Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What to do when people claim improperly?
266 views
Skip to first unread message
r...@biketouringtips.com
May 15, 2013, 12:31:58 PM5/15/13
to
I play at several club games and have been having trouble dealing with people claiming with lots of cards still in their hands. Often, they simply lay their hands down and say "I get the rest" or "I'll give you the Ace of Hearts and the rest are mine." It is rare when a claimer actually says how they are going to play it out, which, as I understand it, is how a claim is supposed to occur.
I know that once someone does this the play stops. But, how should I respond when someone does this? My partner and I never simply agree and lay down our hands. It is always an awkward moment as we try to figure out if the claim is valid.
What motivated this question is this event last night: My LHO lays down his hand with 7 cards in it and says "I'll give you two tricks." Then, when we hesitated trying to determine if his claim was correct, said "No, I'll only give you one." All this time, his partner is saying, "Just pick up and play it out." At no time did the claimer actually state how he would play out the hand. What's more, it wasn't his lead at the time.
So, what do you do when an opponent lays down his/her cards and claims?
Should I ask a question, such as, "How do you intent to play it out?"
What if it is my lead? Do I get to look at the claimer's hand and then decide how I want to lead? Can I look at my partner's hand, as well?
Thanks,
Ray
I know that once someone does this the play stops. But, how should I respond when someone does this? My partner and I never simply agree and lay down our hands. It is always an awkward moment as we try to figure out if the claim is valid.
What motivated this question is this event last night: My LHO lays down his hand with 7 cards in it and says "I'll give you two tricks." Then, when we hesitated trying to determine if his claim was correct, said "No, I'll only give you one." All this time, his partner is saying, "Just pick up and play it out." At no time did the claimer actually state how he would play out the hand. What's more, it wasn't his lead at the time.
So, what do you do when an opponent lays down his/her cards and claims?
Should I ask a question, such as, "How do you intent to play it out?"
What if it is my lead? Do I get to look at the claimer's hand and then decide how I want to lead? Can I look at my partner's hand, as well?
Thanks,
Ray
derek
May 15, 2013, 1:40:12 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:31:58 PM UTC-3, r...@biketouringtips.com wrote:
> I play at several club games and have been having trouble dealing with people claiming with lots of cards still in their hands. Often, they simply lay their hands down and say "I get the rest" or "I'll give you the Ace of Hearts and the rest are mine." It is rare when a claimer actually says how they are going to play it out, which, as I understand it, is how a claim is supposed to occur.
It's not required but if anybody disagrees, the claimant must state his claim.
> I play at several club games and have been having trouble dealing with people claiming with lots of cards still in their hands. Often, they simply lay their hands down and say "I get the rest" or "I'll give you the Ace of Hearts and the rest are mine." It is rare when a claimer actually says how they are going to play it out, which, as I understand it, is how a claim is supposed to occur.
>
> I know that once someone does this the play stops. But, how should I respond when someone does this? My partner and I never simply agree and lay down our hands.
Exactly right. Don't show your cards, and _don't_ say anything but "Director, please" if you doubt it's a valid claim. 68D says "After any claim or concession, play ceases...; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately."
> I know that once someone does this the play stops. But, how should I respond when someone does this? My partner and I never simply agree and lay down our hands.
> It is always an awkward moment as we try to figure out if the claim is valid.
>
> What motivated this question is this event last night: My LHO lays down his hand with 7 cards in it and says "I'll give you two tricks." Then, when we hesitated trying to determine if his claim was correct, said "No, I'll only give you one."
> All this time, his partner is saying, "Just pick up and play it out."
> At no time did the claimer actually state how he would play out the hand.
statement as to the order in which cards will be
played, of the line of play or defense through which
the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed."
So, it's "should", not "must", but if it's not accompanied by a clear statement it just leaves more up to the director's judgement.
> What's more, it wasn't his lead at the time.
>
> So, what do you do when an opponent lays down his/her cards and claims?
Don't show your cards, and _don't_ say anything unless it's "Director, please", unless you agree with the claim.
> So, what do you do when an opponent lays down his/her cards and claims?
> Should I ask a question, such as, "How do you intent to play it out?"
> What if it is my lead? Do I get to look at the claimer's hand and then decide how I want to lead? Can I look at my partner's hand, as well?
Adam Beneschan
May 15, 2013, 1:46:44 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:31:58 AM UTC-7, r...@biketouringtips.com wrote:
> I play at several club games and have been having trouble dealing with people claiming with lots of cards still in their hands. Often, they simply lay their hands down and say "I get the rest" or "I'll give you the Ace of Hearts and the rest are mine." It is rare when a claimer actually says how they are going to play it out, which, as I understand it, is how a claim is supposed to occur.
>
>
>
> I know that once someone does this the play stops. But, how should I respond when someone does this? My partner and I never simply agree and lay down our hands. It is always an awkward moment as we try to figure out if the claim is valid.
If this is duplicate, then if you think the claim may not be valid, call the director. Once a claim has occurred, the players *cannot* play it out. (I don't know the procedure for rubber bridge.)
> I play at several club games and have been having trouble dealing with people claiming with lots of cards still in their hands. Often, they simply lay their hands down and say "I get the rest" or "I'll give you the Ace of Hearts and the rest are mine." It is rare when a claimer actually says how they are going to play it out, which, as I understand it, is how a claim is supposed to occur.
>
>
>
> I know that once someone does this the play stops. But, how should I respond when someone does this? My partner and I never simply agree and lay down our hands. It is always an awkward moment as we try to figure out if the claim is valid.
But don't get too absolutist about the requirement to make a claim statement. If spades are trump, declarer has the only spades remaining in the hand, and he puts down 75 KQJ -- -- and says "You get the ace of hearts, I have the rest", there's no need to ask him for the exact details, because it's obvious.
Still, I've run into lots of players who claim without a clear line of play. Once, at about trick 3 or 4, a declarer claimed saying "I'm going to ruff two hearts in dummy"--without indicating how he planned to get back and forth to do what he needed to do. Since partner and I still had plenty of trumps, this could have been important, but declarer didn't seem to see the problem. (On the actual lie of the cards, his claim turned out to be fine. But declarer didn't know that much about the defensive hands at that point.) The solution is clear: call the director and let him or her deal with it.
-- Adam
Stu Goodgold
May 15, 2013, 1:48:31 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:31:58 AM UTC-7, r...@biketouringtips.com wrote:
The director will ask what statements were made with the claim, and then resolve the dispute, giving any feasible line to the favor of the defenders.
Feasible means the line may be a bad choice but not irrational on the part of the declarer. It is up to the director to determine the skill level of the declarer and what would be considered irrational on declarer's part.
For example, if declarer claimed without mentioning trump and a defender still holds a trump, it is assumed that declarer forgot a trump was still out and any rational line of play that can score that trump is allowed. Also, declarer is not given any line that requires a finesse, unless he specified it in his claim or it was already proven to work, eg. his RHO had previously shown out.
Note that it is up to the director to decide what line is most favorable to the defenders. However, the defenders can point out a line that may produce more tricks than the director's analysis would.
While both sides can argue about whether the claim is valid or not, and what would happen if declarer played it out, calling the director first is the proper approach and will keep the arguments to a minimum.
There is a new law (70D3) that says if both sides resume play after a disputed claim, the resulting play is to be considered by the director as evidence of a reasonable line. Thus it is in defenders' best interest not to continue playing the hand.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ray
Adam Beneschan
May 15, 2013, 1:51:28 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:40:12 AM UTC-7, derek wrote:
> > What if it is my lead? Do I get to look at the claimer's hand and then decide how I want to lead? Can I look at my partner's hand, as well?
>
> He can't make a claim without exposing his hand. If it's your turn to lead, you have every right to use the information available in his hand to choose your lead - however, that's purely theoretical, as at this point the director will be playing it out double dummy. Your partner's hand is still unauthorized information to you.
Yep, that's right. To clarify (for the OP), if you're a defender on lead, and declarer makes a claim, and there is any lead you could make that would sink his claim, then the director determines the score as if you had made that lead.
> > What if it is my lead? Do I get to look at the claimer's hand and then decide how I want to lead? Can I look at my partner's hand, as well?
>
> He can't make a claim without exposing his hand. If it's your turn to lead, you have every right to use the information available in his hand to choose your lead - however, that's purely theoretical, as at this point the director will be playing it out double dummy. Your partner's hand is still unauthorized information to you.
-- Adam
Message has been deleted
judyo...@gmail.com
May 15, 2013, 2:21:41 PM5/15/13
to
Carl
Kenny McCormack
May 15, 2013, 3:04:15 PM5/15/13
to
In article <df07d354-6232-46ec...@googlegroups.com>,
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
...
So, essentially, you do know partner's hand.
I can't see how that could be unauthorized.
--
I've been watching cat videos on YouTube. More content and closer to
the truth than anything on Fox.
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
...
>playing it out double dummy. Your partner's hand is still unauthorized
>information to you.
Isn't it true that once declarer's hand is revealed, you know all 4 hands?
>information to you.
So, essentially, you do know partner's hand.
I can't see how that could be unauthorized.
--
I've been watching cat videos on YouTube. More content and closer to
the truth than anything on Fox.
Steve Foster
May 15, 2013, 4:34:54 PM5/15/13
to
r...@biketouringtips.com wrote:
> I play at several club games and have been having trouble dealing
> with people claiming with lots of cards still in their hands. Often,
> they simply lay their hands down and say "I get the rest" or "I'll
> give you the Ace of Hearts and the rest are mine." It is rare when a
> claimer actually says how they are going to play it out, which, as I
> understand it, is how a claim is supposed to occur.
A claimer should clearly state their intended line of play, but that
> I play at several club games and have been having trouble dealing
> with people claiming with lots of cards still in their hands. Often,
> they simply lay their hands down and say "I get the rest" or "I'll
> give you the Ace of Hearts and the rest are mine." It is rare when a
> claimer actually says how they are going to play it out, which, as I
> understand it, is how a claim is supposed to occur.
doesn't always happen, or they give a "shorthand" version (as you say
"the rest are mine" is a common form).
> I know that once someone does this the play stops. But, how should I
> respond when someone does this? My partner and I never simply agree
> and lay down our hands. It is always an awkward moment as we try to
> figure out if the claim is valid.
> What motivated this question is this event last night: My LHO lays
> down his hand with 7 cards in it and says "I'll give you two tricks."
> Then, when we hesitated trying to determine if his claim was correct,
> said "No, I'll only give you one." All this time, his partner is
> saying, "Just pick up and play it out." At no time did the claimer
> actually state how he would play out the hand. What's more, it
> wasn't his lead at the time.
> So, what do you do when an opponent lays down his/her cards and
> claims?
(preferably without interrupting),
2) consider it (their statement) in context of the 3 hands you can now
see, and
3) decide whether you agree or not.
If you disagree, you should state that you need the Director.
If you agree, you wait to see whether your partner also agrees (you
might say "I have no objection" or some such). If you both agree, then
the claim is accepted. Otherwise, you call the Director.
> Should I ask a question, such as, "How do you intent to play it out?"
> What if it is my lead? Do I get to look at the claimer's hand and
> then decide how I want to lead? Can I look at my partner's hand, as
> well?
reflect the possibilities of what the person on lead might do (or
clearly indicate that it doesn't matter). Once again, if there's any
doubt, you call for the Director.
You can certainly think about what you might lead, and the
consequences, and if you think a particular lead will do better than
the claimer thinks, that will be something you'll want to mention to
the TD (and it will be considered).
It is not uncommon for a TD to have all four hands (what's left of
them) faced up on the table for examination as part of the claim
assessment.
--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net
Barry Margolin
May 15, 2013, 5:03:21 PM5/15/13
to
> He can't make a claim without exposing his hand.
There's no requirement for that. If the claim is disputed, the Director
may require him to show his hand, but it's not required for the original
claim process.
Sometimes if I'm conceding the rest I'll just start putting them back in
the board.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Co Wiersma
May 15, 2013, 5:08:48 PM5/15/13
to
Op 15-5-2013 19:55, richlp schreef:
> If it isn't immediately apparant to you that the claim is valid you
> have two choices.
> 1) Call the directory right away
> 2) Ask Declarer something like "How do you intend to play it?"
I disagree here
If you ask for an explanation then you likely give away free tricks (and
you should not)
So if the leader have to do something smart that is not obvious in a
clubgame to cash the tricks
then its very likely that the leader did not see the problem and so does
not have a right to (all) those tricks and the director should decide
the outcome.
Now if you ask for an explanation, the leader will look at the combined
hands , may see the problem and explains a winning line.
Co Wiersma
> If it isn't immediately apparant to you that the claim is valid you
> have two choices.
> 1) Call the directory right away
> 2) Ask Declarer something like "How do you intend to play it?"
I disagree here
If you ask for an explanation then you likely give away free tricks (and
you should not)
So if the leader have to do something smart that is not obvious in a
clubgame to cash the tricks
then its very likely that the leader did not see the problem and so does
not have a right to (all) those tricks and the director should decide
the outcome.
Now if you ask for an explanation, the leader will look at the combined
hands , may see the problem and explains a winning line.
Co Wiersma
Nick France
May 15, 2013, 5:20:56 PM5/15/13
to
line is obvious (say when declarer has xx KQJ -- -- with spades trump
and none out, and says I'll give you the Ace of hearts, please don't
be like someone I played against who wanted to force me to play my
trump before driving out the Ace. The Director didn't think much of
such an argument) then accept the claim even if not in the "official"
mode.
Nick France
judyo...@gmail.com
May 15, 2013, 5:51:39 PM5/15/13
to
It is beyond understanding if that is not prohibited.
Carl
Adam Beneschan
May 15, 2013, 6:14:36 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:51:39 PM UTC-7, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> So your opponents must take it on faith that you haven't revoked earlier???
>
> It is beyond understanding if that is not prohibited.
Barry's right about the Laws. (As usual. That could be because he reads them, instead of assuming they say what he thinks should make sense.) At the present time, there's nothing in the Laws that requires any player to prove they haven't revoked. Thus, for example, if I claim the rest of the tricks, and it's a really simple claim and the opponents agree, they don't have to show me their hands, either. I have to take it on faith that they haven't revoked earlier in the hand.
> So your opponents must take it on faith that you haven't revoked earlier???
>
> It is beyond understanding if that is not prohibited.
If someone wanted to propose a Law change that all players must expose their remaining cards after any claim or concession, to give each other an opportunity to check for revokes, I might be persuaded that it's a good idea. But that's not how the Laws are now. I guess that checking for revokes hasn't been a priority. But I wonder what will happen first: changing the Laws like this, or the computers taking over so that they'll be able either to prevent revokes, alert the players when a revoke has happened, deliver electric shocks to players who revoke, or something.
-- Adam
Barry Margolin
May 15, 2013, 7:28:29 PM5/15/13
to
In article <a73e70fe-59e5-4244...@googlegroups.com>,
possibility that you revoked, they can call the director.
The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on
the table.
>
> It is beyond understanding if that is not prohibited.
Law 70B3 says: "The Director may require players to put their remaining
cards face up on the table." There's nothing in the Laws that says that
other players can require the claimant to face their cards.
"judyo...@verizon.net" <judyo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:03:21 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <df07d354-6232-46ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > > He can't make a claim without exposing his hand.
> >
> > There's no requirement for that. If the claim is disputed, the Director
> > may require him to show his hand, but it's not required for the original
> > claim process.
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:03:21 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <df07d354-6232-46ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > > He can't make a claim without exposing his hand.
> >
> > There's no requirement for that. If the claim is disputed, the Director
> > may require him to show his hand, but it's not required for the original
> > claim process.
>
> So your opponents must take it on faith that you haven't revoked earlier???
No. If they have any reason to dispute the claim, including the
possibility that you revoked, they can call the director.
The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on
the table.
>
> It is beyond understanding if that is not prohibited.
cards face up on the table." There's nothing in the Laws that says that
other players can require the claimant to face their cards.
judyo...@gmail.com
May 15, 2013, 8:10:01 PM5/15/13
to
derek
May 15, 2013, 11:23:08 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:03:21 PM UTC-3, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <df07d354-6232-46ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > He can't make a claim without exposing his hand.
>
> There's no requirement for that. If the claim is disputed, the Director
> may require him to show his hand, but it's not required for the original
> claim process.
I'm sorry - you're absolutely right. This is why we're not supposed to rule without the law book in hand - I quoted most of Law 68, and still got it wrong. A claim is a claim, _but_ spreading your hand also constitutes a claim.
> In article <df07d354-6232-46ec...@googlegroups.com>,
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > He can't make a claim without exposing his hand.
>
> There's no requirement for that. If the claim is disputed, the Director
> may require him to show his hand, but it's not required for the original
> claim process.
> Sometimes if I'm conceding the rest I'll just start putting them back in
> the board.
derek
May 15, 2013, 11:30:52 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:14:36 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:51:39 PM UTC-7, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > So your opponents must take it on faith that you haven't revoked earlier???
> >
> > It is beyond understanding if that is not prohibited.
>
> Barry's right about the Laws. (As usual. That could be because he reads
> them, instead of assuming they say what he thinks should make sense.)
some of us read them, and still don't get it...
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:51:39 PM UTC-7, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > So your opponents must take it on faith that you haven't revoked earlier???
> >
> > It is beyond understanding if that is not prohibited.
>
> Barry's right about the Laws. (As usual. That could be because he reads
> them, instead of assuming they say what he thinks should make sense.)
> At the present time, there's nothing in the Laws that requires any player to
> prove they haven't revoked.
As well, I'm pretty certain (but not reading the law...) that you can still challenge a claim when you check the hand-record.
> Thus, for example, if I claim the rest of the tricks, and it's a really
> simple claim and the opponents agree, they don't have to show me their hands,
> either. I have to take it on faith that they haven't revoked earlier in the
> hand.
> But I wonder what will happen first: changing the Laws like this, or the
> computers taking over so that they'll be able either to prevent revokes,
> alert the players when a revoke has happened, deliver electric shocks to
> players who revoke, or something.
derek
May 15, 2013, 11:35:17 PM5/15/13
to
> You are careful not to mix quitted tricks?
How does this apply? It's an offense to "mix quitted tricks".
derek
May 15, 2013, 11:37:11 PM5/15/13
to
Dave Flower
May 16, 2013, 4:22:57 AM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 04:23:08 UTC+1, derek wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:03:21 PM UTC-3, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <df07d354-6232-46ec...@googlegroups.com>, > derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote: > > > He can't make a claim without exposing his hand. > > There's no requirement for that. If the claim is disputed, the Director > may require him to show his hand, but it's not required for the original > claim process. I'm sorry - you're absolutely right. This is why we're not supposed to rule without the law book in hand - I quoted most of Law 68, and still got it wrong. A claim is a claim, _but_ spreading your hand also constitutes a claim.
Not quite - it is qualified my the statement 'unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim'.
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:03:21 PM UTC-3, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <df07d354-6232-46ec...@googlegroups.com>, > derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote: > > > He can't make a claim without exposing his hand. > > There's no requirement for that. If the claim is disputed, the Director > may require him to show his hand, but it's not required for the original > claim process. I'm sorry - you're absolutely right. This is why we're not supposed to rule without the law book in hand - I quoted most of Law 68, and still got it wrong. A claim is a claim, _but_ spreading your hand also constitutes a claim.
Declarer may know he has the rest of the tricks, but also know that the defenders would not follow the claim. It seems to me perfectly possible for Declarer to expose his hand, saying 'I am not claiming', thus facilitating the rest of the play.
> Sometimes if I'm conceding the rest I'll just start putting them back in > the board. Well, you shouldn't do that. Your partner (even when you're declarer) has the right to object to your concession (BBO infuriates me by giving me no say in the matter, and Gitelman refuses to do anything about it).
judyo...@gmail.com
May 16, 2013, 6:24:24 AM5/16/13
to
Carl
dake50
May 16, 2013, 9:15:25 AM5/16/13
to
Your partner's hand is still unauthorized information to you. -- derek
*** I see my hand. I see dummy. I see declarer's hand when he claims.
What is left to be unauthorized information?
Can't I "see" by process of elimation what partner has?
Of course, I may have been asleep and now awakened,
but the information is there and authorized.
*** I see my hand. I see dummy. I see declarer's hand when he claims.
What is left to be unauthorized information?
Can't I "see" by process of elimation what partner has?
Of course, I may have been asleep and now awakened,
but the information is there and authorized.
Barry Margolin
May 16, 2013, 9:18:21 AM5/16/13
to
In article <406294fa-df00-464e...@googlegroups.com>,
That's after the hand is over, not while making a claim.
Or are we talking about my offhand comment about conceding by putting my
quitted tricks back in the board (no one seems to be quoting that).
Or are we talking about my offhand comment about conceding by putting my
quitted tricks back in the board (no one seems to be quoting that).
Barry Margolin
May 16, 2013, 9:22:46 AM5/16/13
to
In article <9c9ad10c-825e-45c2...@googlegroups.com>,
I suppose it could be viewed as a "memory aid", since it assists you if
you don't remember all the cards that have been played.
you don't remember all the cards that have been played.
france...@googlemail.com
May 16, 2013, 10:39:00 AM5/16/13
to
In ACBL, at least, you are *required* to mis before returning to board. Carl
Not just the ACBL, it's in the Laws.
But that is after a claim has been accepted, not before.
iand...@gmail.com
May 16, 2013, 11:26:28 AM5/16/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 23:14:36 UTC+1, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> Barry's right about the Laws. (As usual. That could be because he reads them, instead of assuming they say what he thinks should make sense.)
++++Yes, I've always felt that he was bit of a spoilsport in that respect. Facts are perfectly capable of ruining a potential argument before it even starts.
> Barry's right about the Laws. (As usual. That could be because he reads them, instead of assuming they say what he thinks should make sense.)
Adam Beneschan
May 16, 2013, 11:27:35 AM5/16/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:30:52 PM UTC-7, derek wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:14:36 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > At the present time, there's nothing in the Laws that requires any player to
> > prove they haven't revoked.
>
> Well, that's not quite true. Even if I have absolutely no reason to believe his claim isn't good, I'm entitled to object - then the director comes and checks. And 70B3: "The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table." In my experience, he usually does.
Right. To clarify what I was trying to convey: there's no general principle in the Laws that says that, when a claim or concession occurs, *everybody* (on both sides) has to show the rest of their cards in order to prove there wasn't an earlier revoke. Carl seemed to think that there was a principle like that, but there isn't, and that's the point I was trying to make. (His comment was in reference to a hand where declarer *conceded* the rest of the tricks, and I don't think defenders can "object" to that, although ethical defenders occasionally might notice that declarer really is going to take a trick.)
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:14:36 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > At the present time, there's nothing in the Laws that requires any player to
> > prove they haven't revoked.
>
> Well, that's not quite true. Even if I have absolutely no reason to believe his claim isn't good, I'm entitled to object - then the director comes and checks. And 70B3: "The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table." In my experience, he usually does.
But I may have said it a bit sloppily. Yes, you do have to show your cards (and thus prove you didn't revoke) if someone objects to a claim and the director requires you to show your cards, or if someone calls the director believing that you revoked. But not as a general rule.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
May 16, 2013, 11:40:57 AM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:39:00 AM UTC-7, france...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In ACBL, at least, you are *required* to mis before returning to board. Carl
>
> Not just the ACBL, it's in the Laws.
Right, but the Laws say "should", so it's arguably not a "requirement".
> In ACBL, at least, you are *required* to mis before returning to board. Carl
>
> Not just the ACBL, it's in the Laws.
Law 7C: After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original
thirteen cards, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding
to his compass position.
It really wouldn't make sense to make this an absolute requirement, especially for boards that will not be played again (the last board of an event, the replay in a team match, in a barometer game, ...)
> But that is after a claim has been accepted, not before.
-- Adam
Barry Margolin
May 16, 2013, 11:45:56 AM5/16/13
to
In article <a64594b2-cb62-47de...@googlegroups.com>,
either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession
of a trick that his opponents could not lose."
Of course, the key word in there is "knowingly". If you don't realize
that the concession was mistaken, you don't have to object (I think it
would be a pretty onerous law if it didn't have that qualifier -- it
would be like a law prohibiting you from going down in a cold contract).
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:30:52 PM UTC-7, derek wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:14:36 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > At the present time, there's nothing in the Laws that requires any player
> > > to
> > > prove they haven't revoked.
> >
> > Well, that's not quite true. Even if I have absolutely no reason to believe
> > his claim isn't good, I'm entitled to object - then the director comes and
> > checks. And 70B3: "The Director may require players to put their remaining
> > cards face up on the table." In my experience, he usually does.
>
> Right. To clarify what I was trying to convey: there's no general principle
> in the Laws that says that, when a claim or concession occurs, *everybody*
> (on both sides) has to show the rest of their cards in order to prove there
> wasn't an earlier revoke. Carl seemed to think that there was a principle
> like that, but there isn't, and that's the point I was trying to make. (His
> comment was in reference to a hand where declarer *conceded* the rest of the
> tricks, and I don't think defenders can "object" to that, although ethical
> defenders occasionally might notice that declarer really is going to take a
> trick.)
More spoilsporting: Law 79A2 says, "A player must not knowingly accept
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:30:52 PM UTC-7, derek wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:14:36 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > At the present time, there's nothing in the Laws that requires any player
> > > to
> > > prove they haven't revoked.
> >
> > Well, that's not quite true. Even if I have absolutely no reason to believe
> > his claim isn't good, I'm entitled to object - then the director comes and
> > checks. And 70B3: "The Director may require players to put their remaining
> > cards face up on the table." In my experience, he usually does.
>
> Right. To clarify what I was trying to convey: there's no general principle
> in the Laws that says that, when a claim or concession occurs, *everybody*
> (on both sides) has to show the rest of their cards in order to prove there
> wasn't an earlier revoke. Carl seemed to think that there was a principle
> like that, but there isn't, and that's the point I was trying to make. (His
> comment was in reference to a hand where declarer *conceded* the rest of the
> tricks, and I don't think defenders can "object" to that, although ethical
> defenders occasionally might notice that declarer really is going to take a
> trick.)
either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession
of a trick that his opponents could not lose."
Of course, the key word in there is "knowingly". If you don't realize
that the concession was mistaken, you don't have to object (I think it
would be a pretty onerous law if it didn't have that qualifier -- it
would be like a law prohibiting you from going down in a cold contract).
Dave Flower
May 16, 2013, 11:50:42 AM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 16:40:57 UTC+1, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:39:00 AM UTC-7, france...@googlemail.com wrote: > In ACBL, at least, you are *required* to mis before returning to board. Carl > > Not just the ACBL, it's in the Laws. Right, but the Laws say "should", so it's arguably not a "requirement". Law 7C: After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original thirteen cards, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. It really wouldn't make sense to make this an absolute requirement, especially for boards that will not be played again (the last board of an event, the replay in a team match, in a barometer game, ...) > But that is after a claim has been accepted, not before. The above law says that's "after play has finished". I haven't found an exact definition of when "play has finished", though; the definitions say the "play period" ends when you pull the cards out of the next board (inter alia) but it wouldn't make sense to say that you have to pull the cards out of the next board before shuffling the cards of the previous board and returning them. I think it's just when a score has been agreed upon (79A1). If someone says there is a revoke you may not mix your cards until the matter is settled (66D). -- Adam
You seem to have spotted a problem with the Laws:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:39:00 AM UTC-7, france...@googlemail.com wrote: > In ACBL, at least, you are *required* to mis before returning to board. Carl > > Not just the ACBL, it's in the Laws. Right, but the Laws say "should", so it's arguably not a "requirement". Law 7C: After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original thirteen cards, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. It really wouldn't make sense to make this an absolute requirement, especially for boards that will not be played again (the last board of an event, the replay in a team match, in a barometer game, ...) > But that is after a claim has been accepted, not before. The above law says that's "after play has finished". I haven't found an exact definition of when "play has finished", though; the definitions say the "play period" ends when you pull the cards out of the next board (inter alia) but it wouldn't make sense to say that you have to pull the cards out of the next board before shuffling the cards of the previous board and returning them. I think it's just when a score has been agreed upon (79A1). If someone says there is a revoke you may not mix your cards until the matter is settled (66D). -- Adam
1) According to Law 7 a player should shuffle their card 'after play has finished'
2) According to L68D, after any claim, play ceases
3) Assuming that cease and finish mean much the same thing, it follows that one should shuffle ones cards after a claim
Dave flower
Barry Margolin
May 16, 2013, 11:52:09 AM5/16/13
to
In article <f95b7aaa-f99e-4c26...@googlegroups.com>,
Do you consider "finish" and "cease" to be synonyms? Because the claim
law says that "play ceases" when a player makes a claim.
However, 7C doesn't say that you put your cards back in the pocket
*immediately* after play has finished. This time is often used for
confirming the results, adjudicating claims, holding post mortems, and
it's often necessary to retain the cards for these purposes.
law says that "play ceases" when a player makes a claim.
However, 7C doesn't say that you put your cards back in the pocket
*immediately* after play has finished. This time is often used for
confirming the results, adjudicating claims, holding post mortems, and
it's often necessary to retain the cards for these purposes.
David Goldfarb
May 16, 2013, 1:36:23 PM5/16/13
to
In article <e323d584-3ea9-4de3...@googlegroups.com>,
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's
even remotely true." -- Homer Simpson
--
David Goldfarb |"Come on, characters with super-strength don't
goldf...@gmail.com | *do* inertia! Or leverage."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Dani Zweig
even remotely true." -- Homer Simpson
--
David Goldfarb |"Come on, characters with super-strength don't
goldf...@gmail.com | *do* inertia! Or leverage."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Dani Zweig
Barry Margolin
May 16, 2013, 2:50:51 PM5/16/13
to
In article <779e430f-d06b-4293...@googlegroups.com>,
I pointed out the same equivalence. But you missed the part where it
doesn't say "immediately". If you wait until the claim has been agreed
to or disputed and adjudicated by the TD, that's still "after play has
finished". As long as you don't shuffle and return the cards to the
board BEFORE play has finished, you're following this law.
That said, I've sometimes violated that law. If dummy steps away from
the table, and declarer plays dummy's cards, it's not uncommon to quit
dummy's cards by putting them into the pocket, because it's hard to put
them in the quitted position from across the table.
doesn't say "immediately". If you wait until the claim has been agreed
to or disputed and adjudicated by the TD, that's still "after play has
finished". As long as you don't shuffle and return the cards to the
board BEFORE play has finished, you're following this law.
That said, I've sometimes violated that law. If dummy steps away from
the table, and declarer plays dummy's cards, it's not uncommon to quit
dummy's cards by putting them into the pocket, because it's hard to put
them in the quitted position from across the table.
derek
May 16, 2013, 8:14:07 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:27:35 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:30:52 PM UTC-7, derek wrote:
>
> > Well, that's not quite true.
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:30:52 PM UTC-7, derek wrote:
>
> > Well, that's not quite true.
>
> Right. To clarify what I was trying to convey: there's no general principle in the Laws that says that,
Exactly. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong - just that there is a way to have the same result most of the time.
> (His comment was in reference to a hand where declarer *conceded* the rest of the tricks, and I don't think defenders can "object" to that,
"I concede the rest."
"Wait a moment - you can't do that: Director, please. ... He conceded all the tricks, but I think he has to get one more."
If the director agrees, he gets one more trick. You're not permitted to concede a trick you cannot lose, and anybody can bring that to the attention of the director.
vsp...@hotmail.com
May 16, 2013, 10:21:06 PM5/16/13
to
in dummy or trapped in hand. If tricks
come from both hands, declarers can always
find a way to lose a trick.
Steve Willner
May 16, 2013, 10:47:49 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-15 5:08 PM, Co Wiersma wrote:
> If you ask for an explanation then you likely give away free tricks (and
> you should not)
While this is true, I personally wouldn't worry about it in a club game.
> If you ask for an explanation then you likely give away free tricks (and
> you should not)
The possible extra tricks are not worth the extra time it would take
to get a ruling. But that's just me; Co is entirely within his rights
to feel differently. In a tournament, I'd feel the same way he does.
When the situation arises, I usually say "Care to state a line of play?"
By the way, I agree with the OP that claiming without stating a line of
play is rude unless there are all obvious top winners. It is neither
necessary nor sufficient to say how many tricks you want; you need to
specify the order in which you plan to play your cards. The number of
tricks will follow from that.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Barry Margolin
May 16, 2013, 11:06:56 PM5/16/13
to
In article <a1a0aa52-314b-41b5...@googlegroups.com>,
What if he has all the outstanding trumps? It doesn't matter what hand
he's in, those cards have to take tricks eventually.
But you're right that you can assume arbitrarily suboptimal play. The
law against conceding tricks that you can't possibly lose doesn't
include the "normal line of play" qualifier that's in some other laws.
So if there's a crazy, irrational line that gives up all the tricks, you
can concede them.
Although wouldn't intentionally throwing away tricks like that be a
violation of 72A, which says the object is to get a higher score than
other players (I think this it the law that's generally interpreted to
prohibit dumping, and require you to try to win).
he's in, those cards have to take tricks eventually.
But you're right that you can assume arbitrarily suboptimal play. The
law against conceding tricks that you can't possibly lose doesn't
include the "normal line of play" qualifier that's in some other laws.
So if there's a crazy, irrational line that gives up all the tricks, you
can concede them.
Although wouldn't intentionally throwing away tricks like that be a
violation of 72A, which says the object is to get a higher score than
other players (I think this it the law that's generally interpreted to
prohibit dumping, and require you to try to win).
france...@googlemail.com
May 17, 2013, 4:17:51 AM5/17/13
to
Think that should only be true if trapped in dummy or trapped in hand. If tricks come from both hands, declarers can always find a way to lose a trick.
Not necessarily. I once claimed, saying I had (something like)
"3 trumps, 3 hearts and two spades, and I'll give you a diamond at the end"
It was then pointed out that there were only 8 cards left, and my concession of a diamond trick was cancelled.
france...@googlemail.com
May 17, 2013, 4:26:29 AM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 3:47:49 AM UTC+1, Steve Willner wrote:
> By the way, I agree with the OP that claiming without stating a line of play is rude unless there are all obvious top winners. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to say how many tricks you want; you need to specify the order in which you plan to play your cards. The number of tricks will follow from that. --
I don't agree with this.
> By the way, I agree with the OP that claiming without stating a line of play is rude unless there are all obvious top winners. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to say how many tricks you want; you need to specify the order in which you plan to play your cards. The number of tricks will follow from that. --
Claiming in any way that you don't expect your opponents will immediately understand is rude. But there are plenty of perfectly polite, good claims that neither have obvious top winners nor need a detailed line of play. Typical claims against all but the weakest players along the lines of
"I will play winners, you get your master trump at some point"
"I will give you two aces"
are perfectly good
The stronger the opponents, the less detailed the claim statement. Claims without a statement are actually pretty common and 99% of the time cause no problems - if declarer has started to ruff out a suit, and it's broken, he often won't bother claiming to explain he's going to finish setting it up. I've also seen fairly frequent claims such as "red suit squeeze for the overtrick" or "spade finesse for 11" without bothering to explain where the rest of the tricks are coming from.
IMO
- it is _rude_ to claim like that against someone who won't instantly understand;
- it is _bad bridge_ to claim like that against good opponetns without being confident you are right (because the TD will be called and will rule against you), and
- it is _unethical_ to claim like that against poorer opponents without being completely certain you are right, because they might feel intimidated about objecting.
derek
May 17, 2013, 10:05:58 AM5/17/13
to
In any case, it doesn't matter - you call the director, and he determines who gets how many tricks. You may concede a trick that _can_ be lost, but you may not concede a trick that cannot be lost.
derek
May 17, 2013, 10:53:34 AM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:06:56 AM UTC-3, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Although wouldn't intentionally throwing away tricks like that be a
> violation of 72A, which says the object is to get a higher score than
> other players (I think this it the law that's generally interpreted to
> prohibit dumping, and require you to try to win).
Yes, "intentionally" conceding tricks you know you _could_ win would be a violation of 72A, but most times that happens, I think it's safe to believe the claimant actually thought he was going to lose the tricks. Certainly proving the intent would be difficult.
> Although wouldn't intentionally throwing away tricks like that be a
> violation of 72A, which says the object is to get a higher score than
> other players (I think this it the law that's generally interpreted to
> prohibit dumping, and require you to try to win).
derek
May 17, 2013, 10:56:42 AM5/17/13
to
Kenny McCormack
May 17, 2013, 11:10:54 AM5/17/13
to
In article <27d3b696-6916-4720...@googlegroups.com>,
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
...
>As well, I'm pretty certain (but not reading the law...) that you can still
>challenge a claim when you check the hand-record.
Good luck with that.
At my game, you simply can't get a revoke ruling without the opponent's consent
(i.e., it is on you to convince them [yes, them, not the director, them] that they
revoked; if you can't do that, you're SOL). There's obviously no way in H E
double-toothpicks you're going to get a ruling after the game is over.
>Awww! Take all the fun out of it. In my last two games, I've twice had a player
>at my table, revoke and promptly lead the suit they just trumped.
Heh heh. We call that "ruffing in both hands" (*).
(*) At least when declarer does it.
--
I've been watching cat videos on YouTube. More content and closer to
the truth than anything on Fox.
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
...
>As well, I'm pretty certain (but not reading the law...) that you can still
>challenge a claim when you check the hand-record.
Good luck with that.
At my game, you simply can't get a revoke ruling without the opponent's consent
(i.e., it is on you to convince them [yes, them, not the director, them] that they
revoked; if you can't do that, you're SOL). There's obviously no way in H E
double-toothpicks you're going to get a ruling after the game is over.
>Awww! Take all the fun out of it. In my last two games, I've twice had a player
>at my table, revoke and promptly lead the suit they just trumped.
Heh heh. We call that "ruffing in both hands" (*).
(*) At least when declarer does it.
--
I've been watching cat videos on YouTube. More content and closer to
the truth than anything on Fox.
Adam Beneschan
May 17, 2013, 12:04:34 PM5/17/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:06:56 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
> But you're right that you can assume arbitrarily suboptimal play. The
> law against conceding tricks that you can't possibly lose doesn't
> include the "normal line of play" qualifier that's in some other laws.
> So if there's a crazy, irrational line that gives up all the tricks, you
> can concede them.
Are you sure? In the 1997 Laws, 71C said "if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any
> But you're right that you can assume arbitrarily suboptimal play. The
> law against conceding tricks that you can't possibly lose doesn't
> include the "normal line of play" qualifier that's in some other laws.
> So if there's a crazy, irrational line that gives up all the tricks, you
> can concede them.
normal play of the remaining cards."
The 2007 Laws got rid of the time limitation. 71A used to contain the phrase "or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining
cards", which would have been the requirement for cancelling a concession after the next board has started. If that's the phrase you were thinking about, it's gone and no longer applies.
Or are you relying on some other Law? If you are, I've missed it.
-- Adam
Dave Flower
May 17, 2013, 12:49:08 PM5/17/13
to
On Friday, 17 May 2013 17:04:34 UTC+1, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:06:56 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote: > But you're right that you can assume arbitrarily suboptimal play. The > law against conceding tricks that you can't possibly lose doesn't > include the "normal line of play" qualifier that's in some other laws. > So if there's a crazy, irrational line that gives up all the tricks, you > can concede them. Are you sure? In the 1997 Laws, 71C said "if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." The 2007 Laws got rid of the time limitation. 71A used to contain the phrase "or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards", which would have been the requirement for cancelling a concession after the next board has started. If that's the phrase you were thinking about, it's gone and no longer applies. Or are you relying on some other Law? If you are, I've missed it. -- Adam
Yes, I remember that reference to 'legal play'. An opponent with D543 conceded - but I held DAK2, so she scored an unexpected trick.
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:06:56 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote: > But you're right that you can assume arbitrarily suboptimal play. The > law against conceding tricks that you can't possibly lose doesn't > include the "normal line of play" qualifier that's in some other laws. > So if there's a crazy, irrational line that gives up all the tricks, you > can concede them. Are you sure? In the 1997 Laws, 71C said "if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." The 2007 Laws got rid of the time limitation. 71A used to contain the phrase "or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards", which would have been the requirement for cancelling a concession after the next board has started. If that's the phrase you were thinking about, it's gone and no longer applies. Or are you relying on some other Law? If you are, I've missed it. -- Adam
Dave Flower
derek
May 17, 2013, 2:26:40 PM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:04:34 PM UTC-3, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:06:56 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > But you're right that you can assume arbitrarily suboptimal play. The
> > law against conceding tricks that you can't possibly lose doesn't
> > include the "normal line of play" qualifier that's in some other laws.
> > So if there's a crazy, irrational line that gives up all the tricks, you
> > can concede them.
>
> Are you sure? In the 1997 Laws, 71C said "if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any
> normal play of the remaining cards."
71: "A concession must stand, once made, except that
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:06:56 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > But you're right that you can assume arbitrarily suboptimal play. The
> > law against conceding tricks that you can't possibly lose doesn't
> > include the "normal line of play" qualifier that's in some other laws.
> > So if there's a crazy, irrational line that gives up all the tricks, you
> > can concede them.
>
> Are you sure? In the 1997 Laws, 71C said "if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any
> normal play of the remaining cards."
within the correction period established under Law 79C
the Director shall cancel a concession:
1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact,
won; 2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be
lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.
The board is rescored with such trick awarded to
his side."
So, never mind the beginning of the next board - you should not lose a trick you could not lose even if it's not discovered until you look over the hands after the game. Barry might be wrong about assuming "arbitrarily" suboptimal play, but you the director will certainly consider it.
It's interesting that law 71 now has no A/B/C but has sub-numbers, unlike the other laws.
derek
May 17, 2013, 2:31:09 PM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:10:54 PM UTC-3, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <27d3b696-6916-4720...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >As well, I'm pretty certain (but not reading the law...) that you can still
> >challenge a claim when you check the hand-record.
>
> Good luck with that.
71 & 79C.
> In article <27d3b696-6916-4720...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >As well, I'm pretty certain (but not reading the law...) that you can still
> >challenge a claim when you check the hand-record.
>
> Good luck with that.
> At my game, you simply can't get a revoke ruling without the opponent's consent
>
> (i.e., it is on you to convince them [yes, them, not the director, them] that they
> revoked; if you can't do that, you're SOL). There's obviously no way in H E
> double-toothpicks you're going to get a ruling after the game is over.
>
> >Awww! Take all the fun out of it. In my last two games, I've twice had a player
> >at my table, revoke and promptly lead the suit they just trumped.
>
> Heh heh. We call that "ruffing in both hands" (*).
>
> (*) At least when declarer does it.
When my wife did it, I pointed out that she should at least wait a round before leading the suit she should not have had. (and before anybody suggests that was unethical: I said that before anybody else had noted that she'd revoked, thus drawing attention to the now established revoke. She ruffed the first trick and played so fast to the second that I never had a chance to ask if she was out).
> >Awww! Take all the fun out of it. In my last two games, I've twice had a player
> >at my table, revoke and promptly lead the suit they just trumped.
>
> Heh heh. We call that "ruffing in both hands" (*).
>
> (*) At least when declarer does it.
Barry Margolin
May 17, 2013, 7:51:09 PM5/17/13
to
In article <b3c6cc31-e408-459d...@googlegroups.com>,
I was responding to someone who said "Declarer can always find a way to
lose a trick", suggesting that he has to go out of his way to play that
poorly.
lose a trick", suggesting that he has to go out of his way to play that
poorly.
Barry Margolin
May 17, 2013, 7:56:43 PM5/17/13
to
In article <abc82b82-1eee-4693...@googlegroups.com>,
I was looking at 79A2:
A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his
side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could
not lose.
Law 71 tells the Director what he has to do if he becomes aware of a
faulty concession. Law 79A is an ethical requirement on the players. It
doesn't seem to require them to consider the difference between normal
and irrational lines of play, like 71 does.
A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his
side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could
not lose.
faulty concession. Law 79A is an ethical requirement on the players. It
doesn't seem to require them to consider the difference between normal
and irrational lines of play, like 71 does.
Adam Beneschan
May 17, 2013, 8:34:59 PM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:56:43 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Law 71 tells the Director what he has to do if he becomes aware of a
> faulty concession. Law 79A is an ethical requirement on the players. It
> doesn't seem to require them to consider the difference between normal
> and irrational lines of play, like 71 does.
Maybe not. On the other hand, since Law 71 says that a concession of a trick that the opponent couldn't lose except by irrational play shouldn't stand, I would think that, ethically, I shouldn't knowingly accept a concession that would have to be cancelled under Law 71. That could technically go a little beyond the ethical requirements of the Laws. But if any defender who does notice a concession that only works if declarer plays like an idiot doesn't say something about it, I'd consider that person to be a weasel. Of course, there's no law against being a weasel, and the Definitions section of the Laws doesn't define the term "weasel". Still ...
> Law 71 tells the Director what he has to do if he becomes aware of a
> faulty concession. Law 79A is an ethical requirement on the players. It
> doesn't seem to require them to consider the difference between normal
> and irrational lines of play, like 71 does.
-- Adam
Steve Willner
May 20, 2013, 10:01:31 PM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-17 4:26 AM, france...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Claiming in any way that you don't expect your opponents will
> immediately understand is rude. But there are plenty of perfectly
> polite, good claims that neither have obvious top winners nor need a
> detailed line of play.
I agree with the last, and my original was definitely an overstatement.
> Claiming in any way that you don't expect your opponents will
> immediately understand is rude. But there are plenty of perfectly
> polite, good claims that neither have obvious top winners nor need a
> detailed line of play.
Anything your opponents are happy with is, obviously, fine.
Frances' first point may be an overstatement, though. If you claim
stating a specific line of play, even one that takes your opponents a
moment or two to grasp, I don't think that's rude.
> Typical claims against all but the weakest players along the lines
> of "I will play winners, you get your master trump at some point"
(provided the winners are obvious).
> "I will give you two aces"
as it's obvious what the winners are. If the winners have to be played
in a specific order, I'd prefer to hear that mentioned.
> The stronger the opponents, the less detailed the claim statement.
> for the overtrick" or "spade finesse for 11" without bothering to
> explain where the rest of the tricks are coming from.
Fine against Frances and her peers. Against the rest of us, it depends
> explain where the rest of the tricks are coming from.
on how obvious the unstated parts are _to us_.
> - it is _rude_ to claim like that against someone who won't instantly
> understand;
> without being confident you are right (because the TD will be called
> and will rule against you), and
> - it is _unethical_ to claim like that against poorer opponents
> without being completely certain you are right, because they might
> feel intimidated about objecting.
Very well put.
> and will rule against you), and
> - it is _unethical_ to claim like that against poorer opponents
> without being completely certain you are right, because they might
> feel intimidated about objecting.
Michael Angelo Ravera
May 22, 2013, 1:17:17 AM5/22/13
to
Before you agree to a claim when opponent *MIGHT* have lost another trick, you get a strong presumption that they would have lost the trick. Once you agree, you get no redress unless they *MUST* have lost it.
Chris Pisarra
May 22, 2013, 8:18:26 PM5/22/13
to
Ray wrote
I play at several club games and have been having trouble dealing with
people claiming with lots of cards still in their hands. Often, they simply
lay their hands down and say "I get the rest" or "I'll give you the Ace of
Hearts and the rest are mine." It is rare when a claimer actually says how
they are going to play it out, which, as I understand it, is how a claim is
supposed to occur.
I know that once someone does this the play stops. But, how should I
respond when someone does this? My partner and I never simply agree and lay
down our hands. It is always an awkward moment as we try to figure out if
the claim is valid.
What motivated this question is this event last night: My LHO lays down his
hand with 7 cards in it and says "I'll give you two tricks." Then, when we
hesitated trying to determine if his claim was correct, said "No, I'll only
give you one." All this time, his partner is saying, "Just pick up and play
it out." At no time did the claimer actually state how he would play out
the hand. What's more, it wasn't his lead at the time.
So, what do you do when an opponent lays down his/her cards and claims?
Should I ask a question, such as, "How do you intent to play it out?"
What if it is my lead? Do I get to look at the claimer's hand and then
decide how I want to lead? Can I look at my partner's hand, as well?
Thanks,
Ray
----
Raise your hand. Say "Director, Please" in a loud, clear, firm
voice.
Do not argue.
Do not ask for clarification.
Do not tell the opponent what the laws are.
Let the director earn his pittance.
Chris
Steve Willner
May 23, 2013, 10:44:00 PM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-17 7:56 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Law 79A is an ethical requirement on the players. It
> doesn't seem to require them to consider the difference between normal
> and irrational lines of play, like 71 does.
This is correct. David Stevenson pointed it out perhaps a year or so
> Law 79A is an ethical requirement on the players. It
> doesn't seem to require them to consider the difference between normal
> and irrational lines of play, like 71 does.
ago. You can't accept a trick that you couldn't possibly win by any
legal play (or have already lost!), but as long as there's a legal play
-- no matter how far-fetched -- that gets you the trick, you can accept it.
As a matter of personal ethics -- and also because we can't always tell
which tricks cannot possibly be won -- many of us will refuse to accept
tricks that an opponent was going to win on any normal play. Nor would
we want partners or teammates who do, but none of this is a legal
requirement. And just to be clear, it doesn't mean we accept defective
or even dubious claims.
Steve Willner
May 23, 2013, 10:54:53 PM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-22 1:17 AM, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> [In Law 71-2] "normal" doesn't require any degree of skill, just not
"burden of proof" is reversed. In other words, typically players aren't
expected to crash honors or play low cards before high ones when cashing
or play a king under an opponent's ace or something else completely
silly, but they are "expected" to miscount or not notice that a 6-spot
is high or what suit partner is out of.
> In other words, if you hold the AK of trump in the same hand, you
> must win two of the remaining tricks.
Yes.
> If you hold the Ace and King of trumps in different hands,
> you *COULD* lose one of them.
Maybe or maybe not. If it's Ax opposite Kx, it wouldn't be normal for
the two honors to go on the same trick. (I suppose someone might
construct some rare exception.) If one of the honors is bare, I can
imagine situations where playing the guarded honor only to have it crash
the unguarded one would be "normal," but that's far from automatic.
This is entirely a matter for the Director's judgment (and perhaps for
an AC if the players disagree).
The rules on this changed in 1997, but there was an editing error in the
Laws that made it less than clear. It has been cleared up in the latest
Laws version.
> [In Law 71-2] "normal" doesn't require any degree of skill, just not
> involving defective tricks or revokes.
Not exactly. It's the same standard as used for claims, but now the
"burden of proof" is reversed. In other words, typically players aren't
expected to crash honors or play low cards before high ones when cashing
or play a king under an opponent's ace or something else completely
silly, but they are "expected" to miscount or not notice that a 6-spot
is high or what suit partner is out of.
> In other words, if you hold the AK of trump in the same hand, you
> must win two of the remaining tricks.
> If you hold the Ace and King of trumps in different hands,
> you *COULD* lose one of them.
the two honors to go on the same trick. (I suppose someone might
construct some rare exception.) If one of the honors is bare, I can
imagine situations where playing the guarded honor only to have it crash
the unguarded one would be "normal," but that's far from automatic.
This is entirely a matter for the Director's judgment (and perhaps for
an AC if the players disagree).
The rules on this changed in 1997, but there was an editing error in the
Laws that made it less than clear. It has been cleared up in the latest
Laws version.
Steve Willner
May 23, 2013, 11:03:28 PM5/23/13
to
On 2013-05-16 11:40 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> Law 7C: After play has finished, each player should shuffle his
> original thirteen cards, after which he restores them to the pocket
> corresponding to his compass position.
According to the Introduction, 'should' means "failure to do it is an
> Law 7C: After play has finished, each player should shuffle his
> original thirteen cards, after which he restores them to the pocket
> corresponding to his compass position.
infraction jeopardizing the infractor�s rights but not often penalized."
> It really wouldn't make sense to make this an absolute requirement,
> especially for boards that will not be played again (the last board
> of an event, the replay in a team match, in a barometer game, ...)
computer dealing), that's true. If they are going to be redealt by hand
shuffling, after the last round is arguably the most important time for
the hands to be shuffled before putting them back. I can't prove it,
but all the evidence I've seen (a non-trivial amount) is that
human-shuffled deals are "too flat" if hands are sorted before being put
back in the boards but have the expected distributions if hands are
shuffled before being put back in the boards. I haven't seen any
evidence for what happens if cards are put back "as played," but I'd
expect some degree of "too flat" from imperfect human shuffling.
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2013, 4:41:52 AM5/24/13
to
In article <knml2d$oqf$1...@dont-email.me>,
Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> but all the evidence I've seen (a non-trivial amount) is that
> human-shuffled deals are "too flat" if hands are sorted before being put
> back in the boards but have the expected distributions if hands are
> shuffled before being put back in the boards.
One of these clauses must be missing a "not".
> but all the evidence I've seen (a non-trivial amount) is that
> human-shuffled deals are "too flat" if hands are sorted before being put
> back in the boards but have the expected distributions if hands are
> shuffled before being put back in the boards.
Adam Beneschan
May 24, 2013, 11:38:09 AM5/24/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:03:28 PM UTC-7, Steve Willner wrote:
>
> If the boards are going to be redealt by machine (or duplicated from
> computer dealing), that's true. If they are going to be redealt by hand
> shuffling, after the last round is arguably the most important time for
> the hands to be shuffled before putting them back. I can't prove it,
> but all the evidence I've seen (a non-trivial amount) is that
> human-shuffled deals are "too flat" if hands are sorted before being put
> back in the boards but have the expected distributions if hands are
> shuffled before being put back in the boards. I haven't seen any
> evidence for what happens if cards are put back "as played," but I'd
> expect some degree of "too flat" from imperfect human shuffling.
Good point--I hadn't thought of that at all. But I'd still expect that the difference would disappear if the person shuffling the deck next time shuffles it enough times (I think 7 times is the current theory). I know, not everyone does that.
>
> If the boards are going to be redealt by machine (or duplicated from
> computer dealing), that's true. If they are going to be redealt by hand
> shuffling, after the last round is arguably the most important time for
> the hands to be shuffled before putting them back. I can't prove it,
> but all the evidence I've seen (a non-trivial amount) is that
> human-shuffled deals are "too flat" if hands are sorted before being put
> back in the boards but have the expected distributions if hands are
> shuffled before being put back in the boards. I haven't seen any
> evidence for what happens if cards are put back "as played," but I'd
> expect some degree of "too flat" from imperfect human shuffling.
-- Adam
judyo...@gmail.com
May 24, 2013, 1:07:12 PM5/24/13
to
>
> 68C: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear
> statement as to the order in which cards will be
> played, of the line of play or defense through which
> the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.">
>
> So, it's "should", not "must", but if it's not accompanied by a clear statement it just leaves more up to the director's judgement.
>
As Willner reminded us, the word "should" in the Laws definitely means that failure to do so is an infraction, although a rarely penalized infraction.
Therefore: Claim without statement is an infraction, which "should" cause a director call, whether or not the defenders have an opinion about the validity of the claim.
Carl
Steve Willner
May 25, 2013, 3:58:33 PM5/25/13
to
On 2013-05-24 11:38 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> I'd still expect that the difference would disappear if the person
> shuffling the deck next time shuffles it enough times (I think 7
> times is the current theory). I know, not everyone does that.
That last is the problem. There are credible reports of "too flat"
> I'd still expect that the difference would disappear if the person
> shuffling the deck next time shuffles it enough times (I think 7
> times is the current theory). I know, not everyone does that.
distributions from human shuffling, evidencing a real problem in some
circumstances. However, my statistics in ACBL play, where each hand is
shuffled before being returned to the board, show the expected
distributions. I can't prove cause and effect, but it's a good
hypothesis with some direct evidence to back it up.
The paper by Diaconis (and I think one or more co-authors), where the
"seven shuffles" came from, is one of the most widely misquoted ones I
know. In brief, their claim was that seven shuffles are _necessary_, not
that seven are _sufficient_, but there are at least three important
qualifications to that result:
1. their definition of "random" was not terribly strict, and one could
argue that more shuffles are necessary.
2. their shuffles were theoretical maximum entropy shuffles, and real
human shuffles may (and probably do) randomize less effectively. This
again would imply more shuffles needed.
3. for bridge, we don't care whether the whole deck is random. We only
care whether each card's position is random modulo four. That suggests
fewer shuffles will suffice, but I haven't seen any estimate of an
actual number.
The practical conclusions for players who want random deals are:
1. ideally use a dealing machine with a good program. If this is
impossible and you are stuck with hand dealing:
2. shuffle your hand before putting it back in the board on the last
round, and
3. when shuffling, use a lot of shuffles. (I usually go for 9 or 10.)
Stu Goodgold
May 26, 2013, 3:34:03 PM5/26/13
to
It would be interesting to see a study of bridge deals after hand shuffling of a new deck versus a used deck.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Steve Willner
May 30, 2013, 4:54:54 PM5/30/13
to
On 2013-05-26 3:34 PM, Stu Goodgold wrote:
> In a communication with Diaconis, he clarified that the paper studied
> the randomness of sequences in a 52 card deck,
Yes, that was clear from the paper.
> In a communication with Diaconis, he clarified that the paper studied
> the randomness of sequences in a 52 card deck,
> and that after 7
> 'good' shuffles (as you note) from a pre-sorted deck the randomness
> increased an insignificant amount.
since I read it. Perhaps this is just a matter of how we use
qualitative terms such as "insignificant," but I recall the paper
showing measurable increase in randomness after seven shuffles.
> He estimated that for bridge
> hands, your item 3 applies and that 5 good shuffles should be
> sufficient.
have found hands to be too flat, either decks were shuffled fewer than
five times or human shuffles are less random than theoretical maximum-
entropy shuffles. I'd speculate that both are true, but I haven't seen
evidence. It might be worth observing other players shuffling and see
how many riffles they use. (Don't let them know you are counting, or
you'll bias the results.)
> It would be interesting to see a study of bridge deals after hand
> shuffling of a new deck versus a used deck.
order, so insufficient shuffling will produce too-flat distributions
(and probably too-even honor distribution). For a used deck, the
outcome depends on the deck's prior state. If it was initially
randomized, distributions will still be random. If it was partially
sorted, distributions will be too flat if the hand shuffling is
insufficient.
0 new messages