Declarer statement.

[matmat]

You are declaring 3NT. 2 tricks or so have been played to, and you are certain you are making, but there might be some overtricks to be gained.

 

is it appropriate to make the statement: "I'm taking at least 9 tricks, just so you know"

[jjbrr]

Only in a long team match and only if I know the opponents and if the score is not close.

 

If the score is REALLY not close, I might not need to know the opponents, but only if I judge them not to take offense.

[aguahombre]

I can't imagine anything to be gained by such a statement. It can easily be taken as patronizing in a blowout match. In a close one, it is against interest.

[Phil]

No secret, but early in a match, I will say this IF my contract is secure. I also don't mind when an opponent says this.

 

The damage isn't from overtricks; its from the mind game when declarer doesn't make this statement next time. Is the contract in jeopardy? Are overtricks again at stake?

 

So, use this statement in moderation. When you aren't trying for tricks and you get finished way before your teammates, best to stay in there and grind a little more.

 

Footnote: A few years ago in a big KO, Declarer was playing 2♥ after opening 1N and a transfer sequence. I went into the start of what looked to be a five minute tank. Declarer looked at me and said: "Dummy has an 8 count, do you really think you are beating this?" :blink:

[rogerclee]

Without saying anything about what one should or shouldn't do, in a long KO match (especially where I am playing 4-handed) I think it would be fairly advantageous to me to know when the contract I'm defending is 100% to make on any layout or not. I am one of those people who can only think so much per day of bridge.

[mikeh]

I will say it against friends if time is an issue and if the match result is not in doubt.

 

But I think that it is generally wrong to say this.

 

Bridge is adversarial, and we have teammates as well as a partner, and we are responsible to them as well. Making the opps grind every defence wears them down. Letting them relax on any hand is counter to your interests.

 

Also, we all know that we sometimes leak overtricks trying to set a contract. So telling them that they can't set the contract means they will focus on holding you, and they will also gain valuable clues as to your holdings, such that holding you will be easier. Have you never lost a match by one or two imps?

 

Finally, and not much of a factor, if you develop the habit of making this kind of announcement, you are signalling that the contract is NOT cold when you fail to make the announcement.

[ArtK78]

I have never heard of anyone making such a statement, and I cannot imagine why one would want to do so.

 

Suppose, declaring 3NT, you stated that you were 100% certain of making 9 tricks but that you were playing for overtricks. And then it turns out that the opponents could actually beat you. Would the opponents have redress?

 

Suppose you make such a statement on several boards in a long match, and then, late in the match, you are declaring 3NT and you do not make such a statement. Are the opponents entitled to draw an inference that you can be beaten? Suppose you are a claim for 9 tricks on this hand as well. Are they entitled to redress because you did not let them know?

 

You will be much better off if you don't make any statements about whether or not you are going to make the hand.

[jdonn]

It's fine against certain people. More common is to tell the opponents when they are on lead, not when you are on lead.

[jjbrr]

I can't imagine anything to be gained by such a statement.  It can easily be taken as patronizing in a blowout match.  In a close one, it is against interest.

Not sitting at the table for an extra 5-10 minutes while my opponent tanks to choose between many losing options and no winning options is a gain to me.

[gnasher]

Suppose, declaring 3NT, you stated that you were 100% certain of making 9 tricks but that you were playing for overtricks.  And then it turns out that the opponents could actually beat you.  Would the opponents have redress?

Yes, it's explicitly stated in the Laws that in such circumstances they're entitled to redress.

 

Suppose you make such a statement on several boards in a long match, and then, late in the match, you are declaring 3NT and you do not make such a statement. Are the opponents entitled to draw an inference that you can be beaten? Suppose you are a claim for 9 tricks on this hand as well. Are they entitled to redress because you did not let them know?

No. The Laws make no provision for being misled by the absence of such a remark. And nor should they.

[gnasher]

I can't imagine anything to be gained by such a statement.  It can easily be taken as patronizing in a blowout match.  In a close one, it is against interest.

Not sitting at the table for an extra 5-10 minutes while my opponent tanks to choose between many losing options and no winning options is a gain to me.

Me too. Or, more common in my case, having five minutes extra to spend on some other board.

[peachy]

If you are late in a match, claim the number of tricks you think you are taking. If you don't want to claim, say nothing. I think it would be patronizing or could be perceived as such; moreover, it is just BARELY possible declarer is mistaken or suffered an oversight and there IS a way to set afterall. Best to say nothing, or else claim.

[whereagles]

Technically it's fine to do it unless it might induce opps into a misplay.

 

Ethically it depends on the situation.

[Pict]

I believe a claim ends the play.

 

Hilarious idea that you could claim 'at least n tricks' with no fascinating accompanying analysis.

 

You are almost certain to achieve your minimum.

[blackshoe]

Agree completely with Peachy. :)

[vang]

show your hand and state your line. something like "i take 9 tricks then finnese that and make 9 or 10 tricks". otherwise, i consider "i make at least 9 tricks" useless.

[ggwhiz]

show your hand and state your line

 

Agree completely.

 

Zia is the master of the claim, ie. I'll do this and that and you are squeezed or not for x or y tricks.

 

The statement as posted is indeed condescending, unless made to personal friends or unless you can back it up with facing your cards and stating a line of play.

 

Not being Zia, I've done this every 10 years or so and only when the opponents are also casual partners with a sense of humour should I be wrong.

[jjbrr]

The difference between this and Zia is Zia's opps can see that he is right when he claims squeezes. For many of us, claiming on a squeeze when our contract is guaranteed for the overtricks would take longer and cause more frustration than simply saying "I have plenty of tricks."

 

I think it's pretty poor form to wait for LHO to agonize forever about a play so that you can, say, pseudo-squeeze him for 12 tricks rather than 11 in a 10-trick contract.

 

But, as usual, one man's trying to help is another man's patronizing or condescending.

[Hanoi5]

I wouldn't say it; in fact, I can't see how it would help me, or even them (or why I would want to help them).

 

Once I was fed up with a defender being slow and told her that her only possibility was playing something so that her partner ruffed and... I went down.

[nige1]

I can't imagine anything to be gained by such a statement.  It can easily be taken as patronizing in a blowout match.  In a close one, it is against interest.

Not sitting at the table for an extra 5-10 minutes while my opponent tanks to choose between many losing options and no winning options is a gain to me.

Agree with jjbrr as long as you're sure you can't be defeated.

[rogerclee]

I would be very happy if declarer made such a statement like that and it turns out we could beat him. I think it is likely I could get an adjusted score, no matter if I would have found the surrounding play to squeeze dummy or not. (I could be wrong about this.)

[ggwhiz]

The difference between this and Zia is Zia's opps can see that he is right when he claims squeezes. For many of us, claiming on a squeeze when our contract is guaranteed for the overtricks would take longer and cause more frustration than simply saying "I have plenty of tricks."

 

This is absolutely correct and also the reason the rest of us should shy away from doing it or simply saying "I have plenty of tricks". If the opponents tank is about to become that painfull, they are very rare exceptions that even I might be able to state a line of play for.

 

If you can't state that line, button up and suffer. Is it not under the laws conceivable that "I have plenty of tricks" is considered to be a statement of claim?

 

ps. I've also told lho that I've got the rest unless your partner can ruff a ♦ aFter which they did exactly that but it only cost an overtrick.

[gnasher]

Obviously if you know what your line of play is going to be and can explain it in reasonable time, you should claim. Apart from anything else, not to claim when you can is "needlessly prolonging play", which is against the rules. I often claim a variable number of tricks depending upon whether a finesse or a squeeze will work.

 

If declarer is unable to do that (presumably because he hasn't decided upon a line of play, or the line involves so many branches that it will be quicker to play it out), I don't have any problem with his saying the equivalent of "I'm only playing for overtricks." That leaves me better placed than I was before: I now have information that I didn't have before, and I can make my own decision about how much time and energy I'm going to expend on trying to prevent these overtricks.

[barmar]

The only time I'm tempted to say something like this is when an opponent is struggling trying to find a discard, and I want to let him know that his hand is irrelevant. I may not be able to claim, because his partner may have options that affect how many tricks I take.

[the hog]

You are declaring 3NT. 2 tricks or so have been played to, and you are certain you are making, but there might be some overtricks to be gained.

 

is it appropriate to make the statement: "I'm taking at least 9 tricks, just so you know"

Just wondering why you would do this. Make the opps use their brainpower; if they get tired, it may help you on subsequent hands.