[blackshoe]

A recent thread in the appeals forum generated this thought: perhaps the wording of Law 68C: "A claim should be accompanied at once…" should be changed to "A claim shall be accompanied at once…" This would put more emphasis on claim statements, in that "should" carries with it "not often penalized" and "shall" carries "will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". I think something like this is necessary to put a stop to bad habits in making claim statements - either not making one at all, I suppose on the mistaken theory that "the cards speak for themselves," or making such statements as "I'll give you a spade," which does not comply with Law 68C.

I suppose we could also discuss here whether the required format of a claim statement should be clarified in the law, and if so, how.

Comments?

[barmar]

I think the vast majority of claims are made when the cards really do speak for themselves.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2014-July-08, 09:29, said:

I think the vast majority of claims are made when the cards really do speak for themselves.

Yes, that is the problem with Ed's recommendation. What we really want is to have a penalty mechanism for sloppy/faulty claims in order to deter them in the future.

What I don't want is a wording of a law which makes an obvious claim subject to penalty because someone wants to show how well they can read the law.

[nige1]

IMO, Duplicate claim law should be similar to Rubber-Bridge and on-line protocol. You claim a number of tricks, facing your hand, with an (optional) explanation. Opponents play on (double-dummy) until they're happy with the claim.

• This rule is short, simple, comprehensible, and consistent.
• It encourages claims and speeds up the game.
• It doesn't rely on a common language or communication-skills.

In my experience, "fishing expeditions" are vanishingly rare and would become even rarer, once players were warned of that danger.

[billw55]

 nige1, on 2014-July-08, 09:58, said:

IMO, Duplicate claim law should be similar to Rubber-Bridge and on-line protocol. You claim by facing your hand with an (optional) explanation. Opponents play on (double-dummy) until they're happy with the claim.

• This rule is short, simple, comprehensible, and consistent.
• It encourages claims and speeds up the game.
• It doesn't rely on a common language or communication-skills.

In my experience, "fishing expeditions" are vanishingly rare and would become even rarer, once players were warned of that danger.

It is a good idea, but not obvious how to implement with real cards.

[axman]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-08, 07:36, said:

A recent thread in the appeals forum generated this thought: perhaps the wording of Law 68C: "A claim should be accompanied at once…" should be changed to "A claim shall be accompanied at once…" This would put more emphasis on claim statements, in that "should" carries with it "not often penalized" and "shall" carries "will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". I think something like this is necessary to put a stop to bad habits in making claim statements - either not making one at all, I suppose on the mistaken theory that "the cards speak for themselves," or making such statements as "I'll give you a spade," which does not comply with Law 68C.

I suppose we could also discuss here whether the required format of a claim statement should be clarified in the law, and if so, how.

Comments?

The problems you allude to derive mostly from the words that surround the issue- particularly within 69,70,71- not just 68C. iow merely improving 68C will not bring your desires to fruition.

When I was writing law my pertinent language was

Clarifying Statement Claimer has the responsibility to resolve points of doubt at the time of a claim. A statement sufficient to completely resolve the unplayed* cards and execute the claim should be provided.
1. The opponents shall allow claimer to complete his clarification without interruption.
2. If the opponents impede the clarification claimer may complete the statement without prejudice to his claim.
3. Failure to clarify the claim within a reasonable time presumes that no further statement will be made; and at that time the opponents are free to dispute the claim.

* Including the number of remaining tricks claimed/lost (making no mention of the condition of the contract)

[blackshoe]

 nige1, on 2014-July-08, 09:58, said:

IMO, Duplicate claim law should be similar to Rubber-Bridge and on-line protocol. You claim a number of tricks, facing your hand, with an (optional) explanation. Opponents play on (double-dummy) until they're happy with the claim.

• This rule is short, simple, comprehensible, and consistent.
• It encourages claims and speeds up the game.
• It doesn't rely on a common language or communication-skills.

In my experience, "fishing expeditions" are vanishingly rare and would become even rarer, once players were warned of that danger.

One wonders why, since rubber predates duplicate, the duplicate laws are as they are. Does anyone know the history of claims law in duplicate?

[blackshoe]

 axman, on 2014-July-08, 12:09, said:

The problems you allude to derive mostly from the words that surround the issue- particularly within 69,70,71- not just 68C. iow merely improving 68C will not bring your desires to fruition.

Okay. What do we need to change in 69, 70, and 71?

 axman, on 2014-July-08, 12:09, said:

When I was writing law my pertinent language was

Clarifying Statement Claimer has the responsibility to resolve points of doubt at the time of a claim. A statement sufficient to completely resolve the unplayed* cards and execute the claim should be provided.
1. The opponents shall allow claimer to complete his clarification without interruption.
2. If the opponents impede the clarification claimer may complete the statement without prejudice to his claim.
3. Failure to clarify the claim within a reasonable time presumes that no further statement will be made; and at that time the opponents are free to dispute the claim.

* Including the number of remaining tricks claimed/lost (making no mention of the condition of the contract)

I like this.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-08, 16:40, said:

One wonders why, since rubber predates duplicate, the duplicate laws are as they are. Does anyone know the history of claims law in duplicate?

There's generally no director in rubber bridge, so the players need a way to resolve faulty claims by themselves. The rubber bridge method is simple, and gives the benefit of the doubt to the non-claimant. It strongly encourages good claims.

Duplicate bridge has a director, so we shift responsibility for adjuticating to him. He can apply some judgement and common sense about the intent of the claimant.

[axman]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-08, 16:40, said:

One wonders why, since rubber predates duplicate, the duplicate laws are as they are. Does anyone know the history of claims law in duplicate?

I would think that the reason the laws are as they are resides in the physics of the game, or as the case probably being- the misapprehension of the physics of the game. For instance most believe that claims are the way the game is supposed to be played, when actually, claims are an irregularity- mind you, not necessarily a bad irregularity, but as there is ample evidence that bad things can and do happen after a claim.....

Here are some of the earliest revisions to duplicate and rubber:

1933 duplicate

LAW No.41

Claiming Tricks

(a) If Declarer claims the remaining tricks or any number thereof, he must place his cards face up on the table and make a complete statement as to how he intends to play the rest of the hand. If he has not volun­tarily made a complete statement, either opponent may require him to do so, and thereafter any matter which his statement has left unsettled, shall be settled as this opponent directs.
(b) Declarer cannot call any cards which may have been exposed in consequence of his action, nor can his cards be called by his opponent. No exposure of cards made in connection with such claim can be treated as an act establishing a revoke.
© If an adversary claims the remaining tricks or any number thereof, Declarer may require him to play out the deal. In that case the claiming adversary’s cards are not exposed, and he may play them in any legal manner, but all cards remaining in his partner’s hand are exposed and subject to call by Declarer.

(d) If, during the play, any player suggests the possible outcome of a deal without claiming a definite number of tricks, or makes any remark regarding it which might influence the play, Declarer or either adversary (as the case may be) may require him to clarify his remark. If, after clarification, it amounts to a claim of a definite number of tricks, the usual procedure in such cases shall be followed.

LAW No.42

Conceding Tricks
(a) Declarer may concede one or more tricks to the adversaries.
(b) Either adversary may concede one or more tricks to Declarer un­less the other adversary promptly objects; but if the conceding adversary faces his cards, they are exposed.
© If a claim, or a concession, of tricks has been accepted and all players have in consequence exposed their cards, no player can claim that the play of the hand shall be continued. If a side has conceded a trick or tricks which it could not lose by any play of the cards, the other side cannot claim such trick or tricks.
(ci)

1949 DUPLI­CATE[/b]

CLAIMS AND CONCESSIONS
CONCESSION OF TRICK WHICH CANNOT BE LOST

84. The concession of a trick which cannot be lost by any play of the cards is void, provided the error is brought to an opponent’s attention before the round has ended and the board has been moved.

CONCESSION OF TRICK WHICH HAS BEEN WON

85. If a player concedes a trick he has in fact won (as by claiming nine tricks when his side has won ten, or conceding defeat of a contract his side has fulfilled), the concession is void, provided the error is brought to the Director’s attention within 30 minutes after the end of the session.

DEFENDER CLAIMING OR CONCEDING TRICKS

86. A defender may show any or all of his remaining cards to declarer for the purpose of establishing a claim or concession. If a defender makes a claim or concession in any other manner, he may be liable to penalty under section 20.

87. A concession of tricks by a defender is not valid unless his partner accedes. This provi­sion does not preclude the enforcement of a penalty for a defender’s irregularity.

35

DECLARER CLAIMING OR CONCEDING TRICKS

88. If declarer intentionally exposes his hand, specifically claims or concedes one or more of the remaining tricks, or suggests that play may be curtailed, it is deemed to be a claim by declarer; and—

(a) Play should cease; and declarer should place and leave his hand face upwards on the table and forthwith make an adequate state­ment of his intended line of play.
(b) At any time after declarer’s claim a defender may face his hand and may suggest a play to his partner. Declarer may not
enforce any penalty for an irregularity com­mitted by a defender whose hand is so faced.

DETERMINATION OF DISPUTED CLAIMS

89. If either opponent questions a claim or concession of any trick, the Director should be summoned forthwith and no action of any kind should be taken pending his arrival. The Direc­tor determines the result on the board, awarding any doubtful trick to the claimant’s opponents. Before determining said result, he may—

(a) Require the claimant to state the order in which he proposes to play his remaining cards, and forbid any departure from any statement made by the claimant;

(b) Require or forbid play to continue.


[b]1948 RUBBER

CLAIMS AND CONCESSIONS

CONCESSION OF TRICK WHICH CANNOT BE LOST

84. The concession of a trick which cannot be lost by any play of the cards is void if attention is called to the error before the cards have been mixed together.

CONCESSION OF TRICK WHICH HAS BEEN WON

85. If a player concedes a trick he has in fact won (as by claiming nine tricks when his side has already won ten, or conceding defeat of a contract his side has fulfilled), the concession is void. If the score has been entered it may be corrected as provided in section 93.

DEFENDER CLAIMING OR CONCEDING TRICKS

86. A defender may show any or all of his remaining cards to declarer
for the purpose of establishing a claim or concession. If a defender makes a
claim or concession in any other manner, he may be liable to penalty under
section 20.
87. A concession of tricks by a defender is not valid unless his partner accedes. This provision does not preclude the enforcement of a penalty for a defender’s irregularity.

DECLARER CLAIMING OR CONCEDING TRICKS

88. If declarer intentionally exposes his hand, specifically claims or con­cedes one or more of the remaining tricks, or suggests that play may be curtailed, it is deemed to be a claim by declarer; and—
(a) Play should cease; and declarer should place and leave his hand face upwards on the table and forthwith make an adequate statement of his intended line of play.
(b) At any time after declarer’s claim a defender may face his hand and may suggest a play to his partner. Declarer may not enforce any pen­alty for an irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced.
© Declarer’s claim must be allowed if both defenders accede to it, or if either defender allows his hand to be mixed with other cards.
(d) Either defender may require that play continue, in which case section 89 applies.
89. If either defender requires that play continue after declarer’s claim, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face upwards on the table. Declarer may make no play inconsistent with any statement he may have made. Unless declarer has stated his intention to do so at the time of making his claim—
(a) He may not lead a trump while either defender has a trump.
(b) He may not finesse either in the suit led or in trumping the suit led. If declarer attempts to make a play prohibited by this section, either de­fender may require him to withdraw it, provided neither defender has played a card after it.

[barmar]

 axman, on 2014-July-09, 13:25, said:

I would think that the reason the laws are as they are resides in the physics of the game, or as the case probably being- the misapprehension of the physics of the game. For instance most believe that claims are the way the game is supposed to be played, when actually, claims are an irregularity- mind you, not necessarily a bad irregularity, but as there is ample evidence that bad things can and do happen after a claim.....

Claiming when possible is encouraged (failure to claim may violate the "unnecessarily prolonging play" law), how can it be an irregularity? Bad claims are an irregularity, but obvious claims are the way the game is supposed to be played.

[axman]

 barmar, on 2014-July-09, 13:40, said:

Claiming when possible is encouraged (failure to claim may violate the "unnecessarily prolonging play" law), how can it be an irregularity? Bad claims are an irregularity, but obvious claims are the way the game is supposed to be played.

L68D. Play Ceases
After any claim or concession, play ceases....


L44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick
The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won.


Once a claim occurs, the player that won the preceding trick is deprived of leading to the next trick. Hence, an irregularity [for instance]. As I suggested, there exists a misapprehension with respect to the physics of the game that proliferates to this day.

[aguahombre]

 axman, on 2014-July-09, 13:57, said:

L68D. Play Ceases
After any claim or concession, play ceases....


L44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick
The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won.


Once a claim occurs, the player that won the preceding trick is deprived of leading to the next trick. Hence, an irregularity [for instance]. As I suggested, there exists a misapprehension with respect to the physics of the game that proliferates to this day.

What gibberish. When there is no next trick, being deprived of leading to the next trick is not an irregularity. L44G is a statement as to which hand leads to the next trick; it is not an edict that there will be a next trick.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2014-July-09, 13:40, said:

Claiming when possible is encouraged (failure to claim may violate the "unnecessarily prolonging play" law), how can it be an irregularity? Bad claims are an irregularity, but obvious claims are the way the game is supposed to be played.

Law 74A2 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.

Many players are annoyed and/or embarrassed when their opponents want to end a board with a claim. (The actual reason for this attitude is their own business.)

Which Law do you think should take precedence: Law 74A2 or

Law 74B4 said:

prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

Their purpose is certainly not that of disconcerting an opponent, it is for them to fully understand what is going on.

[Vampyr]

 axman, on 2014-July-09, 13:57, said:

As I suggested, there exists a misapprehension with respect to the physics of the game that proliferates to this day.

I wonder what the "physics" of the game is supposed to mean. Is it a joke-y way to refer to the mechanics of the game?

[barmar]

 pran, on 2014-July-09, 15:24, said:

Many players are annoyed and/or embarrassed when their opponents want to end a board with a claim. (The actual reason for this attitude is their own business.)

Players are also annoyed when a finesse loses -- should we refrain from taking our tricks? A better example is that players are annoyed or embarassed when an opponent's psyche or false card, or even an unusual play, induces them to make a losing play ("I can't believe I fell for that, I'm so embarassed!"). Do those become illegal?

I think the law against annoying and embarassing a player is meant to apply to actions outside the mechanics of the game, like gloating, criticism, unrequested lessons, etc. Claiming is part of the game, that law doesn't prohibit it regardless of how the opponent might feel about it. However, if the opponent doesn't understand the claim, insulting them for not seeing what's obvious to you ("Isn't the cross-ruff clear?") would be a violation.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2014-July-10, 10:44, said:

Players are also annoyed when a finesse loses -- should we refrain from taking our tricks? A better example is that players are annoyed or embarassed when an opponent's psyche or false card, or even an unusual play, induces them to make a losing play ("I can't believe I fell for that, I'm so embarassed!"). Do those become illegal?

I think the law against annoying and embarassing a player is meant to apply to actions outside the mechanics of the game, like gloating, criticism, unrequested lessons, etc. Claiming is part of the game, that law doesn't prohibit it regardless of how the opponent might feel about it. However, if the opponent doesn't understand the claim, insulting them for not seeing what's obvious to you ("Isn't the cross-ruff clear?") would be a violation.

You didn't answer my question: Which Law do you think should take precedence: Law 74A2 or Law 74B4

And apparently it was not clear to you that I confine "annoyed or embarrassed" to situations where the claim is not clear to the players (often due of lack of experience). Obviously my statement was quite clear to me!

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that Law 74A2, following Law 74A1, deals with courtesy, not with the legal actions of the game. Law 74B4 also deals with courtesy - the law starts with "As a matter of courtesy, players should refrain from:…" Note that 74B4 also requires a purpose to prolonging the play: to disconcert an opponent. First it would be awfully hard to prove this, unless the player concerned admits that's why he did it. And IME most players who "prolong play" do so because they aren't sure of their tricks - and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't think either of these laws takes precedence over the other.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2014-July-10, 23:12
Reason for edit: 74B4, not 74B2.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-10, 11:13, said:

It seems to me that Law 74A2, following Law 74A1, deals with courtesy, not with the legal actions of the game. Law 74B2 also deals with courtesy - the law starts with "As a matter of courtesy, players should refrain from:…" Note that 74B2 also requires a purpose to prolonging the play: to disconcert an opponent. First it would be awfully hard to prove this, unless the player concerned admits that's why he did it. And IME most players who "prolong play" do so because they aren't sure of their tricks - and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't think either of these laws takes precedence over the other.

I further note that failure to claim is the only example provided in 74B2, which is strange because as you say, it is hard to prove intent when there is failure to claim, whereas the intent in other types of stalling is often quite apparent.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2014-July-10, 12:08, said:

I further note that failure to claim is the only example provided in 74B2, which is strange because as you say, it is hard to prove intent when there is failure to claim, whereas the intent in other types of stalling is often quite apparent.

I can imagine one single situation where I might enforce Law 74B4 reaction:

Half way through the Board both defenders have shown out of trumps (if in a trump contract) and there is no room for any loser in Dummy. With Dummy on the lead Declarer tediously plays one trick after the other instead of just stating that all Dummy's cards are high (as everybody can see).

Even then I would enforce (rapidly) playing out the Board if either defender insisted.