To Claim or not to Claim (theory)
Mike Dorsel
If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
tricks on the hand currently being played ...
(1) is he/she legally required to claim?
(2) should he/she claim (ethically)?
(3) Do conditions of contest (Matchpoints/Swiss/KO) affect your
responses to the questions above?
Is your point of view affected by ...
(a) the time alloted to play one or more hands?
(b) implications affecting the defence of other hands?
(c) the amount of energy expended on "meaningless" hands and
possible gamesmanship?
Thanks in advance for your responses,
- Mike Dorsel
Adam Beneschan
Mike Dorsel <mdo...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
>tricks on the hand currently being played ...
>(1) is he/she legally required to claim?
>(2) should he/she claim (ethically)?
I don't think there is any such ethical requirement. I think it
*would* be unethical, or at least extremely discourteous, to play
slowly, as if you're thinking, when you know you have the rest of the
tricks.
However, I can see several good reasons for not claiming, or for
playing a couple of tricks before you claim:
(a) To make life easier for the opponents, and often yourself. If
dummy is high, or if you're trump-tight and all the trumps are
out, etc., it's easy for the opponents to see why you've got the
rest of the tricks. On the other hand, if you say something like
"I'm cashing dummy's ace and then setting up the suit with a ruff
unless one opponent shows out on the ace, in which case I can set
up the suit either with a ruffing finesse or a straight finesse
depending on who shows out", the opponents will have to think
about what you're saying. This will probably not save any time,
and it will put more strain on your opponents, so you might as
well go ahead and play the silly cards. However, if you're
playing against strong opponents who can see the truth of your
claim easily, it would be OK to claim.
The general principle I follow is not to claim, even if I can see
a 100% line, unless my opponents (depending on their skill level)
can see what I'm talking about with relatively little effort. For
example, I would never claim on a line requiring a squeeze unless
my opponents are quite good players. If you try this against less
experienced players, either (1) they will acquiesce without really
understanding why, which may leave them feeling taken advantage
of, or (2) they will either demand an explanation, and/or demand
that you play it out (illegally), and/or call the director, in any
case leading to unpleasantness.
(b) You might be the type of person that sometimes forgets about
missing trumps or a count on the suit. If that's the case, even
though you see a 100% line, you might want to play a couple more
cards or draw a useless round of trumps just to make sure.
>(3) Do conditions of contest (Matchpoints/Swiss/KO) affect your
>responses to the questions above?
I don't see how the conditions could affect anything, so I must be
missing something. (Sometimes, at IMPs, I can envision claiming my
contract and giving up on a possible overtrick if I'm under time
pressure. However, your question was about situations where you have
*all* the remaining tricks.)
>Is your point of view affected by ...
>(a) the time alloted to play one or more hands?
If I'm in danger of being late, I might claim on hands where normally
I'd play out a couple more tricks.
>(b) implications affecting the defence of other hands?
You've lost me here.
>(c) the amount of energy expended on "meaningless" hands and
>possible gamesmanship?
No; and again, I'm not certain I understand what you're getting at.
-- Adam
Thomas Andrews
In article <4tl93p$u...@krusty.irvine.com>,
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
>
>One thing, though: I watched part of the Spingold final on Pendergraph
>last year, and one thing that impressed me was how often the play
>ended at trick four or five. So the conclusion I have to draw from
>that is that claiming early, when there's no reason to play a hand
>out, is considered part of expert courtesy. So if nothing else, I'd
>have to consider your acquaintenance's practice to be discourteous.
>
Well, if my opponents weren't gonna pitch away their winners at
trick 11, I'd stop playing at trick 4 or 5 as well :-)
--
====================
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
David Stevenson
Mike Dorsel wrote:
>If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
>tricks on the hand currently being played ...
>(1) is he/she legally required to claim?
Yes
>(2) should he/she claim (ethically)?
Yes
>(3) Do conditions of contest (Matchpoints/Swiss/KO) affect your
>responses to the questions above?
No
>
>Is your point of view affected by ...
>(a) the time alloted to play one or more hands?
No
>(b) implications affecting the defence of other hands?
No
>(c) the amount of energy expended on "meaningless" hands and
>possible gamesmanship?
No
--
David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\
Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )=
da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | )
Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~
R. Michaels
In article <31FD17...@ix.netcom.com>,
Mike Dorsel <mdo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
>tricks on the hand currently being played ...
>(1) is he/she legally required to claim?
>responses to the questions above?
>
>(a) the time alloted to play one or more hands?
>possible gamesmanship?
>
>- Mike Dorsel
As far as I recall, a declarer who can see a 100% line, which (s)he thinks is
understandable by the defenders (a proven double-squeeze doesn't count against
beginners) is ethically, but not legally obliged to claim. Slowing the game
down on purpose, is, I believe, illegal, however.
Cheers,
Robin
Craig Ganzer
In article <31FD17...@ix.netcom.com>,
Mike Dorsel <mdo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
>tricks on the hand currently being played ...
>(1) is he/she legally required to claim?
I believe so. However, if the "100% line" is something like an automatic
double squeeze, and you judge that your current opponents are not good
enough to recognize it, it's probably better to play it out. They'll
call the director for a disputed claim, and that will end up taking longer.
>(2) should he/she claim (ethically)?
Yes. Forcing your opponents to waste their energy when you know nothing
they do matters is a form of cheating.
>(3) Do conditions of contest (Matchpoints/Swiss/KO) affect
your >responses to the questions above?
No.
>
>Is your point of view affected by ...
>(a) the time alloted to play one or more hands?
>(b) implications affecting the defence of other hands?
>(c) the amount of energy expended on "meaningless" hands and
>possible gamesmanship?
>
No, no, and no.
--
Craig Ganzer Arlington, VA
http://frostbite.umd.edu/~ganz/
"Correction: The next month without a full moon will be February 1999,
not some month 2.5 million years from now."
-NY Times, Feb. 24
Adam Beneschan
Mike Dorsel <mdo...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER claims.
>He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining tricks or not.
>His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my opponents off the hook
>from needing to think [use mental energy]? And why should I let them
>know *when* I am less that cold for my contract?"
OK, now I understand. It didn't occur to me that someone might want
to "play it out" to force someone to use mental energy.
Although I previously thought there wasn't any mention of this subject
in the Laws, I was wrong.
"74B: 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."
Unfortunately, I don't think the purpose of "forcing someone to use
mental energy" falls into the definition of "disconcerting." It would
be different if the purpose were to get someone riled.
Also, I'm undecided as to whether this person's tactics are unethical.
It's not the way I think bridge should be played, but I can't really
point to anything that says the bridge organizations are all agreed
that this tactic shouldn't be part of the game.
One thing, though: I watched part of the Spingold final on Pendergraph
last year, and one thing that impressed me was how often the play
ended at trick four or five. So the conclusion I have to draw from
that is that claiming early, when there's no reason to play a hand
out, is considered part of expert courtesy. So if nothing else, I'd
have to consider your acquaintenance's practice to be discourteous.
Finally, his last question, "why should I let them know when I am less
than cold", is silly. Defenders must always ASSUME that declarer
isn't cold for the remaining tricks (and in some circumstances, that
declarer isn't cold for the contract). Textbooks use this theme a
lot. "You must assume partner has the ace of spades, because
otherwise the contract is cold and it doesn't matter what you do. Now
based on this assumption, count declarer's high card points . . ."
>Consider (a) thru (c) in the context of the above. I know others who
>do not claim because they've experienced ugly rulings regarding less-
>than-perfect claims. My (1) thru (3) is trying to cover that type of
>reason, while my (a) thru (c) is aimed at the more tactical thought
>process of a non-claimer.
I do get a little annoyed playing against people who never claim, but
I can understand their fears. When they give novice/intermediate
lectures at tournaments, do they ever give lectures on when and how to
claim?
-- Adam
Mike Dorsel
Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> Mike Dorsel <mdo...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
> >tricks on the hand currently being played ...
> >(1) is he/she legally required to claim?
>
>
> >(2) should he/she claim (ethically)?
>
> >responses to the questions above?
>
> missing something. (Sometimes, at IMPs, I can envision claiming my
> contract and giving up on a possible overtrick if I'm under time
> pressure. However, your question was about situations where you have
> *all* the remaining tricks.)
I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER claims.
He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining tricks or not.
His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my opponents off the hook
from needing to think [use mental energy]? And why should I let them
know *when* I am less that cold for my contract?"
Consider (a) thru (c) in the context of the above. I know others who
do not claim because they've experienced ugly rulings regarding less-
than-perfect claims. My (1) thru (3) is trying to cover that type of
reason, while my (a) thru (c) is aimed at the more tactical thought
process of a non-claimer.
> >Is your point of view affected by ...
> >(a) the time alloted to play one or more hands?
>
> If I'm in danger of being late, I might claim on hands where normally
> I'd play out a couple more tricks.
>
> >(b) implications affecting the defence of other hands?
>
> You've lost me here.
>
> >(c) the amount of energy expended on "meaningless" hands and
> >possible gamesmanship?
>
Dale Johannesen
In article <31FD17...@ix.netcom.com>, Mike Dorsel <mdo...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
|> If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
|> tricks on the hand currently being played ...
|> (1) is he/she legally required to claim?
The only applicable Law I can find is 74B4: "as a matter of courtesy
a player should refrain from prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on
although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of
disconcerting an opponent." I recall a stronger statement to this
effect, but can't find it now; possibly it was removed in the most
recent rewrite of the Laws.
David Stevenson
David Stevenson wrote:
>Mike Dorsel wrote:
>
>>If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
>>tricks on the hand currently being played ...
>>(1) is he/she legally required to claim?
>Yes
>>(2) should he/she claim (ethically)?
>Yes
>>(3) Do conditions of contest (Matchpoints/Swiss/KO) affect your
>>responses to the questions above?
>No
>>
>>Is your point of view affected by ...
>>(a) the time alloted to play one or more hands?
>No
>>(b) implications affecting the defence of other hands?
>No
>>(c) the amount of energy expended on "meaningless" hands and
>>possible gamesmanship?
>No
>
One or two of the later posts have made me realise that I have over-
simplified my response to this and/or misread the question.
In my view you are required to claim under the Laws of the game when
to do so will speed the game up. So, if declarer can see a 100% line
for the contract but realises that his opponents will not understand the
claim so that it will be quicker to play it out, then he is not required
to claim. Similarly if he feels unable to explain why it is a 100%
line.
However, not to claim for other purposes [eg to wear the opponents out
or to make sure they never know in future whether you have all the
tricks] is in contravention of L74B4 [already quoted in this thread].
This is prolonging play unnecessarily and the Law actually quotes this
situation so there can be no ambiguity.
One suggestion in one of the articles is that not claiming is not
ethical but not necessarily against the Laws. One of the main changes
in the 1987 Laws is to give the Proprieties Law numbers: the reason
[both apparent and stated] is to make it clear that the Proprieties were
part of the Laws and failure to follow them is a breach of Law.
Neil Cohen
In article <Wky9bKAuez$xE...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson
<ne...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
> In my view you are required to claim under the Laws of the game when
> to do so will speed the game up. So, if declarer can see a 100% line
> for the contract but realises that his opponents will not understand the
> claim so that it will be quicker to play it out, then he is not required
> to claim. Similarly if he feels unable to explain why it is a 100%
> line.
>
> However, not to claim for other purposes [eg to wear the opponents out
> or to make sure they never know in future whether you have all the
> tricks] is in contravention of L74B4 [already quoted in this thread].
> This is prolonging play unnecessarily and the Law actually quotes this
> situation so there can be no ambiguity.
While claiming is desirable (and perhaps required) in theory, in
practice it can be dangerous. A slight misstatement can lead to
undertricks or going set in a cold contract. I once claimed in a 3N
contract with 9 tricks in hand and an uncashed A in the hand on lead. The
opponents insisted I'd made 3. Since it was teams and we won the match, I
didn't call the director.
Neil
Adam Beneschan
Jeff Goldsmith <je...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>Mike Dorsel wrote:
>
>> I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER claims.
>> He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining tricks or not.
>> His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my opponents off the hook
>> from needing to think [use mental energy]?
>
>unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate:
disconcert vt 1: to throw into confusion 2: to disturb the composure of
It's not clear to me that if your purpose is to wear down the
opponents by making them think needlessly, that this purpose could be
considered "to disconcert the opponent". I suppose the definition
could be interpreted in a way to cover the actions of the above-quoted
player, but it's debatable. Maybe the Law should be revised to cover
this situation.
-- Adam
Barbara B. Odlin
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Stevenson wrote:
> However, not to claim for other purposes [eg to wear the opponents out
> or to make sure they never know in future whether you have all the
> tricks] is in contravention of L74B4 [already quoted in this thread].
> This is prolonging play unnecessarily and the Law actually quotes this
> situation so there can be no ambiguity.
The part in the first parenthetical phrase above about making sure they
never know in the future whether you have all the tricks does NOT appear
in the text in any way at all, although the bit about wearing them out
does. I assume that this is just a gratuitous expression of opinion,
then, unless there is something else in the Laws about it.
Suppose the opponents are on lead at the point where you know you have the
rest. Would you claim now? I am of the opinion that you probably should
not. If you do, then the next time they are on lead and you do not claim,
they will know you don't have all the rest and may just come up with the
only way to beat you! Seems like it is just protecting yourself by not
claiming until they lead. If it takes them some time to lead, seems like
the opponent is the one delaying play, not you. Comments?
Rich Odlin
Jeff Goldsmith
Mike Dorsel wrote:
> I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER claims.
> He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining tricks or not.
> His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my opponents off the hook
> from needing to think [use mental energy]?
That's illegal. 74B4. One may not prolong the play
unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.
> And why should I let them
> know *when* I am less that cold for my contract?"
Busted reasoning. It doesn't matter what they do
if you have a hand on which you can claim, so they
can simply assume that you don't have a claim, therefore
"knowing" that you are "less than cold."
--Jeff
--
# ATTITUDE CHECK!
# ---
# http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff
David Stevenson
Adam Beneschan wrote:
>Jeff Goldsmith <je...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
> >Mike Dorsel wrote:
> >
> >> I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER claims.
> >> He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining tricks or not.
> >> His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my opponents off the hook
> >> from needing to think [use mental energy]?
> >
> >That's illegal. 74B4. One may not prolong the play
> >unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.
>
>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate:
>
>disconcert vt 1: to throw into confusion 2: to disturb the composure of
>
>It's not clear to me that if your purpose is to wear down the
>opponents by making them think needlessly, that this purpose could be
>considered "to disconcert the opponent". I suppose the definition
>could be interpreted in a way to cover the actions of the above-quoted
>player, but it's debatable. Maybe the Law should be revised to cover
>this situation.
It may be debatable, but it is clearly the meaning. I do not believe
any fair interpretation of the Law can come up with a different
conclusion. The reason why some ethical players continue play in such a
situation is because of ignorance of the Law: they do not realise they
are doing anything wrong. But it is wrong and we should let the
ethical players know.
David Stevenson
Rich Odlin wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> However, not to claim for other purposes [eg to wear the opponents out
>> or to make sure they never know in future whether you have all the
>> tricks] is in contravention of L74B4 [already quoted in this thread].
>> This is prolonging play unnecessarily and the Law actually quotes this
>> situation so there can be no ambiguity.
>
>The part in the first parenthetical phrase above about making sure they
>never know in the future whether you have all the tricks does NOT appear
>in the text in any way at all, although the bit about wearing them out
>does. I assume that this is just a gratuitous expression of opinion,
>then, unless there is something else in the Laws about it.
>
Normally I quote Laws in full. Since this time someone else had
already quoted them in this thread it seemed superfluous: unfortunately
this has now led to a misunderstanding!
Law 74 - Conduct and Etiquette
B. 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.
What I meant by `the Law actually quotes this situation so there can
be no ambiguity' is the bit in parentheses, namely `(as in playing on
although he knows that all the tricks are surely his)' which makes it
quite clear that this Law covers playing on when you could claim the
rest.
>Suppose the opponents are on lead at the point where you know you have the
>rest. Would you claim now? I am of the opinion that you probably should
>not. If you do, then the next time they are on lead and you do not claim,
>they will know you don't have all the rest and may just come up with the
>only way to beat you! Seems like it is just protecting yourself by not
>claiming until they lead. If it takes them some time to lead, seems like
>the opponent is the one delaying play, not you. Comments?
When an opponent is on lead and you could claim you know perfectly
well that you are the one `prolonging play unnecessarily': your opponent
may be delaying play but he does not know it is unnecessary.
The bottom line is quite clear: while it might seem reasonable to some
of you to prolong play when you have the rest of the tricks the Law does
not allow this. If a claim would be too difficult for you to explain or
for the opponents to understand then you are not `prolonging play
unnecessarily' by not claiming so that is permitted.
Sue Picus/Barry Rigal
David Stevenson <da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Adam Beneschan wrote:
>>Jeff Goldsmith <je...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>> >Mike Dorsel wrote:
>> >
>> >> I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER claims.
>> >> He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining tricks or not.
>> >> His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my opponents off the hook
>> >> from needing to think [use mental energy]?
>> >
>> >That's illegal. 74B4. One may not prolong the play
>> >unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.
>>
>>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate:
>>
>>disconcert vt 1: to throw into confusion 2: to disturb the composure of
>>
>>It's not clear to me that if your purpose is to wear down the
>>opponents by making them think needlessly, that this purpose could be
>>considered "to disconcert the opponent". I suppose the definition
>>could be interpreted in a way to cover the actions of the above-quoted
>>player, but it's debatable. Maybe the Law should be revised to cover
>>this situation.
> It may be debatable, but it is clearly the meaning. I do not believe
>any fair interpretation of the Law can come up with a different
>conclusion. The reason why some ethical players continue play in such a
>situation is because of ignorance of the Law: they do not realise they
>are doing anything wrong. But it is wrong and we should let the
>ethical players know.
You are absolutely right (shock horro someone agreeing with
Stevenson- maybe we are both wrong) but in the Cavendish this year I
was sitting behind a good player playing (on the same side of his
screen) as a very nice good player, and on the other side was a less
poular (to put it mildly) expert. Defending against a complex five of
a minor declarer had the rest of the tricks - but it was far from
clear, and also far from clear that Mr. Nasty's switch at trick two
had not let the contract through. round about trick four my player
turned tio the nice guy and whispered "I have the rest, but i am not
going to tell HIM" Illegal perhaps, but it was still quite funny.
Barry
Mike Dorsel
Mike Dorsel wrote:
>
> If declarer can see a 100% line of play for the remainder of the
> tricks on the hand currently being played ...
> (1) is he/she legally required to claim?
> responses to the questions above?
>
> (a) the time alloted to play one or more hands?
> possible gamesmanship?
>
> - Mike Dorsel
Thanks to all who posted on this subject. The concensus was
about what I expected, and the references to the Laws wer
most helpful.
- Mike
Curtis A. Hastings
Sue Picus/Barry Rigal wrote:
Okay, given the theoretical debate we have had, how would you
rule on the following situation which actually occurred to me.
Since this is, IMHO, a fairly blatant case, some consensus here
might be of value.
Stratified Swiss, Sectional Tournament. Flight A opposition.
EW hands were roughly:
Qxx AKJx
KQJxxxx A
x AQxx
Jx AKTx
All red. We were NS. The EW auction went
W E
- 1C(1) (1) strong, forcing, artificial
3H(2) 4H (2) 0-1 controls, 7 card hearts (yes, a mistake)
p
West player won the opening lead (club)
and unblocked HA, came to hand by ruffing
a diamond, drew trump, cashed CK,
and ran trumps, reducing to
Dummy
AKJ
-
Q
-
with one trump remaining in his hand. He now
cashed the remaining trump, pitching the DQ and
"finessed" the SJ. When it "held" he put his cards
back in the slot (at this point my pard, who was under
dummy, asked me "why did you duck the spade?).
Note that from the defenders perspective, there were
only 12 obvious tricks and at won/loss scoring, the IMP
might be very important if they could prevent the 13th.
Lets say the defenders call you to the table and complain
about a L74B4 violation (they didnt, unfortunately). Do you
a) issue a warning
b) assign EW some form of procedural penalty (what? - remember
this is a W/L event)
c) file a recorder form
d) if this is not a first occurrance, would you consider C&E?
curt
Kevin Podsiadlik
In article <Pine.ULT.3.93.960731...@coho.halcyon.com>,
"Barbara B. Odlin" <b...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>Suppose the opponents are on lead at the point where you know you have the
>rest. Would you claim now? I am of the opinion that you probably should
>not. If you do, then the next time they are on lead and you do not claim,
>they will know you don't have all the rest and may just come up with the
>only way to beat you! Seems like it is just protecting yourself by not
>claiming until they lead. If it takes them some time to lead, seems like
>the opponent is the one delaying play, not you. Comments?
Yes, isn't the defense *always* supposed to assume declarer doesn't
have the rest, lacking proof to the contrary? Assuming otherwise
seems to be self-defeating, unless your mental energy tank is running
on empty.
[ note: material related to the quoted article ends here ]
I've been looking for a way to fit this story into this thread, but
failing that, I'm just going to stick it here. At a club game, we
were way behind in the movement, and there had already been too many
late plays handed out already. So, last board in a round against a
pair of LOL's, I'm holding a balanced 13-count, partner opens 2C, and
I steer the contract firmly but quickly to 6NT.
Dummy comes down with a long spade suit, and as some tables are finishing
the first board of the next round, I quickly count 12 top tricks and
bend over to claim making six.
But, before I could utter a word or expose a card, my very alert LHLOL
stops me, and tells me in no uncertain terms that I'd better not claim if
I know what's good for me.
It's an interesting question whether or not this would count as a
disputed claim, but, as I said, we were way behind, so, rather than
delay things further, I complied with the request to play it out a
while. (As an aside, it seems to be an unwritten law at clubs around
here that calling the director when a claim is disputed is a major
breach of etiquette.)
Justice was served when an automatic squeeze developed on RHO, and
all 13 tricks were mine. Everybody else was also taking 13 tricks
(it was *that* automatic), and nearly everyone was in slam, so my
LHO had effectively saved us from a near bottom.
As I hurried away from the table trying not to smile too broadly,
I couldn't help but overhear my LHO's comment to her partner. "You
gotta watch these young players. They'll try to pull all sorts of
stuff on you!"
--
Kevin Podsiadlik
pods...@cps.msu.edu
.signature under renovation
David Stevenson
Curtis A. Hastings wrote:
[blatant case of not claiming for
fun of putting opponents off snipped]
>Lets say the defenders call you to the table and complain
>about a L74B4 violation (they didnt, unfortunately). Do you
>
>a) issue a warning
>b) assign EW some form of procedural penalty (what? - remember
> this is a W/L event)
>c) file a recorder form
>d) if this is not a first occurrance, would you consider C&E?
While I am sure that not claiming is a breach of L74B4 I am also quite
sure that not all that many players [and not all TDs!] realise that. So
unless I am sure that the player knows that my answer is:
a) issue a warning: basically make sure he knows it is illegal for the
future.
However, if I decide that he knew all along then:
c) file a recorder form seems reasonable: I am guessing a bit since we
do not have this procedure but from what I have read this would seem
suitable.
If I decide that he knows for certain that it is illegal, has been
warned before and has done it again intentionally then:
b) assign EW some form of procedural penalty (what? - remember this is a
W/L event): the standard PP, whatever that is.
In a situation where a recorder form system does not apply then I
would make a report of the occurrence, effectively doing the same thing.
It is up to whoever reads this report or the recorder form to decide
that this player is transgressing repeatedly, and only in this case
would consideration be given to:
d) if this is not a first occurrence, would you consider C&E? even
then, it would have to be pretty blatant and oft repeated to go this
far: in practice it is difficult to believe that it would *ever* get
this far.
-------
Barry Rigal wrote:
>You are absolutely right (shock horro someone agreeing with
>Stevenson- maybe we are both wrong)
Such kind words, Barry. :)
B. K. Oxley (binkley)
>>>>> "JG" == Jeff Goldsmith <je...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
In article <31FF8C...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> Jeff Goldsmith <je...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
JG> Mike Dorsel wrote:
>> I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER
>> claims. He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining
>> tricks or not. His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my
>> opponents off the hook from needing to think [use mental energy]?
JG> That's illegal. 74B4. One may not prolong the play
JG> unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.
Does this mean that one must claim when possible? Is one's purpose
for not claiming relevant (aside from the obvious reason that you do
not have a valid claim)? May you unnecessarily prolong play for other
reasons? And what sort of prolonging is necessary, and not subject
to penalty?
--binkley
Steve Willner
In article <320131...@cco.caltech.edu>, "Curtis A. Hastings"
<hast...@cco.caltech.edu> writes:
> b) assign EW some form of procedural penalty (what? - remember
> this is a W/L event)
It's perfectly possible to assign a procedural penalty in a won/loss
Swiss or similar event. The result may be that both teams end up
losing the match, but that's fine. There's more of a problem in a
knockout, but there are rules to handle that situation too. (In the
US, if both teams lose, the tie-break rules take effect. In Europe,
the score is computed with the procedural penalty, which may decide
the match.)
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
>if you have a hand on which you can claim, so they
>can simply assume that you don't have a claim, therefore
>"knowing" that you are "less than cold."
Eh? Your point is irrelevant. If they know you're good, and you
ALWAYS claim at the first possible point of proof, then they know
that any time they're playing they have a shot at the contract.
Is this information authorized? Should the opponents always be allowed
to know when they do and don't have a shot at a contract?
--
Copyright akalice!jj 1996, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jan...@nelss.org.lv
Suppose You are well known 'claimer'. Everybody are informed about
this. If You don't claim - I know You haven't got 100% line.
David Stevenson
?????? wrote:
> Suppose You are well known 'claimer'. Everybody are informed about
>this. If You don't claim - I know You haven't got 100% line.
Suppose You are well known 'preemptor'. Everybody is informed about
this. If You don't preempt - I know You haven't got a weak hand with a
long suit.
Suppose You are well known 'finesser'. Everybody is informed about
this. If You don't finesse - I know You haven't got a finesse position.
Suppose You are well known 'light opener'. Everybody is informed about
this. If You don't open - I know You haven't got a totally minimum but
possible opening.
Suppose You are well known 'partner nagger'. Everybody is informed
about this. If You don't shout at partner when you see the dummy - I
know You haven't got a problem with the dummy.
All right, this is all very true, but what's the point?
Adam Beneschan
j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
>In article <31FF8C...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> Jeff Goldsmith <je...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>>Busted reasoning. It doesn't matter what they do
>>if you have a hand on which you can claim, so they
>>can simply assume that you don't have a claim, therefore
>>"knowing" that you are "less than cold."
>
>Eh? Your point is irrelevant. If they know you're good, and you
>ALWAYS claim at the first possible point of proof, then they know
>that any time they're playing they have a shot at the contract.
>
>Is this information authorized? Should the opponents always be allowed
>to know when they do and don't have a shot at a contract?
You've missed the point. The opponents don't have to know when they
have a shot at a contract. They should always ASSUME they do. What
would be the advantage of thinking otherwise?
-- Adam
Corey Cole
David Stevenson wrote:
>
> Suppose You are well known ..... [various player types] .....
>
> All right, this is all very true, but what's the point?
The point is that once you become predictable after any fashion, the
players who know you can get an "edge" by taking inferences from your
failure to act. (O.k., o.k., so you knew that.) After all, much of the
beauty of bridge is in making inferences from subtle clues (player who
leads 4th best leads a deuce against No Trump; inferences include that
the suit led has exactly four cards and that there is no longer suit).
My regular partner, noting that the opponents had been bidding very
cautiously against us in the last session, commented that they're
becoming nervous about our defense. (Not too surprising; our defense
makes me nervous sometimes. :-) )
-- Corey Cole
Andre Engels
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch wrote:
>
> In article <31FF8C...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> Jeff Goldsmith <je...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
> >Busted reasoning. It doesn't matter what they do
> >if you have a hand on which you can claim, so they
> >can simply assume that you don't have a claim, therefore
> >"knowing" that you are "less than cold."
>
> Eh? Your point is irrelevant. If they know you're good, and you
> ALWAYS claim at the first possible point of proof, then they know
> that any time they're playing they have a shot at the contract.
No, they don't. It could be that there is a possibility of +1 and one of
+2. But what's more important: What use could this information have?
Suppose there are 2 players, A and B. A will claim as soon as he has the
contract, B won't.
If I play against A, I know the thing hasn't been decided, and act
accordingly.
If I play against B, there are 2 possibilities: 1. The thing has been
decided, 2. It hasn't. But in case 1 it doesn't matter what I do anyway.
So I must act as if 2 was the case.
So, no matter whether your opponent always claims or not, you should
always play AS IF THINGS HADN'T BEEN DECIDED YET.
>
> Is this information authorized? Should the opponents always be allowed
> to know when they do and don't have a shot at a contract?
> --
The information is certainly authorized (Law 16: "Players are authorized
to base their actions on [...] and from mannerisms of opponents") (but
as shown above, not useful). There is no reason not to grant them this
information (they can't do anything useful with it), and there is reason
to do so (speeds up play), so why not do it?
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| People don't stop playing games when they are getting old, |
| they are getting old when they stop playing games |
| - N.N. |
| Andre Engels, csg...@wing.rug.nl |
| homepage: http://huizen.dds.nl/~engels/index_en.html |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Marlene Gayle Harris-Botzum
In article <4to2cj$5...@krusty.irvine.com>,> >Mike Dorsel wrote:
> >> I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER claims.
> >> He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining tricks or not.
> >> His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my opponents off the hook
> >> from needing to think [use mental energy]?
> >That's illegal. 74B4. One may not prolong the play
> >unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.
>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate:
>disconcert vt 1: to throw into confusion 2: to disturb the composure of
>It's not clear to me that if your purpose is to wear down the
>opponents by making them think needlessly, that this purpose could be
>considered "to disconcert the opponent". I suppose the definition
>could be interpreted in a way to cover the actions of the above-quoted
>player, but it's debatable. Maybe the Law should be revised to cover
>this situation.
This is exactly the kind of rules lawyering I hate. The intention of
the quoted law is clearly to prevent players from acting as described above
(playing a hand out simply to wear the opponents down). Arguing over the
exact wording of the law is childish.
As others have pointed out already, this does not mean that you must
always claim when you have the est of the tricks, if you feel that doing
so would take longer than playing the hand out. Unfortunately, this
leaves a pretty big loophole for unethical players to take advantage of,
but I don't see any way of closing the loophole without causing more
problems than it solves.
I would also like to point out that you do not need to claim when there
are overtricks or extra undertricks at stake; thus, you do not need to
claim whenever you are "cold for your contract", as one poster put it.
It is insulting to the opponents to play on when only a ludicrous
misdefence will make any difference to the outcome, but it is legal.
As to enforcing this law, I have never heard of a case where a player
was penalized for breaking it, but that is a separate issue. Clearly,
an unethical player can almost always get away with breaking this law, by
"forgetting" that one of his cards is good. BUT, the fact that other
people break a law and get away with it does not make it right.
-Miriam Harris-Botzum
Kent Feiler
>Mike Dorsel wrote:
> I guess I need to clarify my gist. I know someone who NEVER claims.
> He does not play slowly, whether he has the remaining tricks or not.
> His reasoning is twofold. "Why should I let my opponents off the hook
> from needing to think [use mental energy]?
In matchpoints, of course, you want to claim if extra over or under
tricks are not at issue. You want your opponents to go out and kick
butt in the next round. Leave them happy and energetic if possible.
Darin Takemoto
> Suppose You are well known 'claimer'. Everybody are informed about
> this. If You don't claim - I know You haven't got 100% line.
>
Uh, yes, this is true, but so what? When I defend I always assume that
declarer doesn't have a 100% line to take all of the remaining tricks, if
it is at all possible. If that is impossible, I assume that declarer
doesn't know (s)he has a 100% line. If declarer has a 100% line for all
of the tricks and knows it, it doesn't matter what I play. So the
information given to the opps by not claiming seems utterly useless.
Darin Takemoto
take...@xtal0.harvard.edu