[lamford]

dburn, on Mar 24 2010, 03:44 AM, said:

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.

Dealer: West Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AQ ♥ A ♦ 65432 ♣ 65432 ♠ 2 ♥ 32 ♦ AKQJ10 ♣ AKQJ10

East, declarer in 7NT on a heart lead, claims saying "I have them all". Do you allow this claim:

[a] if South has the guarded king of spades
[b] if North has the singleton king of spades
[c] if South has the singleton king of spades
[d] in no circumstances

RMB's answer deals with the original post - neither finessing nor playing for the drop is irrational - and I would make the same decision whether or not a count of the hand indicated that neither North nor South could have more than two spades. Declarer has shown no evidence of the ability to count the hand.

I would add that if North had a singleton spade, I would allow a third-round finesse, and I regard discarding a spade from dummy as worse than careless.

In David's problem we cannot tell the state of mind of the player who claimed. He might have thought the queen of spades was the king (those annoying French cards again). Probably the most likely explanation for the faulty claim is an addition error, but we only have to decide if not taking the spade finesse is irrational. I would award the contract when South has the king of spades, and not otherwise. No doubt David would rule 11 off, cashing the major suit aces and the quing of spades, and misguessing in the one-card ending which minor to keep after the defence cash the majors.

Oh, as an aside, let us say that a player says during the auction "I hate these French court cards". What is the penalty; and what if he says "that is an unusual logo", a remark that clearly indicates he possesses the ace of spades? Both just UI?

[Pict]

This whole thread has been, probably, as educational as I deserve.

However

One of my opponents (lols if you like) says:

'I prefer if you do not make claims. I find they confuse me, and I've been told I ought to call the Director if I am uncertain.'

This doesn't deserve a thread on it's own, and I have no doubt at all about how I would react in the real world.

But what is the legal position and does it change if the oppo is one of Meckwell.

[blackshoe]

If one of Meckwell asked me to not claim, I'd laugh at him — and claim if I felt like it.

If a lol asked me to not claim, I wouldn't. I would, however, explain that claims are legal and often desirable, that it is true she should call the TD if she's not sure a claim is valid, and that she should never, in any way, feel that she should not call the TD if she feels there's a problem. Even if (especially if?) some self-described "expert" tells her she's wasting his time.

[peachy]

Pict, on Mar 24 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

But what is the legal position and does it change if the oppo is one of Meckwell.

If a many time world champion asked me not to claim, I would assume he is mentally or physically ill, maybe a stroke...

[Pict]

peachy, on Mar 24 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

Pict, on Mar 24 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

But  what is the legal position and does it change if the oppo is one of Meckwell.

If a many time world champion asked me not to claim, I would assume he is mentally or physically ill, maybe a stroke...

I've been slightly under the weather today.

There are Laws about claims and for that matter there are Laws about playing out of turn.

I suppose I was wondering why people feel empowered to claim, rather than being constrained by the consequences. Is there a Law that says you are entitled to curtail play, rather than a Law that says what happens when you choose to curtail play?

[nige1]

Another amusing possibility: Here, if the ♠ finesse is forbidden to the claimer, then ♠K will usually drop off-side. If North says he will always keep his ♠ guard, however, should the director judge that the claimer will notice that ♥3 is a trick? And what if declarer's original ♥ holding were ♥Q2?
IMO, what is needed is a simpler claim law (for example BBO on-line rules).

---

[blackshoe]

I suspect what you're really looking for, Nigel, is a law that says "don't ever claim:.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Mar 24 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

I suspect what you're really looking for, Nigel, is a law that says "don't ever claim:.

No, what Nigel (might be) looking for is something like:
Defender: I object; play on please with your hand exposed; I may consult with my partner if I wish.
Declarer: Sure, and let me know when you acquiesce.

Indeed, I could be persuaded that this might be better.

[Trinidad]

Pict, on Mar 24 2010, 10:07 PM, said:

I suppose I was wondering why people feel empowered to claim, rather than being constrained by the consequences. Is there a Law that says you are entitled to curtail play, rather than a Law that says what happens when you choose to curtail play?

It is more extreme than that: There is a law that pretty much instructs you to curtail play when possible (74B4).

Rik

[jdonn]

Pict, on Mar 24 2010, 04:07 PM, said:

I suppose I was wondering why people feel empowered to claim, rather than being constrained by the consequences.  Is there a Law that says you are entitled to curtail play, rather than a Law that says what happens when you choose to curtail play?

At the very least it's a courtesy. If there is nothing more to think about then why make everyone sit there and toss cards? People are busy these days and have either new hands to get to or lives away from the table. It is definitely rude to not claim if the player knows better.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Mar 24 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

I suspect what you're really looking for, Nigel, is a law that says "don't ever claim:. 

lamford, on Mar 24 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

No, what Nigel (might be) looking for is something like:
Defender: I object; play on please with your hand exposed; I may consult with my partner if I wish. Declarer: Sure, and let me know when you acquiesce.
Indeed, I could be persuaded that this might be better.

Thank you Paul. Such a rule is simpler. Players and directors can understand it. Rulings are more consistent because rarely is a director required to mind-read. And, if on-line experience is relevant, then Blackshoe may be gratified to learn that it encourages claims, (even when players don't have a common language).

A theoretical draw-back is that a claim may become a fishing expedition. For example, an unscrupulous expert may claim when he has a two-way finesse, in the hope that protesting beginners will give away the position of the missing honour. In practice, however, on-line players are wise to this ploy and treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

[Pict]

jdonn, on Mar 24 2010, 05:43 PM, said:

Pict, on Mar 24 2010, 04:07 PM, said:

I suppose I was wondering why people feel empowered to claim, rather than being constrained by the consequences.  Is there a Law that says you are entitled to curtail play, rather than a Law that says what happens when you choose to curtail play?

At the very least it's a courtesy. If there is nothing more to think about then why make everyone sit there and toss cards? People are busy these days and have either new hands to get to or lives away from the table. It is definitely rude to not claim if the player knows better.

Sigh

My point was that if we make it hard enough to claim, no-one in their right mind would do it.

There may be those who think that going two off in the odd grand slam that obviously makes, is a small sacrifice to pay for faciltating speed dating for others. I don't know any of those people.

If we really can't ask people what they had in mind, or even play something quarter way sensible on their behalf, who would recommend claiming to a friend they wanted to keep.

[campboy]

No-one is suggesting making it hard to make correct claims. Incorrect claims, on the other hand, get evaluated to give the benefit of doubt to the innocent side -- and here there is doubt. Taking the spade finesse is not an unreasonable thing to do once you discover that you only have 12 tricks; indeed, on some similar layouts it may be the percentage play (if, for example, South started with a singleton club, you will probably get enough information from the play of the other suits to favour the finesse over the drop).

Honestly, this player is not going to stop claiming just because of an adverse ruling. If he is sensible, he will instead do what I do -- if you think you have 13 top tricks, count them three times before claiming.

[bluejak]

Again we get comments that suggest people have never seen a game of bridge. Claims that get discussed on forums are not typical: they are a very very small minority of all claims.

I claim on average seven or eight time a session, maybe 2000 times a year. The last person who challenged my claim in any meaningful way was myself, about six years ago. That's 12000 claims ago.

The idea that we should not claim because sometime somewhere a claim has gone wrong is so ludicrous it would be laughable if I did not have the very sad feeling it was not meant as a joke. You might as well tell people not to finesse because a finesse might lose.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Mar 24 2010, 09:27 PM, said:

Again we get comments that suggest people have never seen a game of bridge.  Claims that get discussed on forums are not typical: they are a very very small minority of all claims.

I claim on average seven or eight time a session, maybe 2000 times a year.  The last person who challenged my claim in any meaningful way was myself, about six years ago.  That's 12000 claims ago.

The idea that we should not claim because sometime somewhere a claim has gone wrong is so ludicrous it would be laughable if I did not have the very sad feeling it was not meant as a joke.  You might as well tell people not to finesse because a finesse might lose.

Oh, I do not suggest that one should not claim. What I do suggest is that the laws regarding claims should be so constructed that when a faulty claim occurs, it should be obvious what the ruling ought to be, and what the procedure that leads to the ruling ought to be. As this and many other cases have amply shown, this is not obvious in the least.

In the original case, it is quite clear to me that under the laws as presently constituted declarer is (at least) one down. It is quite clear to other people, whose ability to construe complex English phraseology is (at least) equal to mine, that he isn't. Notions of "normality", "carelessness", "inferiority", "irrationality" and (ridiculously) "equity" are bandied about, and the only thing that is clear is that these mean completely different things to different people. Noch zu, these are different people who speak as their native tongue the language in which those words are written - God help those whose task it is to translate them into other languages, and to follow such translations.

This is intolerable. The success or failure of any claim should not be a matter of whether jdonn or I arrive at the table to resolve the claim (whether the contract is 7NT or 2♥). It should be a matter of following, step by step, a well-formulated procedure that requires nothing whatsoever in the way of subjective judgement, and arriving at a conclusion that though it may seem unpalatable is at least objectively justifiable.

Nigel's idea of emulating the online claiming procedure in face-to-face bridge is, though practicably completely hopeless, at least philosophically sound. The Laws of Duplicate Bridge are the former without the redeeming feature of being the latter.

[jdonn]

Well said dburn.

[iviehoff]

dburn, on Mar 25 2010, 04:44 AM, said:

[This is intolerable. The success or failure of any claim should not be a matter of whether jdonn or I arrive at the table to resolve the claim (whether the contract is 7NT or 2♥). It should be a matter of following, step by step, a well-formulated procedure that requires nothing whatsoever in the way of subjective judgement, and arriving at a conclusion that though it may seem unpalatable is at least objectively justifiable.

That's an ideal to strive for, but you won't achieve it, at least not in an acceptable manner. There are rules that are objective and repeatable, but they aren't acceptable. For example, a claimer loses every trick in the case of a faulty claim is an objective rule that produces the same result every time, but it isn't acceptable.

Bluejak will tell us that faulty claims are so rare that it doesn't matter much, but I disagree. At the club, faulty claim rulings are much more common than UI rulings.

There are other parts of the laws where judgment rulings are applied, and they are inevitably subjective and don't produce the same result with different people applying them. I think inevitably any acceptable claim adjudication has to involve the application of judgment. What we require is, as is provided in the case of UI rulings, a bit more guidance from the lawmakers on how to apply our judgment.

[dburn]

iviehoff, on Mar 25 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

dburn, on Mar 25 2010, 04:44 AM, said:

[This is intolerable. The success or failure of any claim should not be a matter of whether jdonn or I arrive at the table to resolve the claim (whether the contract is 7NT or 2♥). It should be a matter of following, step by step, a well-formulated procedure that requires nothing whatsoever in the way of subjective judgement, and arriving at a conclusion that though it may seem unpalatable is at least objectively justifiable.

That's an ideal to strive for, but you won't achieve it, at least not in an acceptable manner. There are rules that are objective and repeatable, but they aren't acceptable. For example, a claimer loses every trick in the case of a faulty claim is an objective rule that produces the same result every time, but it isn't acceptable.

If I ruled the world, the law on claims would say this:

A player making a claim faces his cards. He states the number of tricks he proposes to take, and one or more orders in which play will progress so that he can take those tricks. If the claim is contested, the Director adjusts the score as if any play not explicitly covered by the claim statement had proceeded in the legal order least advantageous to the claimer.

Is this what is accepted? No, for people make bum claims all the time, being encouraged to do so by officials who say "yes, of course you'd have made four tricks from AKx facing Q10xx" when there is no "of course" about it at all.

Is this what is acceptable? I don't see why not - it takes no more than a few extra seconds for players to claim as I have indicated above instead of saying "the rest are mine". And if they go down twelve instead of down one by saying only "I have them all", perhaps they'll learn not to say that next time.

At any rate, it is considerably easier for officials to rule on what is or is not explicitly covered by a claim statement than to rule on what some buffoon might or might not have had in mind when he claimed x tricks despite possessing only x-1 winners. Players at all levels don't mind the rules being harsh. What they mind is the rules and the rulings being [a] inconsistent and [b] incomprehensible.

If you've got fifteen golf clubs in your bag, you get penalized out of all proportion to the "offence" when the extra club was a plastic putter for your three-year-old kid. Golfers don't mind that. Why should bridge players?

[bluejak]

I do not know why bridge players should mind, but the fact is they do. They do not care whether the rules are complex or not because they aggressively do not understand them - take the simple doubles alerting rules, which are so simple that players say they are too complex when they assume they are more complex than they are.

But they do not think it fair that they should suffer for their mistakes. There was a strong effort a few years back to stop "impossible" results from revokes: players could not see how it was fair to let a grand through holding the ace of trumps. Me, I think they should learn to follow suit. Players call or play the wrong thing and assume they have an absolute right at all times to change it.

Incidentally, in answer to another point, of course there are more claim rulings than UI rulings in clubs, and I really dislike "bluejak would say ..." followed by something i neither said nor meant. What does not happen frequently are difficult claim rulings. In clubs, there are thousands and thousands of unchallenged claims, plus a number of completely obvious claim rulings ["Of course I knew there was a trump out"]. Very tricky claim rulings are very rare, especially compared to the number of unchallenged claim rulings, and that is why suggestions to reduce claims are flawed.

But the main thing about this forum is that we are trying to help people make rulings with the current rules. That is what the forum is for. If I had my way, there are quite a number of Laws I would change, but so what? If we want to discuss changes and perhaps put any consensuses to the WBFLC or our national bodies, we now have a forum for it - and this is not it.

So if we believe the claim Laws are wrong it does not help.