[thepossum]

Hi all

Having watched quite a few higher level games since joining this site I once saw an incident where a claim (requiring a finesse) was rejected and one of the players said you could no longer do the finesse if the claim was rejected. Edit correction. You weren't allowed to choose a different line

I recently established the likelihood of a King being placed correctly with one finesse (against Gib) and happily claimed to have my claim knocked back. Sure enough the King was there where I thought it was. After the second finesse it accepted my claim

regards P

[smerriman]

In real life bridge you must state a line of play when you claim.

With GIB a claim will be accepted only if there exists a single dummy line that guarantees at least the number of tricks you claim against any defense. If a finesse works once but it is still technically possible that the trick was ducked (even if that would be awful bridge), then a claim relying on the finesse working again will always be rejected, whether the card was onside or not.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-February-18, 19:29, said:

If a finesse works once but it is still technically possible that the trick was ducked (even if that would be awful bridge), then a claim relying on the finesse working again will always be rejected, whether the card was onside or not.

Could you please give an example to make this clearer?

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2022-February-19, 16:32, said:

Could you please give an example to make this clearer?

---

West leads a diamond, you win and lead the ♠Q, which holds.

If you claim 13 tricks, it will be rejected as East having Kxx is a valid deal, even though ducking from such a holding is insane.

[pescetom]

Thanks.

Maybe a sane East might duck the Q to give partner a chance to signal his red A... or maybe I just haven't had coffee yet.

[mycroft]

Ignoring robots, the law is as smerriman states. Online "tradition" is to be generous with claims, and accept them "when obvious". This leads to conflicts (as does the whole "assumed knowledge" on undos) when an "online" player plays against a "lawful" player - especially one who just got caught out on a claim "on a technicality" earlier.[*]

The ACBL tournaments - note [esp. Hrothgar] that the BBO ACBL *club* is not an ACBL tournament - state in their regulations that claims, if disputed and the director called, will be ruled the same way they would be face-to=face. Yes, that has caught out many players, even many experts (who definitely use that standard of claiming with each other in Bracket 1 KOs and forget that it's not how the Law reads when disputed in the stratified Open by "players who should know I know how to play").

[*]Note: there is one thing worse - the righteous indignation expressed by a player who was penalized for not having a posted CC last session at the sight of any pair without a card. Even the pickups they *saw* put into their seats not 2 minutes ago.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-February-26, 13:32, said:

Ignoring robots, the law is as smerriman states. Online "tradition" is to be generous with claims, and accept them "when obvious". This leads to conflicts (as does the whole "assumed knowledge" on undos) when an "online" player plays against a "lawful" player - especially one who just got caught out on a claim "on a technicality" earlier.[*]

The ACBL tournaments - note [esp. Hrothgar] that the BBO ACBL *club* is not an ACBL tournament - state in their regulations that claims, if disputed and the director called, will be ruled the same way they would be face-to=face. Yes, that has caught out many players, even many experts (who definitely use that standard of claiming with each other in Bracket 1 KOs and forget that it's not how the Law reads when disputed in the stratified Open by "players who should know I know how to play").

The more bridge I play and see, the less I like existing claim Laws and mechanisms. What looks on paper like a reasonable means of gaining time and avoiding pointless play frequently turns out to be a sleazy way of avoiding difficulty and sometimes hinges on opponents and/or TD deferring to superior bridge skills. I try to only claim when I can state a clear line of play with little risk of being wrong, but that is a less frequent situation than most will acknowledge and by no coincidence almost nobody states a line. On the few occasions where TD is actually called and empowered to adjudicate, the decision is rarely well accepted.

Solutions? Nobody has a magic wand, but offline I see no reason to set anything but a high bar in terms of explicit line of play. Online I think a playout mechanism would be better than claims, particularly if timing is introduced.

[mycroft]

If you have a problem with the shortcuts others take, follow the laws when you claim. If you're the kind who will attempt to get every single trick the letter of the claim laws entitle you to, well, I have an issue with you, but you're being Lawful; I just hope players hold you to the same standard. (Note: I'm almost certain you're not. They exist, though, along with the "you only have 14!" and "you opened 1NT with a singleton!" (back in the day) and the "you didn't say 'raise', so how was I supposed to know it showed support?" people.)

Almost all claims on BBO, even without a claim statement, are "yeah, you have 6 tricks here. Yeah, you could screw it up, but I'm assuming you didn't learn to play yesterday." The stronger the game, the more goes into that assumption. Because almost all claims on BBO mean little to zero, and you're playing either with your friends, or with people you think are about at your level, for fun; and implying they can't play isn't fun.

But also, yeah, if there's a conflict between the shortcut players and the lawful players, and it matters, the Laws speak (either the duplicate laws if there's a director, or the rubber laws if they don't - and online claim continuations reflect the rubber laws reasonably.) Of course, the right to find a game where the opponents don't have sticks up... also exists.

As I have frequently said, I really enjoy playing to the letter of the Laws with pairs that are friendly about it and also feel comfortable there. I don't mind playing a little loose either, as long as a) I'm not actually being taken advantage of (more than I feel comfortable) and b) the looseness goes both ways. If it suddenly turns out that they expect some leeway, but they're going to nail me to the wall, well, I *also* enjoy playing to the letter of the Laws against those pairs. For different reasons, of course...

[mycroft]

continuing the offtopic (sorry, didn't realize this was in the robot section): Yes, the Laws mean that there can be much discussion about hands like this one from BW. And whether it matters that it was a GrandLM, or me, or my random C players. And the (very) odd one can be ruled "wrong", no matter how you rule it. And the directors will get stick for right rulings that are "well of course I would..." when they don't take kindly to "saying another three words would have proven it to everyone. Next time you'll do it, won't you?"
As I say to *everyone*, novice to National Team member alike - "the Laws almost always presume you have forgotten about a trump if you don't mention it. So, if you ever claim with a trump out, mention it. If you *always* do so, you don't have these problems." Again, it's three words.

I have implied "there's a trump out" without saying it a number of times, for example "high cross-ruff". Sometimes it's caused an issue, but not a big one. My personal opinion of the example from BW is that a) he knew there were trump(s) out, as he was giving one to the opponents; and b) that the line of play taken demonstrates the trump coup. Sure, if he'd waited one more trick, but there are many issues with that as well. Sure, if he'd been clearer about "you *only* get one of your trumps", sure. But the line shows the trump coup *to me*, never mind someone who can play (standard rules apply, no?), so...

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-February-27, 09:34, said:

continuing the offtopic (sorry, didn't realize this was in the robot section): Yes, the Laws mean that there can be much discussion about hands like this one from BW. And whether it matters that it was a GrandLM, or me, or my random C players. And the (very) odd one can be ruled "wrong", no matter how you rule it. And the directors will get stick for right rulings that are "well of course I would..." when they don't take kindly to "saying another three words would have proven it to everyone. Next time you'll do it, won't you?"
As I say to *everyone*, novice to National Team member alike - "the Laws almost always presume you have forgotten about a trump if you don't mention it. So, if you ever claim with a trump out, mention it. If you *always* do so, you don't have these problems." Again, it's three words.

I have implied "there's a trump out" without saying it a number of times, for example "high cross-ruff". Sometimes it's caused an issue, but not a big one. My personal opinion of the example from BW is that a) he knew there were trump(s) out, as he was giving one to the opponents; and b) that the line of play taken demonstrates the trump coup. Sure, if he'd waited one more trick, but there are many issues with that as well. Sure, if he'd been clearer about "you *only* get one of your trumps", sure. But the line shows the trump coup *to me*, never mind someone who can play (standard rules apply, no?), so...

I agree more with your first point than with your personal opinion here. What are the issues with waiting one trick and claiming after playing the Q? It would have taken less time than writing an explanation, even one as clear and simple as "A,Q, trump coup".

As an OT to the OT, another thread talks about some genius using the claim explanation box to shout abuse in an automated tournament, so it's not as if people don't know it exists

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-February-26, 16:40, said:

If you have a problem with the shortcuts others take, follow the laws when you claim. If you're the kind who will attempt to get every single trick the letter of the claim laws entitle you to, well, I have an issue with you, but you're being Lawful; I just hope players hold you to the same standard. (Note: I'm almost certain you're not. They exist, though, along with the "you only have 14!" and "you opened 1NT with a singleton!" (back in the day) and the "you didn't say 'raise', so how was I supposed to know it showed support?" people.)

Almost all claims on BBO, even without a claim statement, are "yeah, you have 6 tricks here. Yeah, you could screw it up, but I'm assuming you didn't learn to play yesterday." The stronger the game, the more goes into that assumption. Because almost all claims on BBO mean little to zero, and you're playing either with your friends, or with people you think are about at your level, for fun; and implying they can't play isn't fun.

Forgot to add that you are right to be almost certain that I am not I can't remember the last time I refused a claim on BBO that was not a clear mistake, although I remember quite a few times when I was pretty sure that I was damaging myself by not doing so (or only noticed that the claim was faulty when I saw the score). But I hate it when my claim is rejected and I understand that is the same for most others too. I have refused a fair number of Undos, but only when the regulations so obliged or when I felt the request was unlawful and wanted TD to decide.

Face to face, things are a bit different, in particular I will ask for a line of play if I'm not convinced (or simply not good enough to spot the 'obvious' expert play, that happens occasionally too). I will chide club opponents about missing alerts and so on, but only later on and in a good humoured way. This is part of the package of being known to be a Director, as I see it, although I'm careful not to take advantage or even risk being seen as doing so. I wouldn't be comfortable with the alternative of playing dirty to prove I am one of the boys after all, although one does have to close an eye occasionally and give up on one's rights frequently. But of course you know all about that.

[mycroft]

What's so hard about "A, Q, trump coup"? well, the C pair isn't going to know what a trump coup is. The A pair that does "can see from my 'you get one trump' claim the trump coup I'm obviously playing for." So no difference either way.

Sure, there's ego there. But to the claimer, it's an obvious line of play.

Assuming I had the count 100%, I'd probably play the second heart and claim, rather than wait for the Q to win or do it on the A. If it gets me into the same trouble, so be it. I am actually surprised at how many people on that "expert and wannabe-expert" forum aren't agreeing with me that the play reads - here, I'd be much less surprised. Note: I agree that it's not IOTTMCO, and definitely arguable within the Law. It's just that BW caters to "top level players" for whom it is IO, and as I said, the players who emulate and would like to be treated like said top level players.

I actually deleted my "what if" rebuttal before - replacing with "many issues", but here it was "what if the ♥A got played, and irrelevant LHO spent 25 seconds working out which useless card to pitch, so I claimed to take him off the hook?" We don't know (but the director would, she'll have the timing), but a fair number of "too early" claims are exactly this: "It's obvious, but hard to explain/people auto-reject claims for 'not all the tricks' without reading, so I'll play another trick or two. Oops, we have 4 minutes to get in the last board, and you're now in the tank with your irrelevant hand, I'll claim 'early'."

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-February-28, 11:39, said:

What's so hard about "A, Q, trump coup"? well, the C pair isn't going to know what a trump coup is. The A pair that does "can see from my 'you get one trump' claim the trump coup I'm obviously playing for." So no difference either way.

Sure, there's ego there. But to the claimer, it's an obvious line of play.

Assuming I had the count 100%, I'd probably play the second heart and claim, rather than wait for the Q to win or do it on the A. If it gets me into the same trouble, so be it. I am actually surprised at how many people on that "expert and wannabe-expert" forum aren't agreeing with me that the play reads - here, I'd be much less surprised. Note: I agree that it's not IOTTMCO, and definitely arguable within the Law. It's just that BW caters to "top level players" for whom it is IO, and as I said, the players who emulate and would like to be treated like said top level players.

I actually deleted my "what if" rebuttal before - replacing with "many issues", but here it was "what if the ♥A got played, and irrelevant LHO spent 25 seconds working out which useless card to pitch, so I claimed to take him off the hook?" We don't know (but the director would, she'll have the timing), but a fair number of "too early" claims are exactly this: "It's obvious, but hard to explain/people auto-reject claims for 'not all the tricks' without reading, so I'll play another trick or two. Oops, we have 4 minutes to get in the last board, and you're now in the tank with your irrelevant hand, I'll claim 'early'."

My only beef with all that is that you clearly have more A pairs (not hard to believe) but also some seriously awkward C pairs (25s to decide whether to pitch 6 or 3 here?) and apparently no B pairs (the ones who don't buy that this is obvious to A yet he is in no hurry to explain it). I suspect that less than twenty people in my club ever heard of a trump coup, but many others would still get this right as Declarer without knowing the term. "After I cross to the Q, whatever I play you will lose one of your trumps" would work fine to almost anyone as a clarification if necessary.

[pilowsky]

All of this would not be a problem if Declarer was able to continue playing cards after claiming until the result is obvious.
This is how it is implemented on another platform so it ought to be possible.
That way, everyone is happy.
On BBO I try to claim early but if it isn't accepted after a few seconds I cancel the claim and keep playing.

A key reason for being able to claim and keep playing is so that players with slow or tricky internet can get through the session.
Claiming and continuing to play is the internet equivalent of demonstrating your line of play.