A One Of Gremlin ?

[mycroft]

The "not claiming when you can is improper" (note: improper - violating the Proprieties, not unethical - doing something improper knowing full well it is improper) argument goes as follows (emphasis mine):

 

Law 74B: Etiquette

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

 

So, if your purpose in not claiming is to throw the opponents off, no matter how, you are playing improperly, and violations of the Proprieties are penalized as any other irregularity.

 

However, you need not claim when you know what's going to happen, if the opps won't understand the claim (in fact, that could prolong play unnecessarily!); you need not claim when *you* are unsure of the disposition of the tricks, even if everybody else at the table is.

 

The jury is, admittedly, still out as to whether "instilling doubt in the opponents' minds as to whether declarer has a problem" is "disconcerting the opponents", but it is a position held by many (I happen to be one of them, but I have been wrong before).

 

In the games I direct, people who don't claim because "I don't want the opps to know when I have a problem" or "I claimed once, it was wrong, and I went down 3!" or for any other borderline proper reason, simply get the lion's share of any slow play penalties I have to give out (unless they can prove that it was *this set* of opponents) - and a reading of L74B to think about.

 

Michael.

[mikestar]

I was a certified club director a few years ago. I would never invoke 74B for playing a hand out unless:

 

1. The declarer also was playing slowly.

 

2. The declarer was expert and knew the opponents were both expert and ethical.

 

Simply too many players are too unskilled to recognize a valid claim, and some are unethical enough to to dispute a valid claim to try to gain advantage. I can't blame anyone for not claiming if he knows that his opponents fall into one of those categories-- and the problem is frequent enouhg that I can't say that a player should avoid claiming agaist opponents he does not know.

 

Most of the clubs I directed were senior citizen clubs. One of the clubs was not officically sactioned and had some house rules. One of thier rules was that all hands had to be played out! While this is extreme, they had far less acrimony and far less slow paly than any comparable club I've directed.

[the hog]

One of the clubs was not officically sanctioned and had some house rules. One of thier rules was that all hands had to be played out! While this is extreme, they had far less acrimony and far less slow play than any comparable club I've directed.

 

Well Mike, in this case I don't know what game they were playing, but it wasn't bridge. In ftf I believe in claiming as soon as possible, stating a full line of course. I would prefer to keep my energy for the difficult hands. If the opps dispute the claim or complain, call the director and let her sort it out. These players who have all winners bar one and know I have a master card but just keep on playing - sometimes deliberately slowly - in the hope I may fall asleep and revoke or accidentally discard it, are worthy of contempt and deserve the comment "Are we just playing for practice or is there a reason for this?"

[mycroft]

I may not have been clear: there *are* people who say "I never claim - I claimed once and there was a small loophole, and they said I was down *3*! I'll never do that again!" When asked "Has partner ever given you the wrong response to Blackwood?" "Yes" "So, I guess that means you don't bid it any more" ... well, of course the analogy doesn't hold, Blackwood is *useful* (for most of these people, it's the only way to get to slam (except Gerber, of course).

 

I respect their right to do this, even though it drives me nuts when I'm at their table; but if I have to take a board away from their table to start the next round, and it can't be played later, unless they can prove it wasn't their fault (and "but, I was playing quickly, they kept thinking about every card" ain't gonna wash (because she was just running off winners, and could have claimed)), they're going to get the worst of the adjustment. The same applies tol the group that are *always* slow, because they will post-mortem *every* hand, no matter what the time situation.

 

I have consideration for players who are slow because they're new, or because they're entering the Open game and both want to not make stupid mistakes against the experts and are unused to the jump in speed expected. or to people who get slow on one or two hands, but can be counted upon to catch up, or...

 

But if you're slow for no bridge reason (or a reason you're not responsible for, like unexpected connection problems or being told you have a sitout when it wasn't true - yes, that happened to me Wednesday), then if I have to apply a penalty to the table, it goes against you.

 

Michael.

[Stephen Tu]

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.

 

I disagree with this statement. I always claim when I am sure the hand is over. The opponents only know that there might exist some distribution where what they do could make a difference. That distribution very often doesn't exist on the actual hand. I could just be waiting to make sure there is no 6-0 split in a side suit. Also, the problem is quite often not whether I could go down, but whether I can pick up one or two overtricks.

 

That "free information" is information the opponents are supposed to be assuming anyway, regardless of whether or not you claim early on other hands.

[JRG]

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.

 

I disagree with this statement. I always claim when I am sure the hand is over. The opponents only know that there might exist some distribution where what they do could make a difference. That distribution very often doesn't exist on the actual hand. I could just be waiting to make sure there is no 6-0 split in a side suit. Also, the problem is quite often not whether I could go down, but whether I can pick up one or two overtricks.

 

That "free information" is information the opponents are supposed to be assuming anyway, regardless of whether or not you claim early on other hands.

"The opponents are supposed to...". I think that makes you an idealist.

 

I stand by my initial remark.

 

By the way, if all your claims are good ones, you are doing a lot better than many BBO members. The number of bad claims I see is truly astonishing.

 

Now be careful here. I say the claim is bad. It is often "bad" because the claimant doesn't think about such things as a 4-1 split or a 4-0 split. The fact the suit splits 3-2 doesn't change the claim from a "bad claim" to a "good claim" -- only a "lucky one".

 

Been watching any Vugraph lately? Surprising how many world-class players pull trumps before claiming. Even when they could state, "Pulling trumps...". Many of them will also play several tricks before claiming, even when they could have claimed earlier. I wonder why? [in case it is not obvious, that is a rhetorical question.]

[uday]

I claim quickly when playing face-to-face bridge unless the match i'm involved in is a serious affair (not that I'm allowed into all that many serious events).

 

In a serious match, unless both sides are quick to claim, the side that claims is putting itself at a disadvantage ; it can never gain from a claim, but can lose, it allows the opponents to save their energy for other boards, it allows the opponents thought process to start with "since he's not claiming he cannot have .....", and so on.

 

Some events are timed; a fast pair has a natural advantage some of the time, and should be under no obligation to assist the opponents out by speeding up boards.

 

I don't think this is poor sportsmanship. At the very least, it is sensible for a claimer to hold off on claiming for a trick or two, i think (speaking, naturally, as a card player, not as a BBO admin) . The purpose is not to disconcert the opponents, but to avoid actively helping them with their own time/energy management.

[JRG]

[...snip...]

In a serious match, unless both sides are quick to claim, the side that claims is putting itself at a disadvantage ; it can never gain from a claim, but can lose, it allows the opponents to save their energy for other boards, it allows the opponents thought process to start with "since he's not claiming he cannot have .....", and so on.

[...snip...]

 

I don't think this is poor sportsmanship. At the very least, it is sensible for a claimer to hold off on claiming for a trick or two, i think (speaking, naturally, as a card player, not as a BBO admin) . The purpose is not to disconcert the opponents, but to avoid actively helping them with their own time/energy management.

 

Those were the points I tried to make when I initially entered this thread. Thank you.

[Stephen Tu]

So, you are advocating not claiming promptly in order to make the opponents waste energy. Certainly disconcerting. That's against the proprieties of bridge spelled out in the laws, and I feel it is poor sportsmanship. I don't want to win that way.

[uday]

I think i'm advocating

 

a) don't go out of your way to help your opponents. This is in itself, arguably a violation of the laws of bridge (you must play to win, not to help your opponents win)

 

as opposed to

 

B) go out of your way to disconcert your opponents

 

 

I can see how it can be viewed from the other angle. But, after all, our team must play to win (again, by the laws). I don't offer opponents soothing massages to help them play better against me, i wont offer to save them time and energy so that they can use them against me later.

 

74B: says that this is not proper if the purpose is to disconcert the opponent.

Why on earth would any opponent in a serious event be disconcerted if we played a couple of tricks past the point of sure knowledge that declarer could claim? It isn't like I'm playing on while an opponent needs to go to the bathroom, or is dying to run outside for a smoke.

 

 

This is interesting. Next time I play, I'll try making an agreement w/the opps that both sides claim immediately or a trick or two later; I'm curious as to how that will fly. I think that as long as both teams are on the same wavelength, everyone gains (or avoid losing).

[DrTodd13]

I think there is a difference between playing out a hand in tempo

that you know the result to and intentionally playing slow to get

your opponents to lose concentration. I think the point somebody

raised about "he must have a problem cause he hasn't claimed"

is true. I don't want them to search extra hard for the way to

beat me when I don't claim nor do I want to give them a mental

break by claiming and allowing them to stop thinking about the

hand. If I have 13 top tricks then I'm not sure I'll play the entire

hand out but I want my opponents to be using their mental energy.

Maybe I'll play a few tricks then claim. It seems that if your policy

is to claim at some point between when you know you have the

rest and the end of the hand then you have an explicit tactic for

making the opponents think. This seems less justifiable to me

than either extreme of claim as soon as you know or don't claim

at all.

[Stephen Tu]

You are supposed to try and win while staying within the proprieties and etiquette of the game. It's not win at all costs, stretch the boundaries of propriety in order to gain an edge. Claiming promptly isn't an attempt to help the opponents win; it's courtesy & I expect it to be returned, especially since it's codified in the laws.

 

If I was an opponent and went into the tank, and you let me stew to waste energy even though you already knew there's nothing I could possibly do to affect the number of tricks taken, I would be rather annoyed. If you persisted, I suppose I'd have to retaliate, and the game becomes unpleasant. Who wants that? I want to win based on skill in bidding & cardplay, not petty tactics to sap the opponent's energy.

 

I'm certainly disconcerted if that happens. If you just play a couple extra tricks where I'm just following suit and not really having a problem, that's not going to bother me. But I don't see the point of that either.

[JRG]

[snip...] even though you already knew there's nothing I could possibly do to affect the number of tricks taken, I would be rather annoyed. [...snip]

 

There is almost always some mistake a defender can make that will lose a trick or more.

 

Yes, at some point in the hand it becomes vanishingly small and then that is a good time to claim.

 

By the way, I finally looked up the Proprieties in the Laws. The only relevant section appears to be the 74 B4 that people have referred to. It says

 

"As a matter of courtesy, a player should refrain from:"

 

"4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent."

 

If we look at the rest of 74, these proprieties are CLEARLY ones of courtesy just as it states (look at 74 B5 - "summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to the other contestants").

 

As such, I don't believe for an instant that this says, "you must claim as soon as you can". In fact, for those who like to split hairs (and the laws tend to have been worded VERY carefully), there is a big difference between wording 74 b4 as,

"prolonging play (as in..." and what it actually says, which is,

"prolonging play unnecessarily (as in...".

 

Anyway. I think this has been beaten to death. I'm not going to post to this thread again. It has, however, been an interesting discussion with several different points of view expressed. Thank you everyone for participating.

[Stephen Tu]

What's the big deal about "unnecessarily"? If you could have claimed many tricks earlier what exactly was necessary about playing those extra tricks?

 

I'm not saying one should claim if there is still some tiny chance the defender will blow a trick. I'm not saying you shouldn't play a few extra cards if it will go quickly & make the claim easier for the defender to grasp, especially if they are inexperienced & may not comprehend the claim if done earlier.

 

What I am saying is that if there is no chance the tricks will differ at the end, it is not a sportsmanlike tactic to delay because you want the opponents to waste energy thinking. That's not what bridge is about, and it violates 74B4.

[DrTodd13]

If done correctly, claiming will never get you anything except maybe to

dinner a few minutes earlier. Conversely, claiming incorrectly will lose

you tournaments. There seems to be no upside to claiming but there

is the downside of the risk of incorrect claims and the tip to the opponents

when a fast claimer doesn't claim that he has something to think about.

I should not be obliged to have to tell the opponents when they should

use their mental energy and when they shouldn't. Is it unsportmanslike

to not want to tip off the opponents that the disposition of the rest of

the trick(s) is unknown?

[the hog]

Is it unsportmanslike

to not want to tip off the opponents that the disposition of the rest of

the trick(s) is unknown?

 

I would argue that it is.

[Stephen Tu]

done correctly, claiming will never get you anything except maybe to dinner a few minutes earlier.

It gets you more time to spend when you actually do have a problem. Also, I've had partners who have blown hands by not claiming and accidentally pulling a card out of sequence. It also makes for a more pleasant game if both sides are claiming promptly and not maneuvering to make each other do extra thinking when it won't make a difference. I'd prefer bridge be a game about solving bridge problems, not a game of trying to sap your opponent's energy on non-problems.

 

Conversely, claiming incorrectly will lose

you tournaments.

So, just don't make bad claims ... I don't, it's not that hard. If you aren't 100% sure, don't claim. If you are sure, you won't be making any bad claims if you are any good.

 

tip to the opponents when a fast claimer doesn't claim that he has something to think about. I should not be obliged to have to tell the opponents when they should use their mental energy and when they shouldn't. Is it unsportmanslike to not want to tip off the opponents that the disposition of the rest of the trick(s) is unknown?

 

This supposed tip off is worthless. I always assume that the disposition of tricks is unknown, until a claim is made, regardless of opponent. Why should I ever do otherwise? Even against a slow claimer most hands do have a problem, so that's my default assumption anyway. I'll only ever stop thinking when I'm sure declarer has the rest ... at which point I'll just concede if he won't claim.

 

Whether or not you claim fast on other hands isn't going to ever make me or any halfway decent opponent stop thinking. Do you really need the help of this tactic to beat really poor players who would allow themselves to assume you have the rest and are just delaying? The people not thinking much vs. slow claimers aren't thinking much vs. fast claimers either.

 

Against a decent opponent the only thing you gain is making him expend energy longer and get annoyed at you; you won't get him to stop thinking. Yes, I feel it is an unsportsmanlike tactic. The laws of bridge agree with me.

[DrTodd13]

> So, just don't make bad claims ... I don't, it's not that hard. If you aren't 100% sure, don't

> claim. If you are sure, you won't be making any bad claims if you are any good.

 

There are people who will deny good claims to try to get an advantage. There is also the

issue that sometimes you have made a bad claim and you get a worse result because of it than you would had you just continued play. I vaguely remember a hand at the St. Louis

nationals in a KO where we had played 3/4 sessions a day for several days and weren't used to this and the room was literally "swimming" before my eyes. I thought I had pulled trump so I claimed. Turned out there were two trump still out and opps ending up getting 3 more tricks than they deserved had I not claimed and continued on with the normal line of play.

 

> This supposed tip off is worthless. I always assume that the disposition of tricks is

> unknown, until a claim is made, regardless of opponent. Why should I ever do otherwise?

> Even against a slow claimer most hands do have a problem, so that's my default

> assumption anyway. I'll only ever stop thinking when I'm sure declarer has the rest ... at

> which point I'll just concede if he won't claim.

 

Your own quote makes my point. You assume that declarer doesn't know how many tricks he gets until he claims. Therefore, until he claims, you keep thinking. Once you convince yourself that you know the disposition and declarer doesn't then you will play all your cards in a fast tempo. If everybody knows the disposition of the hand then playing out a hand in this manner doesn't consume much time or brainpower so what is the issue? I simply don't believe that I should be forced to tell the opponents that they should be applying their mental energy to a certain time in the hand.

[Stephen Tu]

There are people who will deny good claims to try to get an advantage.

 

But they don't accrue any, since you simply call the director who will validate your good claim. You still get all your tricks. If they do this excessively on obviously good claims the director will admonish them & maybe penalize them.

 

There is also the issue that sometimes you have made a bad claim and you get a worse result because of it than you would had you just continued play.

 

Well, just don't make bad claims! If you are so tired that you can't count trumps then you aren't really sure & shouldn't be claiming. This is not a good excuse to deliberately delay claiming when you are in full posession of your faculties, are 100% sure the tricks are yours, and are just trying to waste the opponent's energy.

 

If I were ever to be 100% sure, but made a bad claim, and got fewer tricks because of it, I would just lump it in with all the other stupid bridge mistakes I make to take fewer tricks, and tell myself not to do it again. I wouldn't take it as a reason to be a bad sport & play everything out. It would be my mistake, I deserved to take fewer tricks!

 

If everybody knows the disposition of the hand then playing out a hand in this manner doesn't consume much time or brainpower so what is the issue?

 

There is no issue in this scenario. The issue I had is when the declarer knows the disposition of the hand, but the defenders don't. If declarer is letting the defenders go into the tank, despite already knowing the final result, I feel that is unsportsmanlike.

 

I simply don't believe that I should be forced to tell the opponents that they should be applying their mental energy to a certain time in the hand.

 

You are only being forced to tell them the hand is over. They'll be applying mental energy regardless. On the non-claim hands you aren't telling them anything they don't already know. The claim hands you are just torturing them unnecessarily.

 

You really want bridge to be about each side torturing each other into thinking about hands where there's no difference to be made?

[DrTodd13]

I have never heard of a director admonishing people for not accepting a claim.

This is a case of "if they say the claim isn't clear or they don't understand it

then you were clear enough with your claim." Director may say the claim is

good but you've gained nothing in this case. Director can also agree that your

claim wasn't precise enough and apply a penalty.

 

We have all made bad claims even when we thought we were 100% correct

at the time. Saying "don't make bad claims" won't preclude that fact that

whether you are tired or not you may make a bad claim. When a title is on the

line, why take the risk? When we make mistakes at bridge, we try to remember

rules to not make those mistakes again. If we make bad claims even when we

are "100% sure" then having a rule of "I don't claim" I think makes sense.

 

By being forced to tell the opponents that the hand is over, I am also being forced

to tell them when it is not over!!! If I play a card, the hand is not over. If I claim,

it is over. Your statement "...you aren't telling them anything they don't already know"

brings up circular logic. They already know the hand isn't over because I haven't

claimed. Do they know the hand isn't over for any reason except that I haven't

claimed yet? I think the answer is no. I also think it is clear that someone who always

claims at first opportunity and keeps on playing is transmitting information to the

opponents that the disposition of one or more tricks is unknown to declarer. I

hope we can agree on these facts. I think we probably do agree on the facts but

just disagree on some axiom. W.r.t. axioms...you either accept them or you don't and

there is no point arguing.

[Stephen Tu]

I have never heard of a director admonishing people for not accepting a claim.

I haven't run into people habitually denying obviously good claims in order to gain an advantage as you seem to think is a problem. I have had people occasionally contest good claims, but not hand after hand. If it happened hand after hand & the claims should have been trivial to comprehend, I expect the director would say something. I don't see this rare specimen of bridge player who supposedly knows the claim is good but forces you to get the director just to screw with you as justification not to claim. It won't work anyway. When opponents contested my claims it's been because they didn't see it right away, not because they are trying to get an edge.

 

We have all made bad claims even when we thought we were 100% correct at the time. Saying "don't make bad claims" won't preclude that fact that whether you are tired or not you may make a bad claim. When a title is on the line, why take the risk?

 

Speak for yourself. If you are making bad claims so often that you view claiming as a risk you need to work on that skill. I screw up a claim maybe once every 5 years at most. I'm going to slow down thousands of other hands just because of that one incident? I don't view claiming as a risk at all. I find risk in not claiming, if I fumble and pull the wrong card even though the sequence of tricks is clear in my head, which is much more likely, at least for me & my partners.

 

Kibitzing world class players, I see them make claims all the time. They obviously don't see it as a risk.

 

If we make bad claims even when we

are "100% sure" then having a rule of "I don't claim" I think makes sense.

 

If you think you are so bad at claiming that you view claiming as a risk, then fine, don't claim, you weren't really 100% sure. But don't go around telling other people that claiming quickly is a bad idea.

 

By being forced to tell the opponents that the hand is over, I am also being forced

to tell them when it is not over!!!

On the claim hands, it won't matter, since the # of tricks you take will always be the same. On the non-claim hands, it also won't matter, because they already knew it wasn't over. The hand not being over is the default assumption. Whether you are a slow or fast claimer won't make a difference.

 

I also think it is clear that someone who always claims at first opportunity and keeps on playing is transmitting information to the

opponents that the disposition of one or more tricks is unknown to declarer.

Yes. But someone who *doesn't* claim at first opportunity is transmitting exactly the same information, on the hands that matter. The opponent is not gaining any advantage whatsoever in knowing that I habitually claim at first opportunity.

 

The only hands where different information is being transmitted is the claim hands. On those, the slow claimer is transmitting false information by not claiming. But it's not helping him any, since he's not getting any more tricks. Only help is from the energy sucking perspective.

 

You are in the middle of a hand vs. a fast claimer. You know "he doesn't know the result vs. all possible layouts". You are in the middle of the same hand vs. a slow claimer. You know "either he doesn't know the result vs. all possible layouts, or he does know but is just wasting time". Since the only time your score is going to be affected is vs. the first possibility in the second case, you are going to ignore the second possibility. You don't gain anything useful to use against the fast claimer.