New 2017 claims law

[timjand]

I've been reading the new laws. The new claims law 68D(b) says that the non-claiming side may request that play continues subject to the agreement of all four players.

 

I'm puzzled by this. I realise that "play them out" is common practice but it is not altogether fair since a declarer asked to play on may have been informed of something they had forgotten, eg an outstanding trump or an unfavourable split, and therefore gain an advantage.

 

So it is fairer if the non-claiming side do NOT agree but I can imagine this causing issues in terms of social pressure "why did you not let me play them out", the kind of pressure which a clear law is designed to prevent.

 

Have I misunderstood?

[mycroft]

No [you have not misunderstood].

 

I can't imagine a situation where it is to the benefit of the NOS to ask to play it out (*), nor would I ever accede to such a request, because the number of times that I screw up playing out a claimer is high (which is why I claim!); significantly higher than the chance that "play it out, please" would warn me about the bad break or pick up the two-way finesse for the Q.

 

(*) Of course, if their normal declarers are as bad playing out claimers as I am, maybe that is a benefit!

 

But the problem is that people will ask to "play it out" for whatever reason (they haven't seen it, it's not worth thinking the two seconds to work out the claim, even "we come here to play cards, let's play cards") and people will accede to that request. So now it's legal. Big deal.

 

Yes, I can see the social pressure (and frankly, it's going to be more by the non-claimer's "why don't you just play it out, so we can see it?" than the claimer's "why did you not let me play it out?"). And it might work for other declarers than me. But players already get pushed into not calling the TD after misexplanation clarifications or penalty cards from revokes, or a number of other things. People will learn, or they won't.

 

Anybody who trusts the opposition on Law matters deserves what they get, in other words.

[barmar]

So it is fairer if the non-claiming side do NOT agree but I can imagine this causing issues in terms of social pressure "why did you not let me play them out", the kind of pressure which a clear law is designed to prevent.

The non-claiming side isn't required to agree, they're the ones that are supposed to ask for it in the first place. The claimer isn't allowed to say "Why don't you let me play it out?"

 

Are you saying that the new law will create an implicit expectation that the non-claimers will ask to play it out, and there will be social pressure to do so even when it's not to their advantage? I think players need to look out for themselves, not expect the Laws to protect them from shooting themselves in the foot.

 

I can't imagine a situation where it is to the benefit of the NOS to ask to play it out (*), nor would I ever accede to such a request, because the number of times that I screw up playing out a claimer is high (which is why I claim!); significantly higher than the chance that "play it out, please" would warn me about the bad break or pick up the two-way finesse for the Q.

If you think you're better off letting the TD adjudicate than playing it out, say no when the opponents ask you to play out your claim.

[nige1]

My suggestion was that

• Declarer claims by facing his hand, stating a number of tricks, and continuing to play.
• Defenders play on until satisfied,

As with the new law, this suggestion would have the drawback that playing on might alert declarer to a problem that he'd overlooked. (IMO, that drawback is mainly theoretical). On the plus-side it is short, simple, fair, and would speed up the game, while avoiding difficulties with communication and language.

 

The new law is the worst of all worlds: It is more complex and sophisticated. Like other laws that give players unnecessary options, it creates problems,

[barmar]

Sometimes I give a pretty detailed explanation in my claims, but the LOL opponents just don't get it (LOL: "what about my spade ace?" Me: "I said I'm giving up a spade."). These are the situations where I would be happy to play on, they should see the validity of the claim shortly. Calling the TD for cases like this seems like a waste of time.

[mycroft]

Barmar, absolutely, that's what I will do. But there's the social pressure (which I am surprisingly unmoved by).

 

I'm sure there will be those who find the bad breaks and the two-way finesse Queens - as long as I don't actually see them *trying* "claim and see who objects", fine.

 

I actually don't mind the change (except that it does take away my previous out, "I'm sorry, the Laws don't allow me to do that. Director, please!" I'm going to have to find a new one that is more diplomatic than "not gonna" now that the Laws *do* allow me to do it. I'm surprisingly unmoved by social pressure, but I do feel uncomfortable ragging on the newer players. Just not enough to jeopardize my interests).

[blackshoe]

My answer will be simple: "no". Social pressure? Screw it, I'm too old to submit to that.

[Vampyr]

My answer will be simple: "no". Social pressure? Screw it, I'm too old to submit to that.

 

Well. I'm with mycroft in that I felt comfortable saying that I was sorry but playing on was illegal, and I don't know what to say now. Maybe "it would be best to let the director sort it out"?

 

I understand the motivation of the new Laws in general; they are increasing the trend of making sure that no one, under any circumstances, should be disadvantaged by committing an illegal act.

 

This change, like many others, is worse than bad, but it doesn't seem to reward lawbreakers, as far as I can tell. So I cannot fathom the motivation for it.

 

Wait, maybe, "I'm sorry, but my partner doesn't let me play them out. He worries that I will make an error".

[gordontd]

Well. I'm with mycroft in that I felt comfortable saying that I was sorry but playing on was illegal, and I don't know what to say now. Maybe "it would be best to let the director sort it out"?

 

I understand the motivation of the new Laws in general; they are increasing the trend of making sure that no one, under any circumstances, should be disadvantaged by committing an illegal act.

 

This change, like many others, is worse than bad, but it doesn't seem to reward lawbreakers, as far as I can tell. So I cannot fathom the motivation for it.

 

Wait, maybe, "I'm sorry, but my partner doesn't let me play them out. He worries that I will make an error".

What's difficult about saying "I've made a claim and if it wasn't clear enough we should get the director to adjudicate"?

 

I think the motivation was simply to say "don't expect the TD to come and sort it out when you've all gone ahead and effectively made your own ruling". It's the logical progression from the last change which said "if you play it out we may treat this as evidence of what you would have done". Both things are in reaction to the Hallberg case when he was awarded the benefit of a squeeze he had failed to execute correctly after putting it in his claim statement.

[Vampyr]

What's difficult about saying "I've made a claim and if it wasn't clear enough we should get the director to adjudicate"?

 

I think the motivation was simply to say "don't expect the TD to come and sort it out when you've all gone ahead and effectively made your own ruling". It's the logical progression from the last change which said "if you play it out we may treat this as evidence of what you would have done". Both things are in reaction to the Hallberg case when he was awarded the benefit of a squeeze he had failed to execute correctly after putting it in his claim statement.

Yes, I realise that, but of course anyone who has heard of the incident will have learnt never to play it out! The trouble is that if this practice becomes widespread, some people may not know that they/their opponents are allowed to refuse.

 

I trust that Mr Burn will not object to my reprinting his version of events:

 

Ballade of Unwarranted Presumption

 

Author: David Burn

 

Occasion: Belgium versus England Bridge Match

 

Playing against a Belgian side,

I reached a dodgy contract, where

 

Although to beat me long they tried,

They hadn’t any cards to spare.

 

Instead of merely sitting there

And waiting for all Hell to freeze,

 

I rose politely in my chair

And claimed it on a double squeeze.

 

Directors came from far and wide,

Out of some dark infernal lair.

 

He can’t do that! .... the Belgians cried,

It’s not allowed! It isn’t fair!"

 

Bill Schoder fixed me with a glare.

What were you doing, if you please?

 

It’s quite all right – don’t lose your hair –

I claimed it on a double squeeze.

 

They called Committees to decide

If I was mad, or took no care.

 

And are you normal?.... I replied,

I try to be, when I declare.

 

Are you inferior? What! You dare

To ask me questions such as these?

 

The end position wasn’t rare –

I claimed it on a double squeeze.

 

Envoi

 

Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air,

And made for sheep by chimpanzees.

 

But that is none of my affair -

I claimed it on a double squeeze.

 

Envoi

[WellSpyder]

Personally, I like the change - sorry if that makes me an oddity!

 

I can't imagine ever asking declarer to play it out if I am defending, for the reason that others have mentioned that it is likely to alert declarer to the problem he has failed to identify already. But as declarer I am more than happy to continue playing cards if it will make it easier for some defenders to understand what I have tried to explain in my claim statement.

[paulg]

This law change will be popular in my club since it is what most players do already and it will save the playing Director a lot of hassle that he is ill-equipped to cope with.

 

My suggestion was that

• Declarer claims by facing his hand, stating a number of tricks, and continuing to play.
• Defenders play on until satisfied,

I think the lawmakers have largely done what you requested, but they have expanded it to try and protect the non-offenders, which I thought was one of your priorities.

 

Paul

[gordontd]

The trouble is that if this practice becomes widespread, some people may not know that they/their opponents are allowed to refuse.

The practice is already widespread!

[Vampyr]

The practice is already widespread!

 

Is it? I see it maybe once a year.

[pran]

Is it? I see it maybe once a year.

Disregarding cases where all four players are fully competent in the claim Laws my experience is that "let us play it out" is the most common suggestion when a claim is contested, even when there is a TD available.

[timjand]

If play continues, could someone clarify whether the claimant's cards are faced during play? Or does this depend on whether they are faced as part of the claim?

 

Tim

[barmar]

Wait, maybe, "I'm sorry, but my partner doesn't let me play them out. He worries that I will make an error".

I guess you need to add "but he's too nice to say so himself", since the new claim law requires that he agree to play on.

[barmar]

If play continues, could someone clarify whether the claimant's cards are faced during play? Or does this depend on whether they are faced as part of the claim?

The new law requires that the claimant face his hand when he makes the claim. It never says anything about restoring it if play is resumed.

[blackshoe]

The new law requires that the claimant face his hand when he makes the claim. It never says anything about restoring it if play is resumed.

I bet we'll be seeing declarers picking up their hand when asked to play on. If they don't know what the rules are now, they sure as hell aren't going to bother learning the new ones.

[mycroft]

I would fight long and hard against "show my hand and play it out" - I claim so that I don't *have to* play it out.

 

I think I will just go with "sorry, if there's an issue, let's just let the TD sort it out."

 

Yes, "let's play it out" is by far the most common "contest statement" to a claim (barring "so I don't get my diamond?" or the like). Next is "I have a trump" - and even they start with "no, let's play it out" rather than "Director, please." I wish I knew why - especially when it's a small trump, and "let's play it out" gets a trump lead, "checking for lurkers".

[nige1]

Judging from BBF and BridgeWinners, one of the problems with the old law was missing or inadequate claim statements. Top players assumed quite elaborate plays are obvious. Commentators vilified those who disputed such "claims" as unethical lawyers. Difficulties with language and expression exacerbated such problems.

 

"Playing it out" isn't a perfect solution. (e.g. Declarer might wake up to a problem). It's just better than anything else. It encourages claims even by those who have difficulty expressing themselves. It skirts language-problems. it's simple, fair (same for everybody). It provides a table-result rather than relying on director judgement. It makes claim-law shorter and simpler.

[blackshoe]

I would say that missing or inadequate claim statements is not "one of the problems" with claims, it's the problem. I don't think the problem will go away with the new laws, and I'm not at all sure that asking claimer to play it out is as wonderful as you seem to think. if it were, why would TPTB have included the option to refuse the request?

[mycroft]

I promise you, even when my claim is "pull the last trump, ♥A, K-pitch-a-spade, board is good", I'm asked to "play it out". Sure I sometimes just face my hand without comment; if it turns out to be a bad idea, well, then I made my bed, didn't I?

 

But even the full claims, all the time, doesn't stop the "I shouldn't have to deal with claims" mentality (that frequently, but not always, goes along with "I claimed and got ruled against once, so I'm never doing it again" and the "I'm not claiming, I'm just playing misere and waiting for you to concede" (because they claimed once and got ruled against, and this is how to shift the risk to the non-claimers. I gotta tell you, I play those out with 200% of my normal concentration, and it takes for*ever*. Pisses 'em off somewhat fierce. "But I'm...(and everybody recites it with me)")).

[blackshoe]

Sure, people who, whatever their reason, don't want to accept a claim are another problem. But some of them are the ones who got burned because they failed to make a proper line of play statement, and some of them just can't be bothered to pay attention to your line of play statement, and some of them feel like they got burned, rightly or wrongly, because their opponent didn't make a proper claim statement, and they didn't realize there was a problem. Some of them, it's true, are just obstinate. "I never claim, and I never accept a claim." "Why not?" "Because I don't want to." :blink:

[nige1]

I would say that missing or inadequate claim statements is not "one of the problems" with claims, it's the problem.

I wrote that It's one of the problems with old claim law.

I don't think the problem will go away with the new laws, and I'm not at all sure that asking claimer to play it out is as wonderful as you seem to think. if it were, why would TPTB haveincluded the option to refuse the request?

As I wrote before, a problem with the new law is the option to refuse to play on.

It seems that many writing here would take that option.

 

Sure, people who, whatever their reason, don't want to accept a claim are another problem. But some of them are the ones who got burned because they failed to make a proper line of play statement, and some of them just can't be bothered to pay attention to your line of play statement, and some of them feel like they got burned, rightly or wrongly, because their opponent didn't make a proper claim statement, and they didn't realize there was a problem. Some of them, it's true, are just obstinate. "I never claim, and I never accept a claim." "Why not?" "Because I don't want to." :blink:

 

My suggestion would overcome that problem.