]266|100|[/hv]

Since no opponent can have 3♥ at this point you claim saying that you have 3♥ tricks and they STILL ask "well what about my ♦ Ace"? Against such opponents, do you think claiming on a squeeze is going to save time? I doubt it.

 

Besides, claiming on a squeeze is dangerous in another way. In the 2000 Olympiad in the match England - Belgium, Gunar Hallberg claimed [correctly) on a double squeeze but then they continued playing (!!!) and he went down. This caused a heated debate of course :)

I've seen people, in situations like that which you describe, do something like lead the Q♦ to hand, overtaken by A♦, ruff low, and get overruffed by the last outstanding, higher trump like the 8 or something...their count of "3 heart tricks" included ruffing the queen of diamonds instead of just playing hearts...

 

Not skillful, sure. But it happens. Sometimes people miscount and think there's no trump out, or aren't thinking, or just got back from a party, or misclick, or [etc.].

 

So if there's enough time, unless there is a clear, unequivocal explanation of the claim that I can easily and quickly follow ("squeeze" is not necessarily clear and unequivocal; "progressive trump squeeze" might be clear and unequivocal, but I wouldn't be able to quickly follow it :huh: ) I reject.

 

In the hypothetical you present, unless time was extremely short (less than a minute) I'd reject -- with only 4 cards left, it would take less than a minute to play it out. It takes about as much time to make the claim, look at it, etc. than it would to just play the cards. I've sometimes had claims of a crossruff (after all outstanding trump drawn) rejected, no problem, I just played it out.

[jillybean]

I'm a little bit hypocratic since I usually don't supply an explanation myself.

I rarely see an explanation accompanying a claim even though it is clearly required by the laws.

In F2F, a claim causes play to cease and the rest of the hand is adjudicated by the TD if there is dispute. In online bridge, that is mostly impossible, so the system has become to continue play if the claim is rejected.

 

It's a little trickier if the online claimer states a line of play -- if the claim is rejected, is he required to follow his stated line? I've seen people who did not, and the TD did nothing about it. In my tournaments, I would require that the stated line of play be followed, or I would adjust accordingly, but I'm wondering if that is the best thing to do.

 

Perhaps in online bridge, no statement should be required, and if the opponents want to play it out, they can reject. That would make more sense with the way the software is set up, but it would make it safer not to state a line of play when claiming.

 

The Laws clearly state that when a claim is made play ceases and the stated line of play is the basis for the result on the hand. This may be one of those situations where the Laws are inadequate for online bridge.

Why change the rules if they cannot be enforced online, perhaps it would be better to disallow claims in tournaments.

 

An online claim can also create a situation where UI is passed. A claim is rejected and one partner types ?????? meanwhile his partner is holding an oustanding trump or other crucial card.

 

Similar to the dummy seeing the finesse working at trick 6 and typing wdp.