[Vampyr]

lalldonn, on 2013-February-13, 00:02, said:

pran said:
In either case, deliberate or not, East attempted to influence West's choice of action inn trick 12.

bluejak said:

We have no evidence that East attempted to do any such thing, and I consider it a disgraceful assertion.


I was going to strongly agree with that, but then I realized his assertion is nonsensical anyway. There is no such thing as accidentally attempting to do something. Just as there is no such thing in the later post of "effectively illegally communicating" something to partner.
I was going to strongly agree with that, but then I realized his assertion is nonsensical anyway. There is no such thing as accidentally attempting to do something. Just as there is no such thing in the later post of "effectively illegally communicating" something to partner.

Nonetheless, West will know what card to play when he sees East's remaining cards.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps, but unless he immediately objects to the claim, he won't get to play it.

[lalldonn]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-13, 00:30, said:

Nonetheless, West will know what card to play when he sees East's remaining cards.

Before too!

[Vampyr]

lalldonn, on 2013-February-13, 00:41, said:

Before too!

Maybe.

[Lanor Fow]

How can an act that by the laws curtails play, be seen to be communicating with partner about what parnter should play? Play is stopped.

[pran]

Lanor Fow, on 2013-February-13, 05:23, said:

How can an act that by the laws curtails play, be seen to be communicating with partner about what parnter should play? Play is stopped.

And in order to adjudicate the claim (if he rules claim and not premature play) TD must judge which card West shall be ruled to play, taking into account the information received by West from (prematurely) seeing East's last card.

[nige1]

Your claim deprives partner of the opportunity to make a mistake. Without your claim, a mistake by partner is unlikely but possible As declarer, you often claim to avoid a daft careless error, yourself. The question is: does the law allow a defender's claim to prevent his partner from making a stupid mistake? The old law allowed declarer to play claimer's partner's hand, in such circumstances. Admittedly, that results in simple consistent rulings that players understand. But such laws frustrate those who enjoy intriguing rulings and inconcluve debate.

[pran]

nige1, on 2013-February-13, 05:53, said:

Your claim deprives partner of the opportunity to make a mistake. Without your claim, a mistake by partner is unlikely but possible As declarer, you often claim to avoid a stupid careless error, yourself. The question is: do the laws allow a defender's claim to prevent his partner from making such a mistake? The old law allowed declarer to play claimer's partner's hand. Admittedly, that would result in simple consistent rulings that players would understand. But such laws frustrate those who enjoy intriguing rulings and inconcluve debate.

The laws definitely do not allow a defender (for instance) to claim in order to prevent his partner from possibly selecting an unfortunate alternative action (i.e. play).

Law 75D2 said:

The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

And normal must here be judged also from the effect of seeing the claimer's unplayed card(s).

[WellSpyder]

nige1, on 2013-February-13, 05:53, said:

As declarer, you often claim to avoid a daft careless error, yourself.

This is completely untrue. I have never thought of trying to avoid a careless mistake by claiming, merely of saving everyone time and unnecessary thought. Surely the exact opposite is the case, ie some people avoid claiming in order to avoid a careless error in making the claim?

[nige1]

pran, on 2013-February-13, 06:00, said:

The laws definitely do not allow a defender (for instance) to claim in order to prevent his partner from possibly selecting an unfortunate alternative action (i.e. play).

I didn't write "in order to". The effect may not be deliberate. Without an admission by the claimer, the director may find such an intention is hard to determine. Also, the claimer, himself may be unclear about his own motive. Obviously, however, the claimer "could have known". On the other hand, claiming is not an infraction. Great fun

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-February-13, 05:51, said:

And in order to adjudicate the claim (if he rules claim and not premature play) TD must judge which card West shall be ruled to play...

Correct

pran, on 2013-February-13, 05:51, said:

... taking into account the information received by West from (prematurely) seeing East's last card.

Incorrect.

The TD is supposed to look what plays by West would be "normal" (if the hand had been played out without any claim, while East is bound by his claim statement). And out of these "normal" plays the TD choses the one that is the least advantageous for the claiming side.

So, the simple question is whether it is "normal" (including careless or inferior, but not irrational) for West to overtake with the ace. If that is "normal" then the TD will chose for West to overtake and South will get a trick. If it is irrational, the TD doesn't have anything to chose and South won't get a trick.

Rik

[nige1]

WellSpyder, on 2013-February-13, 06:12, said:

This is completely untrue. I have never thought of trying to avoid a careless mistake by claiming, merely of saving everyone time and unnecessary thought. Surely the exact opposite is the case, ie some people avoid claiming in order to avoid a careless error in making the claim?

I apologise, WellSpyder. I wrote "As declarer, you often claim to avoid a daft careless error". I should have written "As declarer, I often claim to avoid a daft careless error". Although I believe other declarers do the same. Sorry

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-13, 06:21, said:

[...]
The TD is supposed to look what plays by West would be "normal" (if the hand had been played out without any claim, while East is bound by his claim statement). And out of these "normal" plays the TD choses the one that is the least advantageous for the claiming side.

So, the simple question is whether it is "normal" (including careless or inferior, but not irrational) for West to overtake with the ace. If that is "normal" then the TD will chose for West to overtake and South will get a trick. If it is irrational, the TD doesn't have anything to chose and South won't get a trick.

Rik

West has UI from prematurely seeing East's last card so West may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. (Law 16B1{a})

This is what TD must seriously consider when adjudicating the claim. It places a much more heavy burden on evidence that the unfortunate alternative not suggested was indeed irrational and should never be considered a logical alternative.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-February-13, 07:27, said:

West has UI from prematurely seeing East's last card so West may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. (Law 16B1{a})

This is what TD must seriously consider when adjudicating the claim. It places a much more heavy burden on evidence that the unfortunate alternative not suggested was indeed irrational and should never be considered a logical alternative.

Law 16 doesn't apply. For one thing West has 0 (zero) logical alternatives to choose from... because West has nothing to choose anymore. Play has ceased.

The only time when Law 16 comes into play in claims is specified precisely in Law 68B2: It deals with the case where the play will continue when West would have immediately objected to the claim. West didn't immediately object to the claim and, therefore, play has ceased and Law 16 does not apply.

Now, West is completely out of the picture. He will not be playing any more cards on this deal. For West the deal was over at the point where he didn't object immediately to the claim. According to Law 70D2, the TD will "play" for West (by ruling whether overtaking would be a "normal" play in the case that there wouldn't have been a claim at all).

The laws are quite clear here: 68B2 is the only case where UI (from the claim) comes into play. And they make sense too. After all, it is easy to see that West got the "UI" at the point where he was already out of the game. At that point he has as much influence on what cards he plays as the dummy or a kibitzer has. And I have never heard a defender complain that dummy had UI, for the simple reason that this UI cannot help his side. (OK, except for the Buratti-Lanzarotti case )

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

Pran, when delcarer claims and shows his hand, we do not consider double dummy lines for defense based on the fact that that can now see declarer's hand, we only consider normal and irrational plays based on the information they had before they saw the hand. Why would we rule differently when defence claim?

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-13, 00:18, said:

They should send people on training courses, or hold training sessions.

Why should they? Do you not feel that you are getting just a touch didactic in the way other clubs should be run?

[iviehoff]

WellSpyder, on 2013-February-13, 06:12, said:

This is completely untrue. I have never thought of trying to avoid a careless mistake by claiming, merely of saving everyone time and unnecessary thought. Surely the exact opposite is the case, ie some people avoid claiming in order to avoid a careless error in making the claim?

There is a famous case that appears to suggest a claim by a player might well have the effect of protecting the claimer from his own silly mistakes, even if that was never his intention.

In essence a player claimed on a double squeeze. His opponents asked him to play it out. Despite being a top player, he was apparently unaware that this was not permitted in law. He proceeded to play it out and got mixed up in his mind and played the wrong card at some stage and went off. This was then appealed on the grounds that it shouldn't have been played out, and the claim was good. The appeal committee agreed that it shouldn't have been played out and the claim was good, so it was rescored as making.

As a result of that incident, which predated the present edition of the laws, and which many saw as outrageous, a new law was put in stating that the director can have regard to what cards were in practice played if nevertheless play proceeds after a claim.

But we can see that even with the new law, if the player above had claimed on a double squeeze and refused to play on, he might well have been awarded his claim, even though we now know he could in practice sometimes mess it up. And if you would not be inclined to give anyone a claim on a double squeeze, the same argument can be applied to more routine methods of play that might be more often mentioned in a claim, even a cross-ruff, which people have been known on occasion to mess-up. So the law does, in practice, have the effect of protecting the claimer from a level of carelessness where you fail to follow the line of play you had yourself determined in advance. However, like you, I think it unlikely that players ever claim with the specific intention of protecting themselves from that carelessness.

[nige1]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-13, 11:16, said:

There is a famous case that appears to suggest a claim by a player might well have the effect of protecting the claimer from his own silly mistakes, even if that was never his intention. In essence a player claimed on a double squeeze. His opponents asked him to play it out. Despite being a top player, he was apparently unaware that this was not permitted in law. He proceeded to play it out and got mixed up in his mind and played the wrong card at some stage and went off. This was then appealed on the grounds that it shouldn't have been played out, and the claim was good. The appeal committee agreed that it shouldn't have been played out and the claim was good, so it was rescored as making. As a result of that incident, which predated the present edition of the laws, and which many saw as outrageous, a new law was put in stating that the director can have regard to what cards were in practice played if nevertheless play proceeds after a claim. But we can see that even with the new law, if the player above had claimed on a double squeeze and refused to play on, he might well have been awarded his claim, even though we now know he could in practice sometimes mess it up. And if you would not be inclined to give anyone a claim on a double squeeze, the same argument can be applied to more routine methods of play that might be more often mentioned in a claim, even a cross-ruff, which people have been known on occasion to mess-up. So the law does, in practice, have the effect of protecting the claimer from a level of carelessness where you fail to follow the line of play you had yourself determined in advance. However, like you, I think it unlikely that players ever claim with the specific intention of protecting themselves from that carelessness.

David Burn said:

Playing against a Belgian side
I reached a dodgy contract, where
Although to beat me hard 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."

Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air
And made for sheep by chimpanzees.
But that is scarcely my affair -
I claimed it on a double squeeze.

[mycroft]

I know that I have managed to "play out" claimers (when the opponents have raised a stink to high heaven on a previous claim, so I know it won't actually save time) and get them wrong. I, certainly, claim because the number of faulty claims or misguided claim statements I make (maybe, maybe, 1 a year) is fewer than the number of times I will play out a claimer wrong (among all the other reasons).

I do love the "we came here to play bridge, so we're playing" types. Especially when they're perennially late because they play every hand to trick 13. Almost as much as the "I made a bad claim once and the TD forced me to do this stupid thing that I totally would have thought of but didn't notice when I claimed; so I never claim" people. Almost as much as the "I'm not claiming, just showing my hand so you can concede if you want; that way all the responsibility for a faulty claim lies on you" people.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2013-February-13, 10:51, said:

Why should they? Do you not feel that you are getting just a touch didactic in the way other clubs should be run?

If it is better for you and the players at your club that the directorial responsibilities be shouldered by a single person, then of course you should do it that way.