Suggestion for procedure after claiming

[ack_hh]

Hi @ll,

 

here's my suggestion concerning the never ending issue :)

 

When a player claims and does not enter any comment

about his intended line of play, opps should be enabled

to take over all hands and play as they wish.

 

This might prevent frivolous claims, or those claims

when opps still have trumps.

 

What do you think?

 

Regards

Andreas

[xx1943]

Hi Andreas,

 

you are right in real life ftf-bridge. At least as the Rules of German DBV say.

 

But online poeople were encouraged to claim to fasten the play and most players agree with this, because it is boring waiting so long.

 

The issue was discussed a few weeks ago in TD-forum:

finessing after claim once more

 

an yet before:

Finessing after a claim

 

I think all arguments are said. It is also stated that there are very different meanings and you can't get to a solution, which is pleasable for all.

 

Al

[mink]

Hi Andreas,

 

what you suggest would be really violating the laws, because opps might play the hand in a non-normal fashion.

 

I nearly never state a line of play because most times when I claim there is only one possible line of play. It is really not necessary to say something if there are 4 tricks left to play and opps are out of trump and you have 2 trumps in the dummy and 2 in the closed hand for a perfect cross-ruff. But if opps were allowed to play this as they like, for sure they would play 2 extra rounds of trump and cash the last 2 tricks.

 

Karl

[Dwayne]

Karl wrote:

 

I nearly never state a line of play because most times when I claim there is only one possible line of play. It is really not necessary to say something if there are 4 tricks left to play and opps are out of trump and you have 2 trumps in the dummy and 2 in the closed hand for a perfect cross-ruff.

 

That's all very well Karl but whenever you do so you are violating the Laws of Bridge. And I quote:

 

Law 67C

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.

 

(Yes, yes..I know what we play on BBO is not really bridge but a game similar to bridge but for all intents and purposes we need to follow some rules)

 

...Only one possible line of play? With 4 tricks left there are at least 4 lines of play. I agree fewer than the four may be sensible or normal but we've seen it all..havent we?

 

I put it to you Karl that you

nearly never state a line of play

because it just...well it's just too much damn trouble to type a lengthy line of play in that teeny box.

 

Am I right or am I right?

 

Dwaynster.

Pluto.

[mink]

Dwayne,

 

I am not going to argue at that level.

 

The law you are quoting is 68C, not 67C.

 

Karl

[EarlPurple]

You do not have to state exactly how you play each sequence.

 

If you hold in a suit Ax opposite Kx, one can assume you will be able to take 2 tricks, and you do not have to say you are going to use the ace and king on separate tricks. Give this to the opposition and yes, sure, they can crash their honours and give up a trick.

[paulhar]

IMHO, the purpose of a claim is to speed up play. One of my friends, an excellent player, doesn't consider online bridge 'real bridge' because of the unnecessary pauses that occur simply because people aren't paying attention, are looking at another website when it's their turn, etc. thus causing routine hands to take 20 percent longer to play. Shouldn't we encourage claiming (of course, not frivolous claims) whenver (1) it is correct, (2) it is clear to the players at the table, and (3) the declarer says enough to make his intent obvious? (In cases like Axx opposite KQx in notrump, I think saying NOTHING is enough. In a higher level game, merely having enough tricks to take the rest is enough, assuming you have already displayed enough competence to unblock when necessary.)

 

Andreas would bristle at some of my claims. On a hand that is going to be positively boring for all, I'll say in the claim chat 'Please refuse if the diamond king is offside' and claim the tricks for making (say) 10 tricks with the diamond finesse. In my experience, nobody has ever complained and the opponents happily concede when the diamond king is onside. If they refuse, I assume it's offside and claim 9 tricks. So far, nobody has ever gained an extra trick by refusing the claim when the card was onside. If it ever happens, I'll know enough to leave a table where an opponent uses such a sharp practice to gain a trick. I think most people are quite happy to not have to play out a boring hand. If I notice that the acceptance/rejection is taking a long time, I'll specify what tricks I am taking in the normal chat, and in what order I intend to take them if it matters.

 

Against strong opposition, I have even claimed on a double squeeze simply by pointing out the threats and who I think is guarding which threats, since defending even this hand is going to be boring to them if there is nothing they can do about being squeezed. Of course, I couldn't say all that in the little chat with the claim, so I have to say it in the normal chat. If I've had an aberation and am wrong about the threats, I happily concede the trick (assuming that I wouldn't have gotten it anyway with my line - with any ambiguity going to the opponents.) Clearly it has to be a situation where I don't have to guess the ending - it just wouldn't make sense to claim there (especially with my cards showing, the opponents can conspire to discard quite deceptively!)

 

Playing out such a hand might take 5-10 minutes as the opponents are trying to defend assuming that I don't have the cards to make the squeeze work. Simply pointing out that I have the hand to make the squeeze work saves that time and gets another hand dealt which gives them their turn to squeeze me! Much better for them.

 

I would never do this unless I thought the opponents were capable of seeing the line of play. Otherwise I run the risk of initimidating a newer player into conceding a claim he doesn't understand, and that's just plain wrong. They shouldn't concede but they might not want to look inferior. Unless I actually know the player from having played with/against them before, I won't assume anything about a player unless his chat or his own explanations of claims indicate a high level of bridge competence. Of course, I can always ask in the chat if I should claim my squeeze or play it out.

 

One could point out that having ones profile marked Expert or World Class should be sufficient - but we all know better. I'll assume that a self proclaimed Expert knows how to finesse but nothing more until I see evidence that he knows more. I

do not intend to bully someone into conceding a claim they don't understand even if they have the impudence to call themselves an Expert (in theory, someone who has had success in national events - that leaves me out!) By the way, do you think it would cause anybody to change their profile self-rating if a lot of people did claim based on plays that a national contender should be aware of? :rolleyes:

 

You can be sure that if the opponents could play my cards on a claim, I would (1) not claim without all tops, (2) play about half as many hands, and (3) scurry back to the Microsoft Gaming Zone where I'm allowed to claim!

 

I'm well aware that people can abuse the claim feature in this fashion, claiming all the tricks when they need a 3-2 break, and then finessing for a jack when refused! Once again, I think they should mention 'refuse if no 3-2 break' and concede the trick if it's not there, or play a couple of rounds first. In my experience, most players that claim on a 3-2 break just don't know any better - and I've never actually had anybody play for 4-1 after being refused. they just end up losing the trick.