Claim rules

[AlexJonson]

I'm not sure that you'd be breaking any law but you'd need to be careful. I'm not a director so I had to look this up :) I suppose this is another unenforceable law that hinges on subjective interpretation and mind-reading. :(

 

Nigel

 

There is no possibility that you, Bluejak or anyone else, could sanction a captain or a player for recommending/taking the time they need to make correct claims. I doubt that you would even want to try.

 

I don't mind dburn's view (if I have understood it) that players should get the tricks they accurately claim for and lose any others.

But I don't believe I've seen him say that it will speed up the game.

 

I don't (much) mind your procedural approach, but I do mind you trying to sell it as 'speeding up the game'.

 

I will follow whatever the claim laws are, and I don't much care what they are, but I'd rather not hear accurate claiming confused with saving time.

 

And I'd rather not hear good Laws about confusing or tiring people by playing very quickly or very slowly, mixed up with the different issue of claiming.

[bluejak]

Current claim law fails to achieve any of the goals listed above. For example, they deter players (including posters in this forum) from claiming.

This is just untrue. It is completely fabricated. Players do not know the claim Laws and not one in 1000 makes a decision whether to claim because of the Laws. While I disagree with much of what you write I have never that I can remember seen such total wrong comments written by you.

 

Hence directors rarely have to rule on disputed claims. But even the most basic and simple cases that are discussed in on-line fora, seem to cause endless controversy. The views expressed are often split down the middle, both in interpreting current-claim law and in applying it to those basic cases.

The reason for this is simple: the 99% of contested claims that do not cause controversy are not interesting enough for these forums.

 

When different directors rule differently on identical agreed facts, then players regard it as unfair, especially those on the losing side of a disputed claim.

Since this does not happen, how can you say it? Different TDs rule differently because the facts are different from case to case.

[nige1]

Current claim law fails to achieve any of the goals listed above. For example, they deter players (including posters in this forum) from claiming.

This is just untrue. It is completely fabricated. Players do not know the claim Laws and not one in 1000 makes a decision whether to claim because of the Laws. While I disagree with much of what you write I have never that I can remember seen such total wrong comments written by you.

When a claim is rejected, the claimer's mistake is usually so obvious that the players often agree an equitable result among themselves at the table. Most players are dimly aware that this is illegal. Presumably, they do it, rather than endure the hassle and waste of time involved in a director-ruling on a disputed claim. .Hence directors rarely have to rule on disputed claims. But even the most basic and simple cases that are discussed in on-line fora, seem to cause endless controversy. The views expressed are often split down the middle, both in interpreting current-claim law and in applying it to those basic cases

The reason for this is simple: the 99% of contested claims that do not cause controversy are not interesting enough for these forums.

When different directors rule differently on identical agreed facts, then players regard it as unfair, especially those on the losing side of a disputed claim.

Since this does not happen, how can you say it? Different TDs rule differently because the facts are different from case to case.

There are conflicting rulings by directors on the simpler cases of disputed claims with agreed facts, discussed in these fora. For the rest, rather than be accused of ascribing views to posters that they don't hold, I'll simply quote their posts without comment:

Nige1 Let's look at the human aspect. I might argue that talk about ethics implies the human aspect. Your opponent makes a faulty claim, 7NT is always simplest. You 'know' the claim is faulty, and requires a finesse to make, and that if you asked the player to play on, they would make the contract, for sure.

You know that you(?), dburn(?), Jeremy(?), various others would say 'tough luck, one off'. Maybe dburn would find a way of making it seven off.

Nige1, if you are in the 'tough luck' camp, your other objectives are out of the window. Because, as a team captain, I will say to my players 'never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'.

FWIW, From past experience, I've learn't not to claim unless I have all the remaining tricks irrespective of the order in which they are played. And this is something I sometimes advice my partners to do. Not all claims save time, a disputed claim results in more time and mental energy being spent. So by not claiming until it is overwhelmingly obvious, you may be doing yourself and the opponents a favor.

[blackshoe]

Cherry pick your evidence, Nigel, and you can prove anything.

[nige1]

Cherry pick your evidence, Nigel, and you can prove anything.

The posts are from this topic. I quoted them in full.

[barmar]

FWIW, From past experience, I've learn't not to claim unless I have all the remaining tricks irrespective of the order in which they are played.

So you never claim on a cross-ruff? I estimate that about 1/3 of claims involve cross-ruffing.

[mycroft]

I will admit that in that case, I tend to say "X, Y, and Z, and cross-ruff". But I tend to make more claim statements than usual (something about the way I follow the laws even if they're dumb - see left).

[nige1]

I will admit that in that case, I tend to say "X, Y, and Z, and cross-ruff". But I tend to make more claim statements than usual (something about the way I follow the laws even if they're dumb - see left).

Customs may depend on jurisdiction. In Scotland, it is usual to apologise, if you make the mistake of delaying claiming when you can be sure of the rest of the tricks.

[blackshoe]

I once had a (very good) opponent ask me why I didn't claim on trick nine. I replied "because I didn't see it until trick 12". I didn't apologize for not being as good as he was. :ph34r:

[mycroft]

I don't really understand your last Nigel - but my point includes "claims" != "claim statements", L68C notwithstanding.