A One Of Gremlin ?

[hallway]

Claims

 

I accept Claims as a matter of course.

 

Surprised therefore when my screen said 'Claim Rejected'

 

What happened , said I

Play on, said Opps

Claim again, said I

Just play, said they

 

B) I can see all the hands B) said I

 

LOL even I can figure out a reasonable defense when I have all the hands before me :B)

 

Seems my Partner declined the Claim.

 

Is the one who Accepts always rewarded with a view of all the hands ? or was this just a friendly Gremlin at work ?

[JRG]

When declarer makes a claim, the opponents get to see all the hands (and thus to judge if the claim is valid or not). The hands are not "covered up" if the claim is rejected.

 

The declarer who has made the claim does not get to see all the hands.

 

Similarly, if a defender makes a claim, declarer gets to see all the hands (but not the claiming defender's partner).

[hallway]

"The hands are not covered up if the claim is rejected"

 

Well, John, I can quite see that for yourself and peers it is neither here nor there. After all at the end of the bidding you have a pretty clear idea of where all the cards lie, after dummy goes down you may 'shuffle' one or two, by the end of trick two it's pretty much an open book. For the <average< player such is what we dream of B)

 

In FtoF bridge if I claim only my hand goes down , opps do not get to see each others and should one of them say no, boy do mine come off that table quick smart . For you totally immaterial. Amongst the grass roots it's a different matter ............

 

Declarer Claims. Lays their cards down. I look - 'he's got that Q - I thought P had that !' P rejects claim -Declarer grabs his cards - I muse upon the mystery of why did I think P had that Q ? The hand is played out Declarer gets the tricks he'd claimed in the first place and P says 'you should have played the AceD' to which I reply ' mmm....Sorry, .. :-...I thought you had the QC' :-

 

however,

 

Online if the cards do not flip back when a claim is rejected and one has before one not only one's own cards and dummy's cards and Declarer's cards but one's partners cards also AND the time to contemplate !! even I cannot ignore the obvious - yes trick (-) is indeed the one and only chance that AD will get to shine.

 

I DID NOT LIKE THAT !!! it gave me the heebie jeebies

truth is I would not have played it then and to do so under these circumstances - well in my vocabulary there is only one word that fits the bill - it starts with C and it sure aint competing :-[ :-[ :-[

 

Fred, Uday - you've made it so the cards can flip when the claim button is activated PLEASE make them flip back when the claim is rejected. (Even better would be to mimic real life and not let opps see each others hands during the claim process)

 

consider this

Club bridge is declining and will continue to decline in the face of Online bridge (my generation may not like the thought but times change) Look at your membership data base - what % of the membership are currently in the Expert + category?. Well that % will steadily diminish as the membership base expands. Put your modesty aside - you guys/gals are the TIP of the iceberg. IMO the software should be geared for the masses.

 

Please do not lead us into temptation.

[Rain]

Since claiming should be done only when claimer is sure of his/her tricks, I think its perfectly fine for the remaining cards of claimer to continue to be revealed to the other parties. If you're not sure of your tricks, don't claim.

 

It is alright for the opponents of the claim to see the cards, because the person who claims is saying that he/she knows a way to play the cards to always make his claim, whatever opponents do. So as opponents, even if you see all the cards, just try your best to defeat it even with all cards in clear sight. It should not matter as long as claim is valid. If claim is invalid, your superior double dummy defense should serve to teach early claimer a lesson........

 

 

Rain

[mycroft]

Well, in FtF bridge, "the cards come off the table quick smart" is *wrong* - after a claim, the hand *cannot be played out* at duplicate bridge, and at rubber, declarer's hand *must remain on the table, with defenders having the option of putting their hand face up as well* (for a defender's claim, the hand stays face up and declarer can prohibit any play from the other defender that could be suggested by partner's hand).

 

Check the book (Law 70 "Disputed Claims" for Duplicate, Law 69 "Procedure Following Declarer's Claim or Concession" and Law 70 "Defender's Claim or Concession of Tricks" at Rubber).

 

BBO's method of handling claims is a very good way of interpreting the rubber bridge laws, without being able to enforce the "new statement" parts (oh, they rejected the claim, therefore the trumps break badly, I'll take the finesse). If anything, it's biased towards the claimer.

 

No need to resist temptation; just follow the Laws of Bridge. You have *every right* to play seeing 52 cards when an opponent claims!

 

Happy Bridging,

Michael.

[JRG]

 

In FtoF bridge if I claim only my hand goes down , opps do not get to see each others and should one of them say no, boy do mine come off that table quick smart .

 

[...snip...]

 

Fred, Uday - you've made it so the cards can flip when the claim button is activated PLEASE make them flip back when the claim is rejected.

 

As Mycroft pointed out, under the laws, play is meant to cease when a claim is made. Play does not continue if the claim is rejected but must be adjudicated.

 

Since that is not practical for online bridge, I think the way BBO has it set up is perfectly fine.

 

One problem with what you suggest is that if a person makes an invalid claim, that person should NOT be able to gain an advantage if the claim is rejected; that is, be able to say to themself, "Ummm, I wonder why the opponents rejected my claim? Let's see, I ruffed once and pulled two rounds of trumps... No wait a minute, one of them showed out on the second round of trumps, there's one still out, I forgot all about that..."

[hallway]

Thank you one and all.

 

Michael, I have to confess I have not read the Laws of Bridge (other than the overview given during our initial lessons) - overly challenged just trying to learn the basics of playing the game , decided to leave having an intimate knowledge of The Book to the Directors.

 

In the beginning it was the Opps who would say 'you CAN claim !' To which I would joyously reply, 'Thank you'.

 

Then , (remembering Wayne's adjunct to table one's cards and say how/why) the day came when I laid down my cards and said ' Clai - Rejected !!! ( :) I froze) and LHO said ' Well, pick up your cards and play them' - quick smart it certainly was . We have never needed any second urging since ::D (not that it happens often - thank goodness)

 

BUT even the opps do it. One P has taken Wayne's 'I love Aces' to almost cultish level and you can be assured that should the Opps claim and she still has an Ace in her possession she doesn't let go of it lightly :-[ The Declarers just pick up their cards and on we go. And as some of them are quite fond of calling the Director, and in this respect have never done so, we have presumed that playing on is the thing to do. :-[

 

I shall print out this thread.

 

though I must say it still 'doesn't sit well' - being able to play the cards in a different sequence than one would have done had there been no Claim and one therefore had not seen where the cards lay :-

[JRG]

though I must say it still 'doesn't sit well' - being able to play the cards in a different sequence than one would have done had there been no Claim and one therefore had not seen where the cards lay :-

Just a couple of comments.

 

The biggest problem I have with most claims, and I suspect it is the biggest problem in general, is that a lot of people "claim" without stating their line of play.

 

When a person makes a claim, he (or she) is supposed to state how they would play the rest of the hand. If a line of play is not stated, then there are some assumptions. The following are based on my recollection and are not guaranteed to be exact.

 

Example 1: If you do not state you are going to pull trumps, then you are presumed to have thought they were all out and, I believe, it is presumed you would not lead trumps but would obviously overruff if an opponent ruffed in with an outstanding trump and you could overruff (except, if you said, for example, "I'll throw my losing diamond on the long club", then that is what you have to do, even if an opponent ruffs it). Example 2: If you do not state that you were going to take a finesse, then your line of play is presumed not to take a finesse unless, or until, it is "proven".

 

The other point is important to online bridge. When the person who is claiming has stated the line of play, that is the line of play the person MUST take. The opponent(s) of the claimer are allowed to play double-dummy, because a claim is essentially stating that the claimer can take the number of tricks claimed REGARDLESS of the opponent(s) play.

 

When playing live, I often claim according to a personal rule told me by an expert friend (a past winner of the Life Masters Pairs; assistant to a coach of an American World Championship team). He said that it got to the point where he only claimed after pulling trump (if in a suit contract) and then playing so that dummy was high. He then claimed on the trick on which he crossed to dummy.

[the hog]

When playing live, I often claim according to a personal rule told me by an expert friend (a past winner of the Life Masters Pairs; assistant to a coach of an American World Championship team). He said that it got to the point where he only claimed after pulling trump (if in a suit contract) and then playing so that dummy was high. He then claimed on the trick on which he crossed to dummy.

 

I would actually regard this as unethical, John. If you can claim, you should claim. It is not too much effort to say "drawing trumps" or similar. Obviously if I you are playing against weaker players you need to temper your claims, eg no "Maikng on the narked double squeeze", but seriously the above is not right.

 

Ron

[JRG]

When playing live, I often claim according to a personal rule told me by an expert friend (a past winner of the Life Masters Pairs; assistant to a coach of an American World Championship team). He said that it got to the point where he only claimed after pulling trump (if in a suit contract) and then playing so that dummy was high. He then claimed on the trick on which he crossed to dummy.

 

I would actually regard this as unethical, John. If you can claim, you should claim. It is not too much effort to say "drawing trumps" or similar. Obviously if I you are playing against weaker players you need to temper your claims, eg no "Maikng on the narked double squeeze", but seriously the above is not right.

 

Ron

Actually it is far from unethical. And contrary to your statement that if you can claim, you should claim, I would say that is completely wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the laws of bridge requiring a person to claim and claiming, as even world class players have found to their chagrin, can be fraught with peril.

 

The first reason for not claiming, as you implied, is: Claiming is simply an expedient way of speeding the game up. If it is not going to speed the game up, because the opponents cannot understand the claim, then claiming is not only pointless, but counter-productive.

 

The other reasons are more subtle.

 

By the way, if you watched it on BBO, in one of the recent Team Trials, the commentators remarked on one of the Brazilian players "playing mind games" with his opponent (declarer) by deliberately underleading an Ace "to prove he could do it" (declarer had, some hands previously, gone down in a contract because he had thought this player had underled an Ace in an attempt to fool him). There was no discussion of this being unethical or against the laws of bridge. [Clearly it is not: It was simply the play of the card that was deceptive, not the manner in which it was played.]

 

Similarly, I'm sure I remember a discussion in The Bridge World of "world class" players playing out hands on which they could have claimed, because the defending opponents then had to waste mental energy trying to figure out what the problem on the hand was (when there wasn't one).

 

If you think a little bit about it, it is, in fact, WRONG to claim all the time -- you are then handing the opponents free information when you don't claim. You are in effect saying, I haven't claimed, I've got a problem on this hand and could go down.

 

The method I am willing to take is simple - when everyone can see dummy is high and there is no point in playing out the hand, I claim; if dummy is not high and there might be (or might not be) doubt about the outcome, I don't claim.

 

[i must be honest: I often do claim when some of the winning tricks are in my hand and the others in dummy. But nevertheless, I think the guideline I stated is a useful one for declarers who get nervous or flustered when their claims are questioned.]

[the hog]

Similarly, I'm sure I remember a discussion in The Bridge World of "world class" players playing out hands on which they could have claimed, because the defending opponents then had to waste mental energy trying to figure out what the problem on the hand was (when there wasn't one).

 

I stand by my comment. Imho the above does not conform to active ethics.

 

Ron

[Codo]

Hi Ron

 

you never walk alone...

 

At least not now. I agree 100 %

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[inquiry]

Similarly, I'm sure I remember a discussion in The Bridge World of "world class" players playing out hands on which they could have claimed, because the defending opponents then had to waste mental energy trying to figure out what the problem on the hand was (when there wasn't one).

 

I stand by my comment. Imho the above does not conform to active ethics.

 

Ron

 

Actually, if I remember this discussion (or a similar discussion... in bridgeworld), there was a split of opinion on this kind of action. One view dealt with condition contest, and you "owe" it to your partner and team-mates to do what ever you can to win within the laws and rule contest. The other view agreed with Ron. I also agree with Ron. Playing like this with this in mind is not in agreement with "active ethics" or just plain normal ethics.

 

But I also agree with the view that claiming as soon as you can causes more headaches than it is worth. I claim as soon as it is prudent to do so. Prudent depends upon the ability and temperment of your opponents... among friends I claim real quick...

[luis]

I have an intermediate point of view.

If a hand is cold but a bad discard can win an overtrick or I have some chances for an overtrick then I play the hand until the end, sometimes I do get an overtrick worth 1 IMP and they do have to count and concentrate in the discards then getting tired. Have you ever won or lost a match by 1 imp?

When I have all the remaining tricks or the remaining tricks except some obvious losers without a chance for overtricks I just claim, even at trick one or two since I feel it is unethical to play all the cards just to get your opps tired, you have to have a reason to play the hand.

[JRG]

I have an intermediate point of view.

If a hand is cold but a bad discard can win an overtrick or I have some chances for an overtrick then I play the hand until the end, sometimes I do get an overtrick worth 1 IMP and they do have to count and concentrate in the discards then getting tired. Have you ever won or lost a match by 1 imp?

When I have all the remaining tricks or the remaining tricks except some obvious losers without a chance for overtricks I just claim, even at trick one or two since I feel it is unethical to play all the cards just to get your opps tired, you have to have a reason to play the hand.

 

Actually, I think you expressed my feelings on the subject very well.

 

The reason I made my last post is that it is NOT unethical if you do not claim when you can.

 

It also seems to me that everyone is glossing over a significant statement I made that (at least in my mind) proves the point: If you always claim whenever you can, you are giving the opponents an advantage they are not entitled to. You are telling them, indirectly by not claiming, that whenever you are playing the hand out, you have a problem.

[JRG]

Similarly, I'm sure I remember a discussion in The Bridge World of "world class" players playing out hands on which they could have claimed, because the defending opponents then had to waste mental energy trying to figure out what the problem on the hand was (when there wasn't one).

 

I stand by my comment. Imho the above does not conform to active ethics.

 

Ron

 

Actually, if I remember this discussion (or a similar discussion... in bridgeworld), there was a split of opinion on this kind of action. One view dealt with condition contest, and you "owe" it to your partner and team-mates to do what ever you can to win within the laws and rule contest. The other view agreed with Ron. I also agree with Ron. Playing like this with this in mind is not in agreement with "active ethics" or just plain normal ethics.

 

But I also agree with the view that claiming as soon as you can causes more headaches than it is worth. I claim as soon as it is prudent to do so. Prudent depends upon the ability and temperment of your opponents... among friends I claim real quick...

 

It was a similar discussion, not the same one. I gave away my collection of Bridge Worlds when I moved to Costa Rica, so I cannot look up the specific article.

[JRG]

Similarly, I'm sure I remember a discussion in The Bridge World of "world class" players playing out hands on which they could have claimed, because the defending opponents then had to waste mental energy trying to figure out what the problem on the hand was (when there wasn't one).

 

I stand by my comment. Imho the above does not conform to active ethics.

 

Ron

 

Have you ever been caught by the Sominex Coup? That's an example of something that is unethical.

 

I am a very strong believer in being ethical. I'm also one of what seems to be a minority -- I'm not sure of the difference between "being ethical" and "active ethics". For example: Suppose if, after we see the results posted and check our scores, we see that there was an error in the score. We then go to the director and point it out. As a result we come third instead of first and some other pair comes first. Letters to the editor of The Bulletin appear to laud this as "active ethics". I on the other hand simply believe that failing to report the error is simply unethical.

 

Since I seem to have been able to get people to post to this thread, I have another question:

 

Is it all right to break the laws of bridge in the name of active ethics?

 

I ask this because there have been laudatory letters to the editor of The Bulletin in which the act of "active ethics" broke the law. Example (not sure if this was one of the ones reported): Nervous defender pulls card out of hand and plays it. Declarer is pretty sure it is revoke and asks player if he really has none of the suit. Whoops, yes I do. OK play one. What about the card I played? Well, just pick it up and lets play on. (This may have been discussed in The Bridge World as well.) The laws say this is wrong.

 

For what it is worth (blush), I have done the above up at the bridge club in Canada (usually when playing against new-comers or pairs I know are beginners). Yes, I know it is against the laws; hence some of my curiousity about members opinions.

 

I don't think it is as easy question to answer as one might think.

[inquiry]

Nervous defender pulls card out of hand and plays it. Declarer is pretty sure it is revoke and asks player if he really has none of the suit. Whoops, yes I do. OK play one. What about the card I played? Well, just pick it up and lets play on.

 

This is NOT active ethics. Here is the problem with not establishing the revoke as required by law. Say you are sitting NS. Your "grand gesture" harms all the other players sitting EW by giving an advantage to the EW player you allowed to take back the revoke. This is actually unethical...especially if the EAST player was, let's say a friend of yours, whereas if he was some royal pain in the butt, you would have gleefully taken your ounce of flesh.

 

That is my take on this situation.

 

ben

[the hog]

I agree with Ben here. I had this situation occur just a couple of weeks ago. I wanted to allow the defender to replace his card - the director who happened to be hovering nearby told me I HAD to accept the card played - no option. And "Yes", I guess you are being unfair to everyone else in your direction if you don't. You don't need to do it like a pirahna and gloat about it though. (Although there are a couple of people against whom I would really have to restrain myself).

 

Incidentally, what is the "Sominex coup"? If it is what I think it is - someone deliberately playing so slowly that you fall asleep, then "Yes", there is a guy here who uses this as a tactic. We have countered by claiming for him.

[hallway]

No , Ben , surely John is referring to 'being nice to newcomers' when because of Club size all grades play together. (My home Club only has 80 odd members fields apprx 10 tables weekly so all skill levels must perforce play together) Because of the very real threat to Club Bridge from Online Bridge imo it is becoming necessary in the smaller Club enviroment to be kind, helpful and encourage new players if Clubs want to retain membership numbers.

 

Let them learn to enjoy and become fascinated with the game before 'throwing the book at them'

 

If I were to discard a diamond having overlooked a lurking heart (new players ARE nervous and even younger ones are inclined to 'Senior Moments' :) ) Now a Senior player having every expectation of my having that Heart could be so kind as to say 'having none' ? Oops :-[ (cringe) there it is - woe is me. Whereupon he could (assuming no hovering Directors) let me pick up the offending D or leave it tabled to be played asap. OR ofcourse he could (take advantage ? of my greenhorn status) and say nought play on and at the end establish a revoke and claim damages. (Fair enough no quibble with that)

 

but :- wouldn't letting it run GIVE him an advantage over all other e/w 's ??? If I am punished isn't he rewarded ? - when all other E/W's weren't given that chance ?

[hallway]

This thread all started over my 'worry' with Claims.

 

Last night I was invited to partner a Senior player (out of town) . Kept my skill level 'private'. All was going smoothly.

 

Then RHO (a person of importance) Claimed.

Flashed the cards muttered something I could not hear.

So ... I asked (nicely, quietly) 'Could you please table the cards so I can see them'

with a very quelling look he did so

So ... I asked (nicely, quietly) 'Could you please repeat that line of play I am sorry I didn't catch what you said?'

he very snappily did so

So ... (because I really thought I was going to get a spade trick)... I said ' I don't... and before I could get any further he picked up the cards as if to play them.

So ... I said (heart in mouth the only word I could remember from this thread being 'adjudicate' (aka call the Director ?) ' I believe the cards have to stay tabled.'

Whereupon to my utter amazement without a single word of dissent he put them down again and said, ' I concede a Spade contract down 1.'

 

During the past week I have canvassed any bridge players I've bumped into up town 'If I claim and you object what do I do ?' Answer - (same every time) - just play on

 

mmmm interesting

 

he was going to play on but didn't quibble when he thought I knew better

 

mmmmmmm very interesting.

 

Thanks for your help.

[Free]

In our club, we have weekly 2 club nights of about 10 tables. Some of these little old ladies just don't care about any rules. If I put a "Stop!"-card, they're just ready to pass after I bid. If I say there's a stop on the table so they have to wait before bidding, they say something like "I can count to 10 very fast". Other people play Walsch, and the bidding goes 1C-p-1D-p-1NT-ap. So it's pretty obvious I lead hearts or spades since they didn't alert anything. When I claim, sometimes people say "Just play on plz", and if I don't accept a claim, they just continue playing. Or after my cards are in the box, they want to look at them. If they just want to take them, I stop them, but if they ask sometimes I say it's ok. It bothers me that some people just ignore these rules.

 

If someone plays a wrong suit on purpose, I sometimes just let them take back the card on a club evening. On tournaments it's different. Whenever there's a little problem, we ask for the TD. Then you'll never have backfiring problems, and normally we only get advantages from it...

 

Imo, bridge teachers should give a basic rule description to beginning bridge players, so they know what everything means, and what they can do in most common situations and what they may not do. Now they only learn a bidding system and a bit of playing, but they don't know anything else. If they do something wrong, but they don't realise it, they're mad at you because you call the TD. I think it's the best way to solve problems with a TD. Whatever he says is true, and we all have to accept that, period.

 

The funniest thing I've ever read about 'not following the suit' is following:

a player has void - AKQ10xxx - AKQJ - xx and his partner has AK of clubs, and 2 small hearts, missing 4 trumps. They play 7H. After the lead (not hearts), his LHO sits back and relaxes, so he thinks that hearts are 4-0 from the jack behind him. What can he do? He plays very fast HA (RHO discards a diamond), HK, DQ. Lucky for his opponents they saw it was a diamond, but there was some discussion about ethics there... He just tried to get his impossible trick by letting opponents ruff the diamond and take the trick back later, or making it a penalty card...

[luis]

During the past week I have canvassed any bridge players I've bumped into up town 'If I claim and you object what do I do ?' Answer - (same every time) - just play on

 

It is against the rules to play a hand once a player has claimed. If the claim is disputed the TD must be summoned and he must adjudicate the result of the hand using the proper rules.

If your opponent claim and you let him play the hand you are breaking the rules and can be subject of a procedural penalty.

This is one of the most elemental rules that most players don't know.

[Gerardo]

Sometimes TD doesn't either :o

 

<rant>

 

In a important tourney (South Am Open Pairs qualifying, last year, in Chile), my opp claimed (+1 I think), was rejected (Ace of trumps still out :P ), then she LIFT her cards, tried to play, I asked her what was doing, call her cheater (didn't know rules back then :(, still, I know that was against them ), she was offended, call herself a lady, threaten to summon TD, I said "*I*'ll call him", and did so.

 

When he arrived, she has all cards in her hand, and the director (top chilean dir, third in charge behind Kojak and Gustavo (Chediak, the top South Am director)) LET HER PLAY :o >:( :(.

 

There was an issue about the timing of giving up the trump Ace, a side suit trick would be available if timing wrong, so the correct result was -1.

 

Wouldn't help our cause, but if I would know the rules then as I do now, I would had appeal this (and won ;) )

 

</rant>

[Free]

Yeah, I had some silly TD cases myself, where the TD was wrong... The bidding goes:

2NT p 3C p

3D p 3S p (everything alerted)

 

2NT = pre-empt C or FG C-X

3C = relay, NF

3D = FG C-D

3S = unexisting bid (should 've been 3H = rest asking bid)

 

And then my partner realises he took the wrong bidding card (it should've been 3H), a slip of the hand (not the mind). So opponents don't care and say he can't take the bid away. I call the TD, and here's what he said:

1) The bidding stays because my partner's LHO has already passed

2) I can't bid anymore (have to pass!!!)

 

It was in a club evening, and no other TD was present, so I couldn't complaint to anyone but the VBL (Belgian leage). The right way to handle this situation should be that partner may take back his bid as long as I haven't bid IF it is a slip of the hand.

 

So we played 3S -2. Our hands:

My hand:

A

x

AKTxxx

AQJxx

 

Partner's hand:

xxxx

Axxx

Qx

Kxx

 

Hearts and spades were 4-4 divided. Did you notice we had 7C or 7D without any problems? Damn I was pissed that day!