[blackshoe]

Of those four guidelines, A and D are irrelevant to this case. C I would apply in situations where taking this "safety check" results in declarer losing a trick. The fact that it is "normal" to make such a play does not imply that it is irrational not to do so. That leaves us with B - and the ruling that billw and I have already proposed.

A player "should", says the law, make a clear line of play statement. This means that if a player does not do so, he is subject to procedural penalty. I know that a lot of directors are reluctant to issue such penalties, particularly in club games. Some would cite the frequency of these infractions as a reason not to give a penalty. I think that's backwards. The fact that these infractions are relatively frequent implies that players do not learn from their error. Seems to me, that being the case, that a procedural penalty is more desirable in these cases. That said, I would start with a warning along the lines of "if you continue to commit this infraction in future, I will assign a PP in matchpoints". Having given the warning, I will carry it out - it does absolutely no good whatsoever to do as some TDs do, and just give a "warning" (or, as one of the TDs around here is wont to do, say mildly "you should give a line of play statement") every time it happens.

[Vampyr]

 jeffford76, on 2014-February-06, 12:05, said:

The current case is a position where normal play takes all the tricks. People don't generally unnecessarily ruff high, and they don't play out their long suits from the bottom. I'd much rather have the time savings from claims in general then send another person to "I never claim"-land by taking a trick here.

This is all true, but perhaps it is best if people get in the habit of making a brief statement. Though in a case like this "I ruff and then my hand is high" seems a little redundant.

[blackshoe]

"Club to my hand, ruff small, high trump, low trump" seems concise and accurate enough.

[billw55]

 jeffford76, on 2014-February-06, 12:05, said:

I want exactly the opposite. The game is much more pleasant when people claim when they have the rest. Taking away tricks on claims that were very unlikely to be lost makes people much less likely to claim.

The current case is a position where normal play takes all the tricks. People don't generally unnecessarily ruff high, and they don't play out their long suits from the bottom. I'd much rather have the time savings from claims in general then send another person to "I never claim"-land by taking a trick here.

Personally, I prefer that people never claim, unless they can claim correctly. Just personal preference.

Also note that director calls for failed claims generally take more time than playing out the hand.

[blackshoe]

 billw55, on 2014-February-06, 12:28, said:

Also note that director calls for failed claims generally take more time than playing out the hand.

Which is, of course, illegal. You're right that director calls in these cases waste much time - and a large percentage of those calls arise because the claimer did not follow the rules and give a clear line of play statement. For such a player to then say "well, I got an adverse ruling so I'm never claiming again!" is just plain stupid - and if I were to find such a player the cause of a "slow play" ruling, in an obvious claim situation, I'd be inclined to drop a couple rocks on his head.

[jeffford76]

 billw55, on 2014-February-06, 12:28, said:

Also note that director calls for failed claims generally take more time than playing out the hand.

I don't see why this is relevant. I can't imagine there is anyone that regularly makes claims for which the total time saved by not playing hands out is not vastly larger than the amount of time taken on the invalid ones.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2014-February-06, 12:44, said:

For such a player to then say "well, I got an adverse ruling so I'm never claiming again!" is just plain stupid - and if I were to find such a player the cause of a "slow play" ruling, in an obvious claim situation, I'd be inclined to drop a couple rocks on his head.

I fail to see how putting more rocks on a rockpile would have any effect.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2014-February-06, 12:54, said:

I fail to see how putting more rocks on a rockpile would have any effect.

ROFL! Good point!

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2014-February-06, 12:25, said:

"Club to my hand, ruff small, high trump, low trump" seems concise and accurate enough.

True, but the player will find it superfluous if he thinks there are no more trumps out. This would be his plan, though.

A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? Sorry could not think of a way to make this more intelligible!

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-06, 17:16, said:

A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? Sorry could not think of a way to make this more intelligible!

There are legitimate reasons to play out a hand when you know how many of the remaining tricks you will take, or at least play it down to an obvious ending --- and in these cases you shouldn't be taken to task for dragging the oppenents out. Sometimes it is easier to just do it than to explain all the exact plays you will make.

Put another way, the premise "if you always claim when..." is not a realistic condition. When you will be staying in one hand, and there is no chance for the opponents to take a trick -- or zero chance for an opponent to discard a winning trick -- then if you play it out for the reason in your question, I would vote "unnecessarily wasting our time" or "sleezy application of game theory".

Michael Rosenberg has written on this issue (playing out a hand), and approves doing so if there is a remote chance an opponent will go stupid. He has limits to that position.

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-06, 17:16, said:

A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim?

If you haven't claimed, then your opponents will always assume that you can't claim. Playing the hand won't mean that next time they will pay less attention because there might not be anything to think about, so you're not gaining anything from this particular uncertainty.

What you will gain is unnecessary effort from your opponents on hands where there really is nothing to think about. This might be reflected in slight additional fatigue from opponents in a long match, but you will also gain a reputation for being annoying if you do it regularly. Some opponents will find ways to get back at you (drawing out the play when you're on defence is one obvious example) so it's unclear that the net change will be positive at all. Additionally, it's a small enough community that keeping a good reputation is probably of more long-term benefit.

I understand Rosenberg's position in playing out the hand aguahombre raised, but it would not have occurred to me to do anything but claim. Perhaps that's because I play with enough slow people that I want to save the time for future hands, but the overtrick looked awfully remote.

[Mbodell]

 blackshoe, on 2014-February-06, 12:25, said:

"Club to my hand, ruff small, high trump, low trump" seems concise and accurate enough.

Have you ever seen someone carelessly ruff low and under ruffed when an opponent has ruffed in front of them? Or call for the Q from AQ when leading up and a "surprise" K falls in front? Those are the sort of "careless" things I have seen for a lot of players. So does that mean the claim line you propose could be subject to a possible Secretary Bird (if he were out of clubs) who wants to say "You've stated you are ruffing the club small, unfortunately I ruff the club high and win this trick", after all how hard would it have been for you to say "Club playing the lowest trump necessary at that point to win and then trump from the top"?

Rule C in the ACBL files if it applies here then he's forced to play a spade off dummy to his high spade and make the contract. If you force him to lead a club off dummy instead (maybe C only applies to lead from his hand, doubtful), then I don't force the both irrational and unnatural play of ruffing with the top trump. I let him ruff with the smallest trump and then lead them from the top.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-06, 17:16, said:

A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? Sorry could not think of a way to make this more intelligible!

Arguably it's a breach of Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from ... prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent."

In a better world that law would be seven words shorter (and a lot easier to interpret).

[TMorris]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-06, 17:16, said:

True, but the player will find it superfluous if he thinks there are no more trumps out. This would be his plan, though.

A related issue: If you always claim when you have all the tricks, or know how many you will take, the opponents will assume, when you don't claim, that you still have something to think about, and maybe they can accomplish something on defence. Is it a valid bridge to sometimes play a hand until the end (when you could have claimed) so that opponents won't know, when you don 't claim, that it is because you can't claim? Sorry could not think of a way to make this more intelligible!

Some years ago I was told off by an expert player playing with a punter for not claiming (in 1NT) at about trick 8 when I had all the remaining tricks. The punter was on lead & I was waiting for him to play.

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2014-February-07, 03:27, said:

In a better world that law would be seven words shorter (and a lot easier to interpret).

Quite; the last seven words imply that it is OK if you do it for other reasons.

[StevenG]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-07, 07:04, said:

Quite; the last seven words imply that it is OK if you do it for other reasons.

There's no point in claiming when I know all the tricks are mine if the opponents are not competent enough to understand the claim.

[aguahombre]

 StevenG, on 2014-February-07, 08:31, said:

There's no point in claiming when I know all the tricks are mine if the opponents are not competent enough to understand the claim.

In 74B4, long before the last 7 words of the passage about prolonging play when we know we have all the remaining tricks, is the keyword "unnecessarily". StevenG's post points out that declarer might well feel it necessary to continue play at least a bit longer when we know we have all the tricks just to clean it up for the opponents.

[pran]

 StevenG, on 2014-February-07, 08:31, said:

There's no point in claiming when I know all the tricks are mine if the opponents are not competent enough to understand the claim.

Precisely !!!

[barmar]

 StevenG, on 2014-February-07, 08:31, said:

There's no point in claiming when I know all the tricks are mine if the opponents are not competent enough to understand the claim.

Furthermore, for opponents of that class, the claim might disconcert them more than playing out unnecessarily. Novices are sometimes intimidated by claims, it seems like declarer is showing off, or they may feel dumb if they don't see what he considers "obvious".

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2014-February-07, 09:43, said:

Furthermore, for opponents of that class, the claim might disconcert them more than playing out unnecessarily.

Two points here, sorry for the repetition.

1) Playing it out for that reason is not playing it out unnecessarily. (Not a violation of 74B4.)
2) Although we want to avoid disconcerting other players, particularly novices, at the same time we don't want to patronize them. When we can claim by laying down our hand with all winners or point to Dummy which has all winners, we are getting them accustomed to claims so they will begin to be comfortable with them.