jeffford76 Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 Also note that director calls for failed claims generally take more time than playing out the hand. I don't see why this is relevant. I can't imagine there is anyone that regularly makes claims for which the total time saved by not playing hands out is not vastly larger than the amount of time taken on the invalid ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 For such a player to then say "well, I got an adverse ruling so I'm never claiming again!" is just plain stupid - and if I were to find such a player the cause of a "slow play" ruling, in an obvious claim situation, I'd be inclined to drop a couple rocks on his head. B-)I fail to see how putting more rocks on a rockpile would have any effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I fail to see how putting more rocks on a rockpile would have any effect.ROFL! Good point! B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 "Club to my hand, ruff small, high trump, low trump" seems concise and accurate enough. True, but the player will find it superfluous if he thinks there are no more trumps out. This would be his plan, though. A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? Sorry could not think of a way to make this more intelligible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? Sorry could not think of a way to make this more intelligible! There are legitimate reasons to play out a hand when you know how many of the remaining tricks you will take, or at least play it down to an obvious ending --- and in these cases you shouldn't be taken to task for dragging the oppenents out. Sometimes it is easier to just do it than to explain all the exact plays you will make. Put another way, the premise "if you always claim when..." is not a realistic condition. When you will be staying in one hand, and there is no chance for the opponents to take a trick -- or zero chance for an opponent to discard a winning trick -- then if you play it out for the reason in your question, I would vote "unnecessarily wasting our time" or "sleezy application of game theory". Michael Rosenberg has written on this issue (playing out a hand), and approves doing so if there is a remote chance an opponent will go stupid. He has limits to that position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? If you haven't claimed, then your opponents will always assume that you can't claim. Playing the hand won't mean that next time they will pay less attention because there might not be anything to think about, so you're not gaining anything from this particular uncertainty. What you will gain is unnecessary effort from your opponents on hands where there really is nothing to think about. This might be reflected in slight additional fatigue from opponents in a long match, but you will also gain a reputation for being annoying if you do it regularly. Some opponents will find ways to get back at you (drawing out the play when you're on defence is one obvious example) so it's unclear that the net change will be positive at all. Additionally, it's a small enough community that keeping a good reputation is probably of more long-term benefit. I understand Rosenberg's position in playing out the hand aguahombre raised, but it would not have occurred to me to do anything but claim. Perhaps that's because I play with enough slow people that I want to save the time for future hands, but the overtrick looked awfully remote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 "Club to my hand, ruff small, high trump, low trump" seems concise and accurate enough. Have you ever seen someone carelessly ruff low and under ruffed when an opponent has ruffed in front of them? Or call for the Q from AQ when leading up and a "surprise" K falls in front? Those are the sort of "careless" things I have seen for a lot of players. So does that mean the claim line you propose could be subject to a possible Secretary Bird (if he were out of clubs) who wants to say "You've stated you are ruffing the club small, unfortunately I ruff the club high and win this trick", after all how hard would it have been for you to say "Club playing the lowest trump necessary at that point to win and then trump from the top"? Rule C in the ACBL files if it applies here then he's forced to play a spade off dummy to his high spade and make the contract. If you force him to lead a club off dummy instead (maybe C only applies to lead from his hand, doubtful), then I don't force the both irrational and unnatural play of ruffing with the top trump. I let him ruff with the smallest trump and then lead them from the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? Sorry could not think of a way to make this more intelligible!Arguably it's a breach of Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from ... prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." In a better world that law would be seven words shorter (and a lot easier to interpret). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMorris Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 True, but the player will find it superfluous if he thinks there are no more trumps out. This would be his plan, though. A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? Sorry could not think of a way to make this more intelligible! Some years ago I was told off by an expert player playing with a punter for not claiming (in 1NT) at about trick 8 when I had all the remaining tricks. The punter was on lead & I was waiting for him to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 In a better world that law would be seven words shorter (and a lot easier to interpret). Quite; the last seven words imply that it is OK if you do it for other reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenG Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Quite; the last seven words imply that it is OK if you do it for other reasons.There's no point in claiming when I know all the tricks are mine if the opponents are not competent enough to understand the claim. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 There's no point in claiming when I know all the tricks are mine if the opponents are not competent enough to understand the claim.In 74B4, long before the last 7 words of the passage about prolonging play when we know we have all the remaining tricks, is the keyword "unnecessarily". StevenG's post points out that declarer might well feel it necessary to continue play at least a bit longer when we know we have all the tricks just to clean it up for the opponents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 There's no point in claiming when I know all the tricks are mine if the opponents are not competent enough to understand the claim. Precisely !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 There's no point in claiming when I know all the tricks are mine if the opponents are not competent enough to understand the claim.Furthermore, for opponents of that class, the claim might disconcert them more than playing out unnecessarily. Novices are sometimes intimidated by claims, it seems like declarer is showing off, or they may feel dumb if they don't see what he considers "obvious". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Furthermore, for opponents of that class, the claim might disconcert them more than playing out unnecessarily. Two points here, sorry for the repetition. 1) Playing it out for that reason is not playing it out unnecessarily. (Not a violation of 74B4.)2) Although we want to avoid disconcerting other players, particularly novices, at the same time we don't want to patronize them. When we can claim by laying down our hand with all winners or point to Dummy which has all winners, we are getting them accustomed to claims so they will begin to be comfortable with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Furthermore, for opponents of that class, the claim might disconcert them more than playing out unnecessarily. Novices are sometimes intimidated by claims, it seems like declarer is showing off, or they may feel dumb if they don't see what he considers "obvious". What I think is showing off is when you are playing the hand because you don't know the opponents' distribution and therefore how many tricks you will make, the opponents, who of course do know their distribution, put their cards back into the board. I know they are saving time but I find it a bit obnoxious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Whether a player might find making a line of play statement when claiming "superfluous" is not relevant, because the law requires him to make the statement on every claim. Once, playing against a pair of LoLs who turned out to be of the group who have been playing longer than I've been alive and still don't know what they're doing (as opposed to the group of LoLs who look just the same as the first group, but will have you for lunch if you give them the slightest chance) I claimed on a four card ending (winner in dummy, trump a loser in hand, winner in hand, last remaining trump). LHO said "Play it out, please, I can't see it". :blink: The other day, I was, at about trick 7, down to one loser in my hand that I wasn't going to be able to discard. There was no squeeze. I played it out, hoping whoever had the guard in that suit would make a mistake. He didn't. Was I wrong to play it out? I don't think so. I think that if there's any chance (and there's always a chance) that an opponent will make a mistake and give you a trick, it is legitimate to play it out. Law 74B4 only comes in when you have all the tricks, and even then, as has been pointed out, there may be good reason to play it out, or at least play some of it out. See my previous paragraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Have you ever seen someone carelessly ruff low and under ruffed when an opponent has ruffed in front of them? Or call for the Q from AQ when leading up and a "surprise" K falls in front? Those are the sort of "careless" things I have seen for a lot of players. So does that mean the claim line you propose could be subject to a possible Secretary Bird (if he were out of clubs) who wants to say "You've stated you are ruffing the club small, unfortunately I ruff the club high and win this trick", after all how hard would it have been for you to say "Club playing the lowest trump necessary at that point to win and then trump from the top"?Of course I've seen that. So? The defender with the outstanding 8 of trump is on declarer's left, so declarer has to play before his LHO. If he's got the position wrong, too bad. If the outstanding trump were on declarer's right, and were played, no director worth his director card would rule that declarer must now under-ruff. Rule C in the ACBL files if it applies here then he's forced to play a spade off dummy to his high spade and make the contract. If you force him to lead a club off dummy instead (maybe C only applies to lead from his hand, doubtful), then I don't force the both irrational and unnatural play of ruffing with the top trump. I let him ruff with the smallest trump and then lead them from the top.You seem to be describing a different hand to the one in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Two points here, sorry for the repetition. 1) Playing it out for that reason is not playing it out unnecessarily. (Not a violation of 74B4.)2) Although we want to avoid disconcerting other players, particularly novices, at the same time we don't want to patronize them. When we can claim by laying down our hand with all winners or point to Dummy which has all winners, we are getting them accustomed to claims so they will begin to be comfortable with them.This has some merit, but I think it may be putting the cart before the horse just a bit. In general, I think developing players will most naturally grow into claims from the declaring side, and then adapt to opponents' claims from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 IMO Blackshoe and Billw55 correctly interpret the law, as written; but I doubt that a national director would rule that way, nowadays. Are you talking about a Scottish national director, an English national director, an Australian director, or an American director? Or all four? And why would any of them rule incorrectly? Not so much "rule incorrectly" as "interpret the law, differently from Blackshoe and BillW55". I'm reluctant to take up Blackshoe's challenge because when I attribute an opinion that I believe to be widely held to any particular BBO person, it is often angrily repudiated. Nevertheless, I'll risk the wrath of Gordon Rainsford by hazarding a guess that (usually) he would allow this claim. And I feel that several other top BLML directors would do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Not so much "rule incorrectly" as "interpret the law, differently from Blackshoe and BillW55". I'm reluctant to take up Blackshoe's challenge because when I attribute an opinion that I believe to be widely held to any particular BBO person, it is often angrily repudiated. Nevertheless, I'll risk the wrath of Gordon Rainsford by hazarding a guess that (usually) he would allow this claim. And I feel that several other top BLML directors would do the same.Well, this is a judgement ruling, and it's possible my judgement is flawed. So far, though, I haven't seen anything in this thread that convinces me of that. If someone would like to present such an argument, I'll be happy to consider it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 What I think is showing off is when you are playing the hand because you don't know the opponents' distribution and therefore how many tricks you will make, the opponents, who of course do know their distribution, put their cards back into the board. I know they are saving time but I find it a bit obnoxious.Sorry... I hit the "upvote" by accident. I disagree with this. Anytime one side can accurately concede all the remaining tricks, it's helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I've had some pretty good players simply put their hands back in the board without saying anything when they know I have the rest of the tricks. I've also had the same people, as declarer, put their hands back in the board, usually saying "making five" (or whatever) when they're claiming. Of the two, I find the latter more obnoxious, but perhaps I should consider it a compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I've had some pretty good players simply put their hands back in the board without saying anything when they know I have the rest of the tricks. I've also had the same people, as declarer, put their hands back in the board, usually saying "making five" (or whatever) when they're claiming. Of the two, I find the latter more obnoxious, but perhaps I should consider it a compliment. IMO this behaviour should be forbidden: When you query his claim, the claimer has a further opportunity to sneer "Surely you can count a hand?".If you ask to see the claimer's hand, he can refuse according to current daft laws :(If no director is available, you are at an impasse.If a director is available, he can tell the claimer to show him his hand.IMO that isn't enough. The director should impose a disciplinary penalty on the claimer for deliberate time-wasting and behaviour designed to disconcert opponents.Some claimers who descend to such tactics are poor players. Their claims are sometimes faulty. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I've had some pretty good players simply put their hands back in the board without saying anything when they know I have the rest of the tricks. I've also had the same people, as declarer, put their hands back in the board, usually saying "making five" (or whatever) when they're claiming. Of the two, I find the latter more obnoxious, but perhaps I should consider it a compliment.IMO this behaviour should be forbidden: When you query his claim, the claimer has a further opportunity to sneer "Surely you can count a hand?".If you ask to see the claimer's hand, he can refuse according to current daft laws.Sure he can refuse, but he certainly may not! See Law 66D (and in fact also Law 74A2) If no director is available, you are at an impasse.If a director is available, he can tell the claimer to show him his hand.IMO that isn't enough. The director should impose a disciplinary penalty on the claimer for deliberate time-wasting and behaviour designed to disconcert opponents.Some claimers who descend to such tactics are poor players. Their claims are sometimes faulty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.