[mangurian]

If declarer claims some number of remaining tricks and defenders ok it, When if ever, should dummy point out an error in the claim?

e.g. Declarer says "I have 5 of the remaining 7 tricks." Dummy sees three not two losers.

[mikeh]

Law 68D implies that dummy has rights to express doubt about a claim.

Dummy can’t say anything about an irregularity so long as play is underway, but a claim ‘suspends’ play, and the cited Law expressly refers to dummy having rights at that point.

[mangurian]

 mikeh, on 2021-February-19, 17:02, said:

Law 68D implies that dummy has rights to express doubt about a claim.

Dummy can’t say anything about an irregularity so long as play is underway, but a claim ‘suspends’ play, and the cited Law expressly refers to dummy having rights at that point.

Is dummy obligated to give up the trick?

[mikeh]

 mangurian, on 2021-February-19, 17:18, said:

Is dummy obligated to give up the trick?

Dummy is not giving up the trick. He or she is merely being ethical, but of course declarer might be right.

[mycroft]

Law 79A2: A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that their side did not win or the concession of a trick that the opponents could not lose.

So if three losers are mandatory, you must dispute that. If three losers are going to happen on reasonable play, but the opponents can compress them to two, you need not, but you may object. Let the director then adjudicate the claim.

Where your personal ethics go is up to you and your partner. I have called the director after looking at the hands after a claim where they gave me a trump trick that he would never have actually given me in play (he had forgotten I had ruffed in, and thought I had one by length), but he could have "conceded his sure trump loser first". I have rejected claims giving me a trick where "lucky breaks" meant that if played out, he wouldn't have had to.

I have also carefully not looked to see if there was a "lucky break", playing against a pair that was obnoxious about the strict letter of the claim laws earlier - they were absolutely entitled to do so, but I didn't feel I had to do anything but play right to the letter of the law the rest of the match.

[pilowsky]

 mycroft, on 2021-February-19, 20:26, said:

I have also carefully not looked to see if there was a "lucky break", playing against a pair that was obnoxious about the strict letter of the claim laws earlier - they were absolutely entitled to do so, but I didn't feel I had to do anything but play right to the letter of the law the rest of the match.

Can I have a definition of 'obnoxious' - Is there an "obnoxious" analogue scale - say from 0 - "so pleasant I want to pay them for the pleasure of being my opposition" to 10 "Any court in the land would let me off if I bopped them on the snout".

Or, is it an open-ended scale like the Richter scale? Can we call it the MMR scale (Mycroft Moral Relativism scale)?
Not to be confused with a Morbidity and Mortality Review or the Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine - both useful in their own way, but unlikely to be helpful in this situation.

Do we need to calibrate it against an objective measure of how obnoxious we are (either individually or as a pair)?

This could be the ethical breakthrough that Bridge-players have sought for decades - I'm very excited.

"Hmm, I think you rate a 6 on the MMR, but before I give up the trick I just need to consult my partner to see if I am over-estimating the conjoint MMR".

Applied across an entire field of Bridge players we may have to use a new test-statistic - the X-test (so-called because it detects whether the offending party makes you significantly cross (X) or not.
Raising the question: is obnoxiousness normally distributed?

Ultimately, there will need to be a law that Directors can apply to determine the Joint obnoxiousness of each pair and use that to add or subtract IMP's.

[Douglas43]

I'm with Mycroft in terms of when to give the benefit of the doubt, at least F2F. Harder to tell online though. Using my PC I am (I hope) a cordial and polite opponent. If I am using my tablet you are lucky to get an "wpo" out of me!

[nige1]

 mycroft, on 2021-February-19, 20:26, said:

I have also carefully not looked to see if there was a "lucky break", playing against a pair that was obnoxious about the strict letter of the claim laws earlier - they were absolutely entitled to do so, but I didn't feel I had to do anything but play right to the letter of the law the rest of the match.

IMO, for the enjoyment of a competitive game, it's sensible not "obnoxious' to adhere to the strict letter of the rules.

[AL78]

 pilowsky, on 2021-February-19, 22:34, said:

Can I have a definition of 'obnoxious'

https://dictionary.c...glish/obnoxious

[0 carbon]

I suggest when claim seems to be wrong or premature, and accepted, that any ethical player should call the Director expressing the problem.
I often refuse claims when I don't see the result is inevitable, then claim/concede when smoke clears.

[mycroft]

"He said he had 5 hearts, three clubs and a spade. But when he takes his 5 hearts, he doesn't have an entry to the spade any more." Clearly this is a line that isn't going to go anywhere, but there are levels of "nitpicking the claim statement" that will, to the Law, work, even if it is a "technically you're correct, but everybody here know what he meant" issue. Or minor hitches that "they noticed" and am going to hold me to. Or "come on, he confused Michaels and U2NT when he spoke. You knew he misexplained - nobody plays that; partner knew he misexplained; F's new girlfriend kibitzing over there, who didn't know how to play bridge last week knows he misexplained. You weren't damaged, you're just hoping the director will fall for it this time."

And hey, if people want to play that game, I can play it too. Since I almost always have much more experience with the Laws and Regulations in force, I can play it better than them, usually. So when they later claim giving me a trick, I can play right down to 79A2 if I feel like it, and if they don't know 71B as well as I do (or what normal* means) well, that's just too bad for them.

I actually do enjoy playing right to the Laws with only the minimal exceptions "everybody" does like "small heart". If I'm playing a pair that knows the Laws as well as we do, and if they're friendly otherwise and as willing to step up to their legal obligation plate as they expect me to be, it's actually a very enjoyable game not having to worry about "what everybody would accept" and "is there going to be an issue if I object" and all the rest. And the three or four pairs I know that can do this are wonderful. But most that are trying that on are "I get leeway, you don't", and then it becomes "now we're playing two games, and I am better at *both of them* than you are".

[barmar]

Often when I explain a claim online, I simply state the number of tricks I'll take in each suit, e.g. 2♣ 1♦ 2♠. Last night I made a claim like this, and I realized after I submitted it that if the opponents interpreted it as the order that I planned to take the tricks, it wouldn't succeed due to transportation problems. Luckily the opponents didn't make a point of this (it was a friendly Reynolds match).

[mycroft]

Sorry for the necro, but I had a relevant example show up yesterday:

 mycroft, on 2021-February-19, 20:26, said:

Law 79A2: A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that their side did not win or the concession of a trick that the opponents could not lose.
...
I have also carefully not looked to see if there was a "lucky break", playing against a pair that was obnoxious about the strict letter of the claim laws earlier - they were absolutely entitled to do so, but I didn't feel I had to do anything but play right to the letter of the law the rest of the match.

Hands rotated. Spade contract. South to play, and claims "have to give up the clubs".

---

Sure, if she plays her trumps out, she gets only two tricks. If she plays a club, though, E-W are hooped. My response, seeing the hands as West, was "but only one, unfortunately". By Law, I can keep silent, she could play stupidly, but nobody actually would in real life.

Now, I was the playing director, and partner was the fill-in who knew we were just there to avoid a sitout (and hopefully have a pleasant couple of hours). So, there was a definite incentive to not play right to the Laws here (and let the opponent come back to *me* with a 71B claim, which I would have to rule if playing spades was "normal*". Yeah, no winning ethical line there, is there?) And I would do the same in most games in most situations against most opponents even if I weren't in the hotseat. But against the pair that cheerfully admits that they use their partner's explanations in their bidding? Or the one who thinks it's the best strategy to play every hand to trick 13, and then joke about the opponent's nick after they got 1100 into nothing? Or the one who nitpicks every claim of mine for absolute accuracy? Or the one who was on their 15th "obvious to anybody who was willing to think" imProper behaviour at the table, after having eventually had the director called on the previous 14? Yep, I might just not notice the line of play, or notice it and say to myself "yeah, but he *could* just play out his trumps here first, so his concession isn't *wrong*".

[Gilithin]

 barmar, on 2021-February-23, 09:28, said:

Often when I explain a claim online, I simply state the number of tricks I'll take in each suit, e.g. 2♣ 1♦ 2♠. Last night I made a claim like this, and I realized after I submitted it that if the opponents interpreted it as the order that I planned to take the tricks, it wouldn't succeed due to transportation problems. Luckily the opponents didn't make a point of this (it was a friendly Reynolds match).

On BBO, if it seems to be necessary I just write "2012" with the numbers in the order of ♠♥♦♣. Against most online players though I play until things are so obvious that a complete novice will see it. Claiming early is something of a mark of respect. Occasionally I will mark a profile to say "don't bother claiming".

[Gilithin]

 mycroft, on 2021-November-10, 15:52, said:

Sure, if she plays her trumps out, she gets only two tricks. If she plays a club, though, E-W are hooped. My response, seeing the hands as West, was "but only one, unfortunately". By Law, I can keep silent, she could play stupidly, but nobody actually would in real life.

She might also have crossed to the ♠10 and played a ♣ to the queen. This also conspires to lose a second trick.

[mikl_plkcc]

I generally play until it is obvious (e.g. only top tricks are left in NT play, or only trumps are left after drawing trumps, or a standard cross-ruff layout is set up).

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2021-November-10, 15:52, said:

Sure, if she plays her trumps out, she gets only two tricks. If she plays a club, though, E-W are hooped. My response, seeing the hands as West, was "but only one, unfortunately". By Law, I can keep silent, she could play stupidly, but nobody actually would in real life.

Almost nobody would play it wrong in real life, but many weaker players would initially be convinced they have only two tricks, which is an example of why one should never claim under the current laws unless good at play and on great terms with opponents.

[blackshoe]

There's a reason for Law 68C. Why do people keep ignoring this law?

[morecharac]

 blackshoe, on 2021-November-12, 15:21, said:

There's a reason for Law 68C. Why do people keep ignoring this law?

Ignorance or lack of practice.

I've given what's a blindingly obvious statement of claim (to my Aspergers mind) and had it rejected often enough that I now just play it out until it's impossible for me not to win all the remaining tricks even with playing errors. It's just not worth wanting to strangle the director.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2021-November-12, 15:21, said:

There's a reason for Law 68C. Why do people keep ignoring this law?

The inherent problem is that it is amazingly easy to make a flawed statement, even when one would make no mistake playing out the cards.
Unless the situation is blindingly clear or one knows that opponents offer trust and will gliss over any apparent flaw, claiming is just not worth the risk, particularly if the claimant is emotional or under stress.

But yes I agree, opponents should not readily accept an unclear claim however well disposed they may be.