Bridge frustration

[Bbradley62]

The frustration occurs when I claim, "I have 5 spades, 4 clubs, 3 Diamonds and one heart." They then ask how I am getting rid of my other heart. It doesn't help to tell them that after I take my 13 tricks they can have all the rest.

There have been quite a few times I've claimed with say 5 tricks left crossruffing with the AKQJT, and the opponents complain that they still have trumps.

The most obnoxious opponent I've ever met at the bridge table complained something about this. She wasn't worried about 'getting rid of' cards, but was adamant that P had no right to claim without knowing where the K♣ was. My P patiently explained that the card was completely irrelevant to the hand (which pissed her off enough that she later started making underhanded remarks about his not having showered). Claiming, we were told, was never ok unless you knew where all the cards were.

While I totally sympathise with some of these comments, some claims should not be made on line unless you know the opps. I recently claimed AKTxx opposite Q9xx making the comment "Claiming on the marked safety play". The "expert" opponent who held Jxxx refused the claim. Much easier just to cash the A.

I once got told off for not claiming when I had the rest (I had lost concentration and didn't realise they had no more tricks to cash). The complainer told me it was against the Laws

In a recent match in Edinburgh, declarer was playing on, in the hopes of an overtrick. RHO said that the hand was an open book and asked declarer to claim. Declarer refused. LHO then explained to declarer that she had no prospects of an overtrick. Declarer said she wanted to play on. After a few more exchanges, declarer called the director...

I have the same response to all of these opponents: "Your choices are to accept my claim (or lack thereof), or to call the director and explain to him why you don't." Any further input from opponent outside of those choices causes a director call by me, similar to the Edinburgh declarer. But, I'd always cash the A first in Hog's hand, even playing against Meckwell.

[Jinksy]

]Isn't there a game theory reason to play out all hands (unless it is impossible for opponents to make a defensive error). If oppo knows you wait until late in the hand to claim they might not pay attention to complex hands until it is too late. If you claim aggressively, oppo knows that if you don't claim they need to pay attention.

 

This does bring up a story, however. Many years ago, a friend of mine was playing on a pick-up Spingold team. He related to me a piece of advice he received from a more experienced player that he was using. That piece of advice - never claim. Play out each hand to the end, no matter how trivial. Over the course of a full day of playing, this will tire out your opponents and you may benefit from it. As you can see, this "piece of advice" is in direct contravention to law 74B4.[/font][/font][/size]

 

This sort of stuff is obviously both true and quite unethical (in an actual ethics sense, rather than 'laws and ethics' sense), in that it's a clear prisoner's dilemma defection. The game is better for all the fewer people do it, but any pair who do clearly stand to benefit.

[Stephen Tu]

Isn't there a game theory reason to play out all hands (unless it is impossible for opponents to make a defensive error). If oppo knows you wait until late in the hand to claim they might not pay attention to complex hands until it is too late. If you claim aggressively, oppo knows that if you don't claim they need to pay attention.

 

I don't think this matters. Good opp is paying attention anyway. Bad opp who cares, they get it wrong even they try pay attention. Neither knows if I am not claiming because of 5% chance they can do something to beat me but does not exist on actual layout (e.g. I don't claim because potential of 6-1 split of some suit, but on actual board it is 4-3), or if I am searching for 4% chance of 2nd overtrick or if they can actually beat me on the hand. So just because I have not claimed doesn't mean they can do something effective. It just means on some layouts, which may not exist on current board, their play might make a difference. So not much to go on. As defender I am always going to play as if what I do can make a difference. If it is clear opponent has rest of tricks I concede!

 

I always claim if I think the hand is over. If there is a remote chance of defensive error I don't.

[Cthulhu D]

I don't think this matters. Good opp is paying attention anyway. Bad opp who cares, they get it wrong even they try pay attention. Neither knows if I am not claiming because of 5% chance they can do something to beat me but does not exist on actual layout (e.g. I don't claim because potential of 6-1 split of some suit, but on actual board it is 4-3), or if I am searching for 4% chance of 2nd overtrick or if they can actually beat me on the hand. So just because I have not claimed doesn't mean they can do something effective. It just means on some layouts, which may not exist on current board, their play might make a difference. So not much to go on. As defender I am always going to play as if what I do can make a difference. If it is clear opponent has rest of tricks I concede!

 

I always claim if I think the hand is over. If there is a remote chance of defensive error I don't.

 

As pointed out in this thread, even good players make defensive mistakes late in competition - and you are doing exactly what I said by playing for a defensive error.

[Mbodell]

On Bridgewinners, Michael Rosenberg criticised Eric Rodwell for playing out 6N, where he had 12 winners but no sensible prospect of a thirteenth. Some argued that Eric was justified, in theory and practice, when exasperated opponents misdefended to give jim an overtrick.

 

I have a different memory of this. In my memory there was some question of if Michael Rosenberg was right as declarer to play out a hand with 12 sure tricks, and a mis-defense only (that some people felt was impossible/unlikely) against Meckwell. In particular, when the hand took a lot of time to play, but Michael Rosenberg played very quickly, and defenders were spending a lot of time and energy in the defense. You can read the Steve Weinstein article and thread here.

[debrose]

"On Bridgewinners, Michael Rosenberg criticised Eric Rodwell for playing out 6N, where he had 12 winners but no sensible prospect of a thirteenth. Some argued that Eric was justified, in theory and practice, when exasperated opponents misdefended to give jim an overtrick."

 

 

 

This is backwards. It was Michael Rosenberg who played the hand out as declarer, and Eric Rodwell who was one of the defenders.

 

Edit: Just saw that Michael Bodell beat me to this.

[whereagles]

Isn't there a game theory reason to play out all hands (unless it is impossible for opponents to make a defensive error). If oppo knows you wait until late in the hand to claim they might not pay attention to complex hands until it is too late. If you claim aggressively, oppo knows that if you don't claim they need to pay attention.

 

 

You always need to pay attention. And if declarer doesn't claim, you do :)

[Cthulhu D]

You always need to pay attention. And if declarer doesn't claim, you do :)

 

Attention costs in fatigue - and conceding defensively is hard because you cannot communicate to partner to say 'I'm out, you got anything?' If there wasn't a cost to paying attention, why does Rosenberg deserve critique for playing out the full hand. He did it because Meckwell would have to expend more effort to pay attention than he would in declaring.

[ArtK78]

I have a different memory of this. In my memory there was some question of if Michael Rosenberg was right as declarer to play out a hand with 12 sure tricks, and a mis-defense only (that some people felt was impossible/unlikely) against Meckwell. In particular, when the hand took a lot of time to play, but Michael Rosenberg played very quickly, and defenders were spending a lot of time and energy in the defense. You can read the Steve Weinstein article and thread here.

Having read much of the thread on Bridgewinners referenced above, the important issue seems to be whether declarer has a claim for the rest of the tricks or not.

 

In the hand which sparked the controversy on Bridgewinners, Michael Rosenberg was declaring a 6NT contract at IMPs. He had 12 stone cold solid tricks and virtually no hope for a 13th. But he played out the hand to conclusion in the hope that his opponents (a couple of duffers referred to collectively as Meckwell) might err and hand him a 13th trick. Rosenberg did not play slowly - his plays were made in proper tempo. However, the opponents gave considerable time and thought to the defensive problem, and the hand took about 15 minutes to play to conclusion.

 

The argument was over the ethics of playing out the hand to conclusion in the hope of an overtrick. There were many different opinions. Some argued that the maximum gain would be 1 IMP if the defenders managed to give away a trick, and that was just not worth the time and strain on the opponents by playing the hand out. These same people noted that if it were matchpoints or BAM they would have no problem with playing the hand out, no matter how unlikely it would be for the defense to go wrong.

 

Issues concerning time penalties and who was responsible for them were also raised.

 

Had there been 13 running tricks, the issue would have been quite different. Now, nothing could be gained by playing the hand out to a conclusion, and it would be a clear violation of Law 74B4 to play the hand out to conclusion.

[barmar]

An issue with playing out a hand that seems like it should be a claimer is that the defenders will be led to think that there's something going on that wasn't originally obvious. For instance, the auction implied that declarer had a particular shape, and if so he should be able to claim. His non-claiming suggests that the auction wasn't "honest", so the defenders will try to figure out what's different, and this may induce them to misdefend.

 

The law prohibits playing on in order to disconcert an opponent, but I don't think it prohibits the above -- trying to confused the opponents about the nature of the hand. It's not much different from intentionally attacking your own weak suit -- the opponents probably won't suspect this, so they'll make a fatal switch.

[mycroft]

I first heard the term "memory squeeze" during a midnight game. Since then, when the pattern comes up, I either claim (if I'm doing it) or make it clear that my memory is working (if I have the card) to get to the next hand.

 

I will admit, especially at matchpoints, that if it's not a true memory squeeze, I'll play it out. Obviously, if defenders make it clear that they can count, it's next hand time.

 

 

Memory Squeeze: when declarer has ruffed two suits, and is running trumps out of hand, with a 13th (or a 12th and 13th) card. "Do you remember what suit I still have?"

 

[barmar]

If I sense a declarer trying that, I might show him my card in the suit I know he still holds, and say "I'm not pitching this".

[Zelandakh]

If declarer has all trumps but one and you have the highest or second highest card in the remaining suit then you can claim. If there are 2 non trumps then it is often trickier.

[nige1]

I have a different memory of this. In my memory there was some question of if Michael Rosenberg was right as declarer to play out a hand with 12 sure tricks, and a mis-defense only (that some people felt was impossible/unlikely) against Meckwell. In particular, when the hand took a lot of time to play, but Michael Rosenberg played very quickly, and defenders were spending a lot of time and energy in the defense. You can read the Steve Weinstein article and thread here.

"On Bridgewinners, Michael Rosenberg criticised Eric Rodwell for playing out 6N, where he had 12 winners but no sensible prospect of a thirteenth. Some argued that Eric was justified, in theory and practice, when exasperated opponents misdefended to give jim an overtrick." This is backwards. It was Michael Rosenberg who played the hand out as declarer, and Eric Rodwell who was one of the defenders.Edit: Just saw that Michael Bodell beat me to this.

I apologise -- for the third time this year and its only 7-Jan :(. As mbodell and debrose point out, it was an article by Steve Weinstein about Meckwell's reaction to Michael playing on against them, to make an unlikely overtrick in 6N. The first reply was amusing...

In the 1990 Men's BAM Rodwell played a hand out where there was absolutely no chance to make an overtrick but somehow succeeded in making the overtrick when his opp made a ridiculous mistake. He was chastised by the expert community. His response ? I got the overtrick and won the board.

[gszes]

It happened tonight a lot: declarer playing out a contract in the hope of some ridiculous defensive error when a claim of minus one or equals or whatever at trick one would be much more appropriate!!

 

Ps forgive me for bad mood 45 percent session oh dear

 

NO CLUE what level opps you are speaking of BUT I know when I teach relative beginners the first

rule of declarer play is NEVER CLAIM. I do this not so much because it is a poor idea but I very

much want them to practice practice practice counting suits and watching the spots. Once they get

good enough at that I can introduce them to squeeze play.

[aguahombre]

NO CLUE what level opps you are speaking of BUT I know when I teach relative beginners the first

rule of declarer play is NEVER CLAIM. I do this not so much because it is a poor idea but I very

much want them to practice practice practice counting suits and watching the spots. Once they get

good enough at that I can introduce them to squeeze play.

That is interesting. I have found that when my newbies get the counting of suits, the counting of tricks comes easily ---followed by easy claims.

 

But, again ---only a claim or consession of ALL the remaining tricks. When all but one trick is in sight, we enter the realm of "simple squeezes which just kind of happen."

[helene_t]

At a low level (and in most clubs and 3rd division county leage, unknown opps could well have a very low level), it is probably better not to claim unless you have all remaining trumps in one hand. The thing is, some clueless opps may object to your claim no matter how trivial it is, and when there is a playing director, director calls should be minimized.

 

Don't feel offended if opps behave as if they think you are a moron. First of all, they might not know you. Secondly, they may just be morons themselves.

[Jinksy]

Thirdly, they might be right :P

[jogs]

How old was the declarer? Some players never claim down 1.

They also don't accept legit claims.

[barmar]

Once they get

good enough at that I can introduce them to squeeze play.

After that you teach them finesses? :)