Claim

[mycroft]

Well, for one, I won't accept a claim unless declarer shows his hand.

 

Yes, I'm a bit anal-retentive, but it wouldn't be the first time someone's tried to hide a revoke at my table by playing all the winners out of hand and claiming dummy high - or claiming dummy high with no way to get there.

 

But by and large, it's just Good Manners, and not doing so slows the claim. I do realise that showing my hand frequently causes opponents to wonder why they aren't getting a heart, where just looking at dummy without the distraction of my hand would make it clear, but not for long, usually.

[Foxx]

My claiming habits are normal, except for one thing. I never claim when there is a trump out (unless, of course, it's a master trump, which is trivially conceded). NEVER. To explain why, let me tell you about a rubber bridge game I once played in, in Colorado.

 

I was in a vulnerable slam, and claimed with a trump out. According to the rules in place, such a claim was invalid, and a defender claimed a ruff. I argued in vain, and eventually had to concede the one-trick set, at gunpoint.

 

While this rule isn't enforced at your garden-variety duplicate club, I always play as if it is in effect.

[nige1]

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

Why? I can't think of any Law which requires this. Law 68C [is as above]. In his example Fluffy is explaining his proposed line of play sufficiently, is he not?

Technically, the only time claimer is required to show his cards is when the TD says so. OTOH, showing your hand certainly makes it easier for the putzes on your left and right to see what's going on. :P

Well, for one, I won't accept a claim unless declarer shows his hand. Yes, I'm a bit anal-retentive, but it wouldn't be the first time someone's tried to hide a revoke at my table by playing all the winners out of hand and claiming dummy high - or claiming dummy high with no way to get there. But by and large, it's just Good Manners, and not doing so slows the claim. I do realise that showing my hand frequently causes opponents to wonder why they aren't getting a heart, where just looking at dummy without the distraction of my hand would make it clear, but not for long, usually.

I agree with mycroft if I've understood him correctly. Intentionally concealing a revoke by claiming is probably against the law but few understand the law and judging intention is a subjective matter.

 

What does the law mean by a clear statement. IMO it should mean clear to the claimer's opponents.

 

A claimer need not go into tedious detail provided opponents understand his claim. But to those, like me, with little imagination, it won't be clear what cards the claimer intends to play, or the order in which he intends to play them, unless the claimer shows his hand. Waving it around for a second or two, won't suffice. I like to see the hand static, spread-out, face-up on the table.

 

Jallerton believes that declarer is within his rights to refuse to show his hand. Nevertheless, I suppose, as a last resort, I can legitimately dispute the claim. I can tell the director that the claim is unclear to me until I've seen claimer's hand. If that does not work, I can explain that I suspect a possible revoke.

[mgoetze]

While this rule isn't enforced at your garden-variety duplicate club, I always play as if it is in effect.

 

Um, this rule is not "not enforced" at a duplicate club, it simply doesn't exist there. I would hope that any place calling itself a "duplicate bridge club" adheres to the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge".

[jallerton]

My claiming habits are normal, except for one thing. I never claim when there is a trump out (unless, of course, it's a master trump, which is trivially conceded). NEVER. To explain why, let me tell you about a rubber bridge game I once played in, in Colorado.

 

I was in a vulnerable slam, and claimed with a trump out. According to the rules in place, such a claim was invalid, and a defender claimed a ruff. I argued in vain, and eventually had to concede the one-trick set, at gunpoint.

 

While this rule isn't enforced at your garden-variety duplicate club, I always play as if it is in effect.

 

I frequently claim when there are trumps out, but I address the problem you mention by making a claim statement starting with "drawing trumps".

 

Suppose you are in 7♠ in a solid 6-3 trump fit with 7 certain outside winners. Trumps are 4-0 and LHO thinks for a while about what to discard on each trick. Do you really waste everybody's time and LHO's mental energy by playing the hand out until RHO has played all four of his small trumps?

[iviehoff]

Um, this rule is not "not enforced" at a duplicate club, it simply doesn't exist there. I would hope that any place calling itself a "duplicate bridge club" adheres to the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge".

But there is a rule of Duplicate Bridge (L70C) that reads:

 

When a trump remains in one of the opponents’ hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if:

1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and

2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and

3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play.

 

So while you can claim in duplicate bridge with a trump out, if you fail to mention it, you may well be ruled against on the assumption you were unaware about it and your line of play would be careless. (...“normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.)

 

I think if there was a claim on hand 4, and the player couldn't be bothered to say "unblocking", and the opponents did not accede to it, a TD would not be wrong to rule that blocking the suit was merely "careless". The TD has discretion here, he can also rule the other way.

 

Personally, in claiming, I always explain anything that may matter:

I don't always draw trumps, but in such cases I always say "drawing trumps in at most X rounds", in order to make it clear I know precisely how many trumps remain and will draw them

I don't always establish what is the exact break in a critical suit, but I always play far enough to ensure that I can establish it, and would usually play on if the line of play depended on the break, unless very obvious.

If a card has to be ruffed out, I say so

If a suit has to be unblocked, I say so

If I will make tricks by ruffing, I say so

If there is any back and forth in the order of play to avoid blocking yourself in the wrong hand, I say so

If the claim statement would be long, I play enough to make it reasonably short.

 

Nevertheless I sometimes make wrong claim, because I have forgotten something about the remaining cards. The usual problem is that I make a successful finesse, and then forget that the card is still outstanding in the defender's hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Claim 1-2, play 3. 4 has been covered, if the club fit is AKQ7xx opposite 1098x I only say something if clubs are 3-0 offside, and then only if I think opps aren't good enough to get it right automatically.

 

I found out in odd fashion that the most solid looking claims can and should be disputed. Declarer (my partner) played 6 tricks of a 3N contract and claimed the rest. Dummy was manifestly high, opps kind of disputed it, director told him to play on (facepalm), he played another 2 tricks and claimed again which opps conceded. We thought no more about it. In the car afterwards, we reconstructed the hand and thought "How the hell did we make that". At this point it became clear, earlier in the play, there was a lot of noise associated with a director call at another table, and I must have accidentally played 2 cards to a previous trick, so dummy was indeed high as it was a loser short.

 

When declarer claims with dummy's winners, check how many cards you and dummy hold :)

[gordontd]

Dummy was manifestly high, opps kind of disputed it, director told him to play on (facepalm),

What kind of a ruling was that?

[barmar]

What kind of a ruling was that?

A bad one.

[Cyberyeti]

What kind of a ruling was that?

Normal for Norfolk in all meanings of that phrase :)

[Gerben42]

What's your habit on claim in off-line bridge? Do you only claim when you can take all the tricks(e.g. you have all outstanding trump, top honor) or you claim when you think it saves time(It cost less time explaining to opp than playing the hand)? Even more do you claim to show off your declare playing skill B-) ?

 

In real tournament I claim to save time but usually realize I need more time to explain to opp than actually cashing my tricks :( .

 

I make up some hand and feel free to discuss what's your choice in real tournament.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt8ha32dkj9ck32&n=skj97hk654dqt8ca4]133|200|You are in 4S after trump lead you discover trump break 3-2. Do you claim making 5 now or after losing tricks in H and D?[/hv]

 

First I try if they want to duck ♦A twice first. If so, I eliminate ♣ and play 2 rounds of ♥ before putting opponents in :)

When they take the ♦A earlier, I claim immediately, stating which tricks I will lose.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj432hakdk32c2&n=st95h43da54ca6543]133|200|You are in 7S . They lead a trump and you win in your hand, then cash CA ruff a C with high trump, spade to 9 and ruff a C with another high trump.C are 4-3. Do you claim and try to explain now or just play the rest of the hand?[/hv]

 

Obvious to claim here.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqthkj9dakq2c432&n=skj9haqtd543cakq5]133|200|You are in 7NT. If you know simple squeeze you can claim at trick 1 and state the possible E/W distribution that can let you make/down 1.At what level of tournament are you going to claim this way?

 

Never. I will play three rounds of each major first and if someone starts to tank, claim explaining that it doesn't matter which minor he discards.

 

If you are director and E, who has 44 in minors ,don't understand South's claim what'll you do?[/hv]

 

Give declarer a warning that he shouldn't claim on a squeeze against opps who don't understand it. And suggest the defender to work it out based on the hand records after the session.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa2ha432da32ct986&n=s43h65d54cakq7432]133|200|Your opp plays 3N. After a spade lead south claim 10 tricks at trick one without saying how to play C, what will you do?[/hv]

 

Call the director.

[blackshoe]

Give declarer a warning that he shouldn't claim on a squeeze against opps who don't understand it.

 

Why ever not? And how do you know what opponents do and do not understand?

 

I have had opponents lock down their brains when I claim, not listening at all to my claim statement, and then ask me to "play it out" because they "can't see it". To Hell with that.

 

Okay, playing against Mrs. Guggenheim, I rarely claim, because in all but the most obvious cases, claiming loses more time than it gains. But that's the exception, not the rule.

[iviehoff]

Why ever not? And how do you know what opponents do and do not understand?

L74A2. Making a claim on a squeeze against opponents that do not understand is liable to embarrass or annoy them, or interfere with their enjoyment. I think you don't do this unless you are pretty sure that they are opponents that do understand. The present case is even more egregious, because it was a conditional claim which in effect asked the opps to agree whether or not the squeeze was working. Further, conditional claims in general are a somewhat dubious area, as the law does not provide for them.

[iviehoff]

Well, for one, I won't accept a claim unless declarer shows his hand.

I recall an anecdote about the late international player John Collings, who apparently routinely claimed without showing his cards. It appears that at high levels of bridge there is some kind of a "gentleman's agreement" between the players to treat claims with a degree of laxity not apparent in the laws, as it saves a lot of fuss. When some lesser opponent once queried one of Collings' blind claims, Collings replied something like "All right, I'll show you, just this once."

[mycroft]

Collings, and the good Baron, and many others were very good bridge players, but there's a reason why the Proprieties, an Appendix to the Laws in their time, have become explicitly part of the Laws; with numbers and non-binding titles, and everything.

[blackshoe]

L74A2. Making a claim on a squeeze against opponents that do not understand is liable to embarrass or annoy them, or interfere with their enjoyment. I think you don't do this unless you are pretty sure that they are opponents that do understand. The present case is even more egregious, because it was a conditional claim which in effect asked the opps to agree whether or not the squeeze was working. Further, conditional claims in general are a somewhat dubious area, as the law does not provide for them.

 

The laws require you to state a line of play. If the line of play is "I'm going to play this and this and this, and you are squeezed in the red suits", or whatever, that is a perfectly legitimate claim. Opponents can decide what cards they will follow with, what cards they will discard and when, and so should be able to figure out whether the squeeze is on or not. If they can't figure it out, they can ask the director for help. And I think we need to be very careful about how far we take application of L74A2.

[barmar]

Why ever not? And how do you know what opponents do and do not understand?

If you're playing in your regular club game, you generally know the levels of most of your opponents. In a local tournament, I'll usually be familiar with at least 75% of the opponents. And if you're playing a long team match against unfamiliar opponents, I think you'll have a decent idea of what they'll understand by the 5th board or so.

[chasetb]

The laws require you to state a line of play. If the line of play is "I'm going to play this and this and this, and you are squeezed in the red suits", or whatever, that is a perfectly legitimate claim. Opponents can decide what cards they will follow with, what cards they will discard and when, and so should be able to figure out whether the squeeze is on or not. If they can't figure it out, they can ask the director for help. And I think we need to be very careful about how far we take application of L74A2.

You are pretty naive to think that 74A2 can't be applied in a situation like this, it has against my partner for making a claim, and getting a little frustrated when they didn't understand the claim. It also didn't help that he mumbled "Diamond" just before the director was called (they wanted to play it out), and both opponents thought he said "I win". Also, not all directors know about squeezes, or completely know the rules at that. This is one area where I follow KISS to the letter.

[blackshoe]

If you're playing in your regular club game, you generally know the levels of most of your opponents. In a local tournament, I'll usually be familiar with at least 75% of the opponents. And if you're playing a long team match against unfamiliar opponents, I think you'll have a decent idea of what they'll understand by the 5th board or so.

 

None of which says whether you know anything about the particular opponents in any given case.

[blackshoe]

You are pretty naive to think that 74A2 can't be applied in a situation like this, it has against my partner for making a claim, and getting a little frustrated when they didn't understand the claim. It also didn't help that he mumbled "Diamond" just before the director was called (they wanted to play it out), and both opponents thought he said "I win". Also, not all directors know about squeezes, or completely know the rules at that. This is one area where I follow KISS to the letter.

 

I had a director tell me once "I can make any ruling I want". I replied "yes, you can, but that doesn't make your ruling legal."

 

Here, we advise directors to carry a rule book, and to read their rulings from it. I know that the culture in North America is to avoid that, but it's a good idea, particularly if the director concerned doesn't "completely know the rules".

 

It appears to me that the 74A2 ruling against your partnership was based on your partner "getting a little frustrated".

 

I do not think it appropriate to rule a violation of 74A2 for saying something that opponents misheard, although I might caution a player against mumbling when — actually because — he could be misunderstood.

 

I find I more frequently have to (to one degree or another) tell upset players to "get a life" then I find it appropriate to rule against their opponents. Maybe that's just the players I have to deal with. :unsure:

[barmar]

I had a director tell me once "I can make any ruling I want". I replied "yes, you can, but that doesn't make your ruling legal."

 

Here, we advise directors to carry a rule book, and to read their rulings from it. I know that the culture in North America is to avoid that, but it's a good idea, particularly if the director concerned doesn't "completely know the rules".

This is certainly a good idea, and all the good directors I know here do it (I guess I've been extremely lucky, I've rarely played in the kinds of clubs that give American bridge such a bad reputation -- maybe they're all in retirement communities, catering to people who have been playing for 100 years and can't deal with any progress in the game).

 

But it's not much help in the case of laws that require the TD to make subjective, psychological assessments. 74A2 doesn't even say that the action has to annoy or embarass the opponent, it just says that you should avoid remarks or actions that might have that effect. Luckily it's a "should" rather than a "must". And what kind of crazy person would call the director and say "While I wasn't actually annoyed by what Joe said, some people might be, so I think he deserves a DP"?

 

We had this discussion recently in one of the law forums down below, where someone pointed out that many normal bridge actions violate the letter of 74A2 (isn't it annoying when the opponents double you and you go for a number?). I doubt the lawmakers really intended this interpretation, and the law is meant to apply only to actions that are not normal parts of the game. E.g. doubling the opponents is OK, gloating during the post mortem is not, and giving lessons is a grey area that depends on the relationship between the players (our club has lots of novices who are eager for advice on how they could have avoided their disaster, and I know who they are when I'm playing against them).

[blackshoe]

Generally, I don't offer advice on how to bid or play unless I'm asked. Some of the better players around here will offer advice "if you'd like". Different styles, I guess.

 

Judgement as to when player A should be censured for "annoying" player B, and when player B should be censured for becoming annoyed at something he should have let slide.

 

Speaking of "let slide", some time ago I was accused of cheating — not with that word, but the intent was clear. Then my accuser called her long-time friend the TD. When I objected to the accusation, the TD said "we're just gonna let that slide". I wasn't annoyed, I was livid. So angry that I got up and left the table until I calmed down, and I'm usually pretty easy going. I guess I should have got a PP or DP for becoming annoyed at something I should have let slide.

[Finch]

giving lessons is a grey area that depends on the relationship between the players (our club has lots of novices who are eager for advice on how they could have avoided their disaster, and I know who they are when I'm playing against them).

 

I think giving lessons is very definitely no OK unless they are asked. Sometimes an opponent will specifically ask me what they should have done on a hand, and I'll tell them where they went wrong (it's usually something fairly obvious). But if you aren't asked, I think you should keep quiet.

 

I got very cross at a congress recently when a player I didn't know at all criticised my bidding when dummy went down.

[Finch]

I recall an anecdote about the late international player John Collings, who apparently routinely claimed without showing his cards. It appears that at high levels of bridge there is some kind of a "gentleman's agreement" between the players to treat claims with a degree of laxity not apparent in the laws, as it saves a lot of fuss. When some lesser opponent once queried one of Collings' blind claims, Collings replied something like "All right, I'll show you, just this once."

 

It's not uncommon for claims just to happen in passing with neither declarer nor the defence showing their hand. Typically you are sitting there as declarer, trying to think of some possible layout of the remaining cards to make the contract, and a defender says "you are one off" and everyone agrees.

 

It's extremely bad manners to try and do that against someone who isn't equally aware of the position.

But if declarer's has gone wrong somewhere (lost count of trumps, missed a winner) the TD will get called and he will lose the trick(s), expert or not.

[gwnn]

I would always claim 1 and 4 (mentioning the unblock).

 

On 2 I would ruff out clubs before I claim. It's my experience that against most opps it takes less time to play it out than to explain. If one opp or another starts to think, I show the hand and explain instead. Maybe this is inconsistent.

 

Claiming on a squeeze has always struck me as somewhat pompous (sorry the hog I don't mean it personally! just the action).