Claim rules
#1
Posted 2011-March-24, 18:30
2. Where a claim is stated a line of play must be stated that covers all possibilities, lines of plays involving if statements must be written so its clear unless the line of play is both insufficient and of the simplest form.
3. Where a line of play is insufficient or not stated, defenders should call the director.
4. Once agreed that the line of play is not stated or insufficient, the director must give defenders the maximum number of tricks that they can get limited by the line of play.
5. If defenders fail to call the director, declarer can get the maximum number of tricks possible.
Simple and clear cut, unlike other areas of bridge which are always going to have some grey area and judgement needed.
#2
Posted 2011-March-24, 20:06
Allow the players to manage it. I admit that a lot of entertainment would disappear from the forum, but would the game be the worse?
#3
Posted 2011-March-24, 20:17
IMO the non-claiming side should be able to just put their cards away and move on to the next board without losing any rights at all. So the presumption against the claimer should remain until the expiration of the correction period.
#4
Posted 2011-March-24, 20:39
cloa513, on 2011-March-24, 18:30, said:
2. Where a claim is stated a line of play must be stated that covers all possibilities, lines of plays involving if statements must be written so its clear unless the line of play is both insufficient and of the simplest form.
3. Where a line of play is insufficient or not stated, defenders should call the director.
4. Once agreed that the line of play is not stated or insufficient, the director must give defenders the maximum number of tricks that they can get limited by the line of play.
5. If defenders fail to call the director, declarer can get the maximum number of tricks possible.
Simple and clear cut, unlike other areas of bridge which are always going to have some grey area and judgement needed.
What if it's a defender who's claimed?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
Posted 2011-March-25, 03:04
AlexJonson, on 2011-March-24, 20:06, said:
Allow the players to manage it. I admit that a lot of entertainment would disappear from the forum, but would the game be the worse?
I had a claim called to my attention last Friday. Declarer claimed a number of tricks, the defenders initially agreed but then realised before putting their hands back in the board that declarer had failed to notice a loser that would develop. Declarer agreed with that, but claimed they were too late to get the extra trick.
I'm glad I had the claim laws to make it easy to deal with.
London UK
#6
Posted 2011-March-25, 09:30
gordontd, on 2011-March-25, 03:04, said:
I'm glad I had the claim laws to make it easy to deal with.
I assume you told Declarer it is an offence to Claim tricks which he is not entitled to or that could be lost through any 'Normal' play
![B-)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
#7
Posted 2011-March-25, 10:31
AlexJonson, on 2011-March-24, 20:06, said:
Allow the players to manage it. I admit that a lot of entertainment would disappear from the forum, but would the game be the worse?
Yes, considerably.
Either you forbid claiming, slow the game down a lot, and add a quality of boredom to playing out non-hands.
Or you allow claiming without any Laws leading to interminable arguments, and TDs with no legal backing to do anything about it.
And what do you gain? At the moment well over 95% of claims - probably over 99% - are unchallenged. Of course forums look at interesting cases, but there are millions of claims every day of no interest and no TD call. There is no real problem over claims in practice, so you are trying to deal with a non-problem.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#8
Posted 2011-March-25, 12:31
bluejak, on 2011-March-25, 10:31, said:
Either you forbid claiming, slow the game down a lot, and add a quality of boredom to playing out non-hands.
Or you allow claiming without any Laws leading to interminable arguments, and TDs with no legal backing to do anything about it.
And what do you gain? At the moment well over 95% of claims - probably over 99% - are unchallenged. Of course forums look at interesting cases, but there are millions of claims every day of no interest and no TD call. There is no real problem over claims in practice, so you are trying to deal with a non-problem.
I believe that you are right about the percentage of claims handled by the players themselves exceeding 99% - in fact I suspect you could add a decimal point and a number of nines.
So I guess that the question is whether the apparent difficulty of legally codifying claims situations, leads on balance to a positive outcome. Some of the posts on these forums suggest that elimination of interminable debate may not be one of the gains.
But if you are saying that a major effort to rewrite claims Laws is a low priority, I would find it hard to disagree.
#9
Posted 2011-March-26, 13:44
For instance, the suggested rewrite refers to "of the simplest form". There we go, another judgement call: is the line of the simplest form?
Certainly any claim procedure that requires writing down the line is a waste of time, IMHO. Claims are intended to speed up the game, and requiring the claimant to start writing things down is contrary to this.
Quote
That apparently handles the case of an insufficient line of play, but what about when the line of play is not stated at all? More than 95% of claims in practice involve declarer simply facing his hands and everyone agreeing that he has the rest, or him saying something like "you get the club ace." I guess these are examples of your "simplest form", but then we're back to the judgement call if the opponents don't agree. And now, what does "limited by the line of play" mean if the TD sides with the defenders and there has been no explicit line of play? The current laws refer to "normal play", which is an attempt to be fair to a declarer who may have simply miscounted something and could be off by one in the number of tricks he gets. The proposed version would conceivably award the defenders tricks they could get by any irrational line, such as playing unestablished suits from the bottom instead of the top.
#10
Posted 2011-March-30, 02:28
#11
Posted 2011-March-30, 12:23
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#12
Posted 2011-March-30, 15:54
bluejak, on 2011-March-30, 12:23, said:
When taken in relation to WBF2008, the proffered remedy is not merely an improvement, but an immense improvement. That is not to say that it is the right thing to do, just as calling something wrong because you assert that many people will not accept the approach. If I could not attain the [in actuality] correct approach then I would be an enthusiastic supporter of the suggestion.
Why? because the suggestion has an immense amount of merit. What underlies the merit is the concept that if players know they are almost certain to lose a lot of tricks by being sloppy then they will take much effort to make perfect claims; the outcome? The dreaded remedy doesn’t see the light of day [very often]. And on that basis claimers will earn their tricks and that, my friends and enemies, is right-headed thinking- if not complete thinking.
But still, the fact is that the suggestion puts the ball in the adjudicator’s court rather than the players’ court. And further, there is no provision for the scales of justice to balance the actions of declarer and the defenders. And that is the reason that the suggestion is wrong- superior, but wrong.
#13
Posted 2011-March-30, 16:27
- Be short clear and simple enough for players to comply and for directors to consistently enforce.
- Encourage claims rather than deter them.
- Speed up the game, rather than slow it down.
- Rely as little as possible on communication skills and foreign language interpretation.
#14
Posted 2011-March-30, 16:34
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2011-March-30, 22:04
#16
Posted 2011-March-31, 08:06
tbr, on 2011-March-30, 22:04, said:
Online claims present a different set of problems, since there isn't a director to adjudicate and play usually (as far as I know) resumes after a contested claim. Probably the online considerations are the subject of a separate discussion.
#17
Posted 2011-March-31, 14:19
nige1, on 2011-March-30, 16:27, said:
- Be short clear and simple enough for players to comply and for directors to consistently enforce.
- Encourage claims rather than deter them.
- Speed up the game, rather than slow it down.
- Rely as little as possible on communication skills and foreign language interpretation.
The continuation of your post, where you explain, Nigel,
the easy solution that meets your requirements,
is entirely missing.
What is the solution?
#18
Posted 2011-March-31, 16:29
nige1, on 2011-March-30, 16:27, said:
- Be short clear and simple enough for players to comply and for directors to consistently enforce.
- Encourage claims rather than deter them.
- Speed up the game, rather than slow it down.
- Rely as little as possible on communication skills and foreign language interpretation.
AlexJonson, on 2011-March-31, 14:19, said:
The claimer claims by showing his hand to opponent(s), stating a number of tricks. and playing on, single-dummy, until his opponents(s) are happy. Opponent(s) may continue playing, double-dummy, until they accept the claim is valid.
(Edited: to avoid spurious references to "disputing" the claim)
This is similar to on-line protocol (which works well, in my experience). A drawback (in theory, at least) is that a claimer may embark on a "fishing" expedition against tyros but (as for other kinds of gamesmanship) fry can be warned to be wary of getting hooked..
#19
Posted 2011-March-31, 17:33
Opponents object.
I look at the hand again, because the opponents aren't idiots, and realize that on a 5-0 break, I don't have all the tricks AKQJ. But if I play carefully (keeping all my relevant entries), I can find, and then pick up 5-0.
Hand made.
Fair?
Lamford's last hand (with all the bad minor suit breaks). Claim trick 1. They object. Rethink the hand. Auto-make 7. Fair?
Claim made and rejected.
Oh bugger, somebody's got a top I've forgotten about. If it's a trump, I can't play off my trumps, I have to play off my winners to keep control. If it's not a trump, then maybe I can play my suits in the order to pitch it (or, in just the "I'm sure this suit is good down to not sure" order). If it's not, really not, after two checks, a top, then it's almost certainly a small trump; better pull it before going after my winners. Again, fair?
Basically, you're allowing a lot more claims to make that in RL, with the current rules, would be considered faulty and score worse.
And that's the online version, where I don't know who objected. Face-to-face, there are lots of "fishing expeditions" that you can't but fall for, if declarer is good at reading, if you don't set a protocol on how to accept them (which will frequently fall afoul of "not looking at your partner" things) - many of which are of the "if they disallow my claim, then <suit> is breaking badly and I'll have to think about it. If they accept, I don't have to think" variety that (accidentally) I had above.
#20
Posted 2011-March-31, 18:28
nige1, on 2011-March-30, 16:27, said:
(Edited: to avoid spurious references to "disputing" the claim)
mycroft, on 2011-March-31, 17:33, said:
mycroft, on 2011-March-31, 17:33, said:
mycroft, on 2011-March-31, 17:33, said:
mycroft, on 2011-March-31, 17:33, said:
mycroft, on 2011-March-31, 17:33, said:
IMO, if the proposed protocol were law, it would encourage more claims and speed up the game. I think most players would be happier to claim were there no need to dot every "i" and cross every "t". And most players would welcome more frequent claims by opponents, especially if they like playing double-dummy against blinkered opposition.