[Vampyr]

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

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".

What I think is showing off is when you are playing the hand because you don't know the opponents' distribution and therefore how many tricks you will make, the opponents, who of course do know their distribution, put their cards back into the board. I know they are saving time but I find it a bit obnoxious.

[blackshoe]

Whether a player might find making a line of play statement when claiming "superfluous" is not relevant, because the law requires him to make the statement on every claim.

Once, playing against a pair of LoLs who turned out to be of the group who have been playing longer than I've been alive and still don't know what they're doing (as opposed to the group of LoLs who look just the same as the first group, but will have you for lunch if you give them the slightest chance) I claimed on a four card ending (winner in dummy, trump a loser in hand, winner in hand, last remaining trump). LHO said "Play it out, please, I can't see it".

The other day, I was, at about trick 7, down to one loser in my hand that I wasn't going to be able to discard. There was no squeeze. I played it out, hoping whoever had the guard in that suit would make a mistake. He didn't. Was I wrong to play it out? I don't think so. I think that if there's any chance (and there's always a chance) that an opponent will make a mistake and give you a trick, it is legitimate to play it out. Law 74B4 only comes in when you have all the tricks, and even then, as has been pointed out, there may be good reason to play it out, or at least play some of it out. See my previous paragraph.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2014-February-07, 00:51, said:

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"?

Of course I've seen that. So? The defender with the outstanding 8 of trump is on declarer's left, so declarer has to play before his LHO. If he's got the position wrong, too bad. If the outstanding trump were on declarer's right, and were played, no director worth his director card would rule that declarer must now under-ruff.

Mbodell, on 2014-February-07, 00:51, said:

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.

You seem to be describing a different hand to the one in this thread.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-07, 10:05, said:

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.

This has some merit, but I think it may be putting the cart before the horse just a bit. In general, I think developing players will most naturally grow into claims from the declaring side, and then adapt to opponents' claims from there.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-February-05, 19:18, said:

IMO Blackshoe and Billw55 correctly interpret the law, as written; but I doubt that a national director would rule that way, nowadays.

blackshoe, on 2014-February-05, 22:07, said:

Are you talking about a Scottish national director, an English national director, an Australian director, or an American director? Or all four? And why would any of them rule incorrectly?

Not so much "rule incorrectly" as "interpret the law, differently from Blackshoe and BillW55".
I'm reluctant to take up Blackshoe's challenge because when I attribute an opinion that I believe to be widely held to any particular BBO person, it is often angrily repudiated. Nevertheless, I'll risk the wrath of Gordon Rainsford by hazarding a guess that (usually) he would allow this claim. And I feel that several other top BLML directors would do the same.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-February-07, 20:15, said:

Not so much "rule incorrectly" as "interpret the law, differently from Blackshoe and BillW55".
I'm reluctant to take up Blackshoe's challenge because when I attribute an opinion that I believe to be widely held to any particular BBO person, it is often angrily repudiated. Nevertheless, I'll risk the wrath of Gordon Rainsford by hazarding a guess that (usually) he would allow this claim. And I feel that several other top BLML directors would do the same.

Well, this is a judgement ruling, and it's possible my judgement is flawed. So far, though, I haven't seen anything in this thread that convinces me of that. If someone would like to present such an argument, I'll be happy to consider it.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-07, 11:31, said:

What I think is showing off is when you are playing the hand because you don't know the opponents' distribution and therefore how many tricks you will make, the opponents, who of course do know their distribution, put their cards back into the board. I know they are saving time but I find it a bit obnoxious.

Sorry... I hit the "upvote" by accident. I disagree with this. Anytime one side can accurately concede all the remaining tricks, it's helpful.

[blackshoe]

I've had some pretty good players simply put their hands back in the board without saying anything when they know I have the rest of the tricks. I've also had the same people, as declarer, put their hands back in the board, usually saying "making five" (or whatever) when they're claiming. Of the two, I find the latter more obnoxious, but perhaps I should consider it a compliment.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-08, 01:39, said:

I've had some pretty good players simply put their hands back in the board without saying anything when they know I have the rest of the tricks. I've also had the same people, as declarer, put their hands back in the board, usually saying "making five" (or whatever) when they're claiming. Of the two, I find the latter more obnoxious, but perhaps I should consider it a compliment.

IMO this behaviour should be forbidden:

• When you query his claim, the claimer has a further opportunity to sneer "Surely you can count a hand?".
• If you ask to see the claimer's hand, he can refuse according to current daft laws
• If no director is available, you are at an impasse.
• If a director is available, he can tell the claimer to show him his hand.
• IMO that isn't enough. The director should impose a disciplinary penalty on the claimer for deliberate time-wasting and behaviour designed to disconcert opponents.
• Some claimers who descend to such tactics are poor players. Their claims are sometimes faulty.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-08, 01:39, said:

I've had some pretty good players simply put their hands back in the board without saying anything when they know I have the rest of the tricks. I've also had the same people, as declarer, put their hands back in the board, usually saying "making five" (or whatever) when they're claiming. Of the two, I find the latter more obnoxious, but perhaps I should consider it a compliment.

nige1, on 2014-February-08, 08:01, said:

IMO this behaviour should be forbidden:

• When you query his claim, the claimer has a further opportunity to sneer "Surely you can count a hand?".
• If you ask to see the claimer's hand, he can refuse according to current daft laws.

Sure he can refuse, but he certainly may not! See Law 66D (and in fact also Law 74A2)

nige1, on 2014-February-08, 08:01, said:

• If no director is available, you are at an impasse.
• If a director is available, he can tell the claimer to show him his hand.
• IMO that isn't enough. The director should impose a disciplinary penalty on the claimer for deliberate time-wasting and behaviour designed to disconcert opponents.
• Some claimers who descend to such tactics are poor players. Their claims are sometimes faulty.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-07, 10:05, said:

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.

True, simple claims like that don't usually bother anyone. But sometimes claiming on a cross-ruff will confuse novices.

But I agree that you should do it anyway, they need to learn. But you should probably wait until they're more experienced before you claim on a squeeze, and even an end-play claim may waste more time than it saves.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-February-08, 08:01, said:

If you ask to see the claimer's hand, he can refuse according to current daft laws

pran, on 2014-February-08, 09:12, said:

Sure he can refuse, but he certainly may not! See Law 66D (and in fact also Law 74A2)

Below, I've quoted the laws cited by Sven, together with a couple of other relevant laws.

TFLB L74A2 said:

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

OK that law is a bit nebulous but does cover a multitude of sins. And I agree that the director should apply it when a claimer doesn't show his hand. But have you ever heard of a case where a director imposed a penalty for that behaviour?

TFLB L66D said:

After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side.

L70B3 (below) allows the director to inspect a player's cards. And L66D clearly allows a player to inspect his own cards. But it isn't clear that a player may inspect the cards of an opponent unless that player acquiesces.

TFLB L68D said:

Play Ceases. After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival.

When a claim is disputed, L68D forbids a player from taking any action before the director arrives.

TFLB L70B3 said:

The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

This seems to confirm that a mere player may not insist on the claimer putting his cards face up on the table. Anyway, nowhere does the law clearly state that a claimer must show his hand on the request of another player. And that is the interpretation of some claimers and directors.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2014-February-07, 20:15, said:

I'll risk the wrath of Gordon Rainsford by hazarding a guess that (usually) he would allow this claim.

I didn't realise I was a wrathful person!

Actually I usually rule claims of this sort on the basis that a player who believes that all the cards in his hand are good might play them in any order. Certainly this declarer seems not to be aware that there's a trump outstanding.

[pran]

nige1, on 2014-February-08, 23:18, said:

L66D clearly allows a player to inspect his own cards. But it isn't clear that a player may inspect the cards of an opponent unless that player acquiesces.

L66D clearly allows any player to inspect the other players' cards for the purposes stated in that law. However, as he may only handle his own cards he must obviously do such inspection with the assistance of the director unless the other players show their cards voluntary.

I do consider it a violation of L74A2 if a player refuses to show his cards voluntary in this situation and thus makes it neccessary to call the director solely for the purpose of executing the privilege in L66D.

Honestly I didn't imagine it neccessary to go into such details when showing that no player may refuse to show his cards if requested at end of play?

[FrancesHinden]

gordontd, on 2014-February-09, 03:13, said:

I didn't realise I was a wrathful person!

Actually I usually rule claims of this sort on the basis that a player who believes that all the cards in his hand are good might play them in any order. Certainly this declarer seems not to be aware that there's a trump outstanding.

I agree with Gordon, and disagree with Stefanie, and would rule one trick to the defence. I am not sure why Stefanie (and Nige1) think that 'in the EBU' declarer would get all the tricks. The law seems clear to me.

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-February-09, 06:45, said:

I agree with Gordon, and disagree with Stefanie, and would rule one trick to the defence. I am not sure why Stefanie (and Nige1) think that 'in the EBU' declarer would get all the tricks. The law seems clear to me.

I am convinced by the regulation quoted in post #13.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-09, 08:28, said:

I am convinced by the regulation quoted in post #13.

I don't see why. 8.70.5 speaks of running a suit, which is not the situation here. Besides, declarer didn't say he was "running trumps" he said all his trumps were good. 8.70.6 clearly implies that in this case the defender should get his trump trick.

There is, I think, a reason why the law speaks to "irrational" plays rather than "counterintuitive" plays.

There is also WB 8.70.4:

Quote

A declarer who is unaware of a missing trump is ‘careless’ in failing to draw the missing trump. Thus if a trick could be lost by playing other winners first then the TD should award that trick to the non-claimers.
Examples
(a) Declarer claims all the tricks with a good trump (♦9), two spade winners and a heart winner. The defence can ruff the heart with their outstanding small trump.
Despite declarer swearing on a stack of bibles that they knew there was a trump out, if they are too careless to mention it, then they may easily have forgotten it and the defence gets a trick.
(b) Declarer is in 7♠  with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0. Declarer cashes one round and says “All mine” when both players follow. They clearly have not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-09, 15:24, said:

There is, I think, a reason why the law speaks to "irrational" plays rather than "counterintuitive" plays.

Yes I know, and I have been thinking about that -- I know that a strange line is not the same as an irrational one, but I also think that we all know what declarer would do in practice were he playing out the hand, and it seems to me that the claim should be awarded on that basis, with no need to refer to L70.

If no one had any trumps and declarer's last two cards were a high card in a plain suit and a low one, would declarer be deemed to play them in any order? If he had AK2 in a three-card ending? It seems inconsistent.

Also I did not read in the OP that declarer had said that all of his trumps were good. Perhaps it has been edited, but now it says that declarer said nothing.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2014-February-09, 03:13, said:

I didn't realise I was a wrathful person!

Actually I usually rule claims of this sort on the basis that a player who believes that all the cards in his hand are good might play them in any order. Certainly this declarer seems not to be aware that there's a trump outstanding.

GordonTD isn't a wrathful person. I had no intention of maligning him. And I'm pleased that FrancesHinden and he would rule against this claim.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-09, 15:48, said:

Yes I know, and I have been thinking about that -- I know that a strange line is not the same as an irrational one, but I also think that we all know what declarer would do in practice were he playing out the hand, and it seems to me that the claim should be awarded on that basis, with no need to refer to L70.

If no one had any trumps and declarer's last two cards were a high card in a plain suit and a low one, would declarer be deemed to play them in any order? If he had AK2 in a three-card ending? It seems inconsistent.

Also I did not read in the OP that declarer had said that all of his trumps were good. Perhaps it has been edited, but now it says that declarer said nothing.

"If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so." - R. A. Heinlein.

There's always a need to refer to the law, unless the director has a perfect memory, just to make sure you don't miss anything about the ruling.

It may be that this declarer, or some other declarer, or most declarers, or whatever, would ruff low in hand and then play his top trump. However, that doesn't matter. The laws not only take into account the possibility that declarer might make a mistake or be careless, they also give the benefit of any doubt to the non-claiming side. So unless you are absolutely certain that the declarer in question would never, under any possible circumstances, make a mistake or be careless here, you have to rule that he might. I don't know about you, but I'm only absolutely certain of one thing: I'm going to pay a lot in taxes between now and whenever I die, if I die. I'm not absolutely certain of dying because science may yet come up with some way of making us all immortal. A very tiny chance before my allotted three score and ten are up, but a chance nonetheless. I have some small hope for a society that would eliminate taxes, but I think that chance is less than the chance of immortality.

You're right, declarer didn't say anything, I misremembered, sorry about that. Or maybe I just inferred from the fact that he didn't say anything that he thought all his trumps were good. Anyway, doesn't matter. We don't have any evidence that he knew a trump was out, so we cannot assume he did know.