[awm]

bluejak, on Sep 1 2009, 09:06 AM, said:

So far I have suggested no change: I am saying this is what the TD does: what do you think?

Seems to violate law 68D (Play ceases after a claim).

It also seems likely to lead to a ruling which violates law 70, since the result of "play on" could easily be different from the result which should be adjudicated (i.e. declarer changes his line due to the reject of the claim), although one supposes the director could ignore the result obtained by the "play on" and apply law 70 regardless.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Sep 1 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

but not one single one who actually assumes I am telling the truth,

2 mins before you posted...

[bluejak]

Yes, great. At last people think. So what do you [note, this is "you" not "I" ] think of this wonderful Law?

[Hanoi5]

I think the situation described shouldn't be accepted. With the current laws play has to cease and the director must make a decision. Many bridge laws require directors to excercise their judgement and make a decision and this is one of them. Maybe you could add to law 68D or 70C3 adding somewhere 'The Director can ask the play to continue if he deems no UI has been produced by the claim, the rejection or the Director's call.' But that would only makes matters worse than they already are.

[jeremy69]

Have I got this correct? The title of this thread is "Which law would I change?" The OP meant one thing but quite a few responders thought he meant something else. Thus, of course, he is right, we are all wrong and will have our posts removed to a forum in Outer Mongolia concerned with knitting, macrame or all-in wrestling. Abuse of the moderator's powers or what?

[bluejak]

Confusing threads help no-one. It never occurred to me that when I wrote "I" people would think I meant "you". But even so, how does it help to have a confusing thread? You really think that confusing everyone by articles with no connection to the previous one helps?

Yes, if by Outer Mongolia you mean I had deleted the articles or put them somewhere inaccessible I might think you had a case. But all the off-topic articles are in their own threads and are not at all inaccessible, but somewhere where people can discuss them, decide whether it is useful to get rid of them, or decide otherwise.

What is wrong with that?

[aguahombre]

i think we have fairly well covered how the confusion happened. And we can probably move on from here. My second post (not sure where it is now) stated I was originally confused, but by looking at the title figured out why Phil and others seemed to be changing the subject. They thought OP was starting off the subject of what rules should be changed by giving one example.

Apparently Blue did not intend it that way. I bristled, though, when Blue called our replies "hijacking". We merely could not read Blue's mind.

[Sven Pran]

I shall join the community that thought OP actually asked for some sort of a poll to find out what laws (if any) we (each of us the various posters) would want to change.

If I am correct the question instead specifically was about the laws on claiming and concessions; I agree that some of these laws at times can seem to work badly, but I fear that changing them will best be illustrated by the saying: The cure is worse than the disease.

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

I may still be confused, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that Law 70, which currently does not allow the TD to require play to continue if a claim is contested, should be changed to allow him to do that. And you're asking us our opinion of that change.

Why should we consider this change? If it's because players often fail to follow law 68 correctly (flawed claim statement, or no claim statement) then I don't think that's a good reason to change it. If there is some other reason, then I think that at minimum the new law would need to define in precisely what circumstances a TD might elect to require play to continue, and why. And I'm not sure what those circumstances and reasons should be. So I'm currently thinking it's not a good change, but I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.

Edit: cross posted with about 3 other posts, and I don't have time to add any more right now.

[bluejak]

What I posted was that there is a situation where the TD tells play to continue. Do you approve of this Law?

[nigel_k]

I think the 'discovery claim' problem can be alleviated by requiring declarer to continue playing on their stated line. Maybe you can construct a scenario where declarer could just face their cards and obtain useful discovery without stating any line but I think this would be rare.

The advantage of this change is that non-expert directors and players may have difficulty working out what would have happened had play continued on the stated line. I also think that if further play reveals some unusual lie of the cards that does cause problems for the stated line, it is more equitable to give declarer a shot at overcoming the situation once he discovers it.

It is good to have people claiming, and I think the corollary it's also good to give claimer some leeway in the 95+% of cases where he doesn't gain any benefit from the act of claiming.

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Sep 2 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

What I posted was that there is a situation where the TD tells play to continue.  Do you approve of this Law?

To bring this down to brass talk I understand that the law in question is 68B2 (and nothing else):

2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

I see good reasons for this exception in one specific situation from the general laws on claims and concessions. I also see good reasons against it.

However, I still fear (as I have already written before) that a removal of Law 68B2 will be a cure worse than the disease it is supposed to cure.

Sven

[axman]

Sven Pran, on Sep 2 2009, 04:50 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 2 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

What I posted was that there is a situation where the TD tells play to continue.  Do you approve of this Law?

To bring this down to brass talk I understand that the law in question is 68B2 (and nothing else):

2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

I see good reasons for this exception in one specific situation from the general laws on claims and concessions. I also see good reasons against it.

However, I still fear (as I have already written before) that a removal of Law 68B2 will be a cure worse than the disease it is supposed to cure.

Sven

In the subject case there is the premise that the TD has ruled in accordance of law.

The principle of appearances suggests that it was illegal for claimer to claim. It follows that the principles under examination are the created entitlement to claim and the created entitlement to have contested claims litigated forthwith.

The matter resolves upon the realization that if there is no entitlement to litigate a disputed claim [such as a claimer cannot know that his claim will be litigated if disputed] there can be no fundamental right to claim [where so-called claims are in fact superfluous mental exercises].

[Sven Pran]

axman, on Sep 2 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

Sven Pran, on Sep 2 2009, 04:50 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 2 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

What I posted was that there is a situation where the TD tells play to continue.  Do you approve of this Law?

To bring this down to brass talk I understand that the law in question is 68B2 (and nothing else):

2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

I see good reasons for this exception in one specific situation from the general laws on claims and concessions. I also see good reasons against it.

However, I still fear (as I have already written before) that a removal of Law 68B2 will be a cure worse than the disease it is supposed to cure.

Sven

In the subject case there is the premise that the TD has ruled in accordance of law.

The principle of appearances suggests that it was illegal for claimer to claim. It follows that the principles under examination are the created entitlement to claim and the created entitlement to have contested claims litigated forthwith.

The matter resolves upon the realization that if there is no entitlement to litigate a disputed claim [such as a claimer cannot know that his claim will be litigated if disputed] there can be no fundamental right to claim [where so-called claims are in fact superfluous mental exercises].

I am really sorry, but I do not understand a single word of what is tried to be expressed here

Probably my own fault

Sven

[iviehoff]

Since we've reached the third page with barely any sensible discussion of the issue at hand, perhaps it's time to start a new thread with a boring title like "What should we do with L68B2".

It was a very clever and amusing idea to give us a bizarre and entirely legal happening, and let us try and work out what was happening, as an introduction to why you don't like this law. Although you quite plainly wrote just what you meant, by chance it was amenable to a different interpretation you never imagined, and no one worked out what you were talking about until you gave us a hint. I appreciate your annoyance. As someone who has to write reports as my day job, I know that such things happen, and are very annoying. But one gets used to it and moves on.

The law needs to answer the following question: Can a defender object to his partner's (defensive) claim, and if so what should happen when he does?

Bear in mind that a defender may have different reasons for objecting to his partner's claim, eg
(1) the claim is too generous to the opposition
(2) the claim is simply faulty
and the present law has only thought about reason (1).

I'm not sure I have a very good answer to that question, other than that the present answer the laws provide is a mess. I see Sven's comment that he reckons anyone's replacement might be worse. But if we actually try and answer the question I pose, and get away from the confusion that has reined as a result of the separate concepts of concession and claim, we might get a more sensible law.

This law would surely be better if in general there was no distinction between a concession and a claim. Under the present law, a concession is always a claim, but a claim is only a concession if it is for less than all the tricks. Let us talk instead about "tricks conceded in the course of a claim" instead of calling the whole thing a concession just when some tricks are conceded in a claim. A claim is a claim, even for 0 tricks.

Under the present law, a defender can only object to his partner's concession. Probably the architect of the law thought that a player wouldn't want/need to object his partner's claim of all the tricks, as that can't be improved upon. But actually it can, if it is a faulty claim. If partner makes a faulty defensive claim for all but one of the tricks, you can object to it and restart play, which may have a better result than having the faulty claim adjudicated. If you can do that for a claim of all but one of the tricks, why not for all of the tricks?

It's a mess. It's less of a mess than it used to be because they now state that exposed cards are not penalty card, so the famous Russian case* will not be repeated. But it's a bit of the law that is very rarely used. But sorting it out probably means ironing out wider issues in claiming.

So having warbled away a bit, perhaps I will make some suggestions.
(1) Reform the law so that there is no such thing as a concession, only a claim. Talk instead of tricks conceded in the course of a claim, when necessary to do so.
(2) We should stick rigorously to the concept that play always stops after a claim, even a defensive claim, even a defensive claim of zero tricks.
(3) When it is a defensive claim, allow the partner of the claimant to object and make a statement of objection, that will be taken into account in the adjudication, which may award the defending side more than were originally claimed, taking into account the likely play of the claimant's partner.
(4) This would be better still if the sensible idea of allowing weighted adjudication of claims was brought in.

(*In the Russian case something like this happened. A defender made a claim for fewer than all the tricks, and exposed his cards. Since they should make more, his partner objected. That resulted in play restarting with all the exposed cards penalty cards. As a result, declarer made all the rest of the tricks. We see from this that under the present law, a defender has to be very careful what he says when his partner makes a claim. Objecting could be a good idea, or a very bad idea.)

[bluejak]

I think iviehoff's post is difficult to improve on. But one thing he misses, perhaps a minor thing, is that currently the Law apart from being in my view awful, is misunderstood. Part of the reason few people answered the question I put is that most just assumed [and a couple said] that play ceases after a claim. In fact play ceases after a claim except in one rare case, and I think it is an ill-conceived and unnecessary exception. If the TD/AC can sort out all other contested claims why not in this specific case as well?

[blackshoe]

Play ceases after a claim or concession, but in the one case the TD can restart it. But perhaps that's a distinction without a difference.

IAC, I agree with bluejak and iviehoff. I suppose it helps to understand the question.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Aug 30 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

A player makes a claim.  Another player objects.  The TD is called, comes, listens to what has occurred, and tells the players to play on. What do you think?

David Burn, on Belgium versus England Bridge Match, said:

Playing against a Belgian side,
I reached a dodgy contract, where
Although to beat me long they tried,
They hadn’t any cards to spare.

Instead of merely sitting there
And waiting for all Hell to freeze,
I rose politely in my chair
And claimed it on a double squeeze.

Directors came from far and wide,
Out of some dark infernal lair.
He can’t do that! .... the Belgians cried,
It’s not allowed! It isn’t fair!"

Bill Schoder fixed me with a glare.
What were you doing, if you please?
It’s quite all right – don’t lose your hair –
I claimed it on a double squeeze.

They called Committees to decide
If I was mad, or took no care.
And are you normal?.... I replied,
I try to be, when I declare.

Are you inferior? What! You dare
To ask me questions such as these?
The end position wasn’t rare –
I claimed it on a double squeeze.

Envoi - EnvoiEnvoiEnvoi - Envoi
Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air,
And made for sheep by chimpanzees.
But that is none of my affair -
I claimed it on a double squeeze.
EnvoiEnvoiEnvoi

If Bluejak is suggesting the basis for a new claim law, then I think his suggestion is excellent. I presume that the claimer must show his hand to opponent(s) and the claimer plays on single-dummy, the objectors double-dummy. This is similar to the on-line protocol. This protocol has many advantages. For example ...

• It encourages claims even if there are language difficulties.
  
• It speeds up acceptance of a valid claim because objectors should be able to play faster knowing all 4 hands.
  
• It greatly simplifies the law, which currently has to cope with a variety of unnecessary complications. eg What is normal play for this class of player?
  
• It prevents the cunning ploy by a player who has completely lost the place: Currently, he can lay his hand down and "claim" without stating a line of play, in the hope that the director is sufficiently competent to suggest a simple successful line.

In my practical experience, this protocol works well; but there are some theoretical objections, for instance...

• There might be a problem with spurious claims eg claims aimed at trying to locate a missing queen for a 2-way finesse. In practice, even beginners get wise to such scams and can specify, for example, that it is the claimer's LHO who always objects. Anyway the presence of a director would reduce the ploy's chance of success because it flouts the law.
  
• In theory, there could be a problem, if declarer states a line and departs from it (as allegedly happened in the Belgian case). Arguably, the director could hold declarer to a stated line. Neverthess, it would be simpler to insist that declarer play it out whenever opponents object to a claim eg "Double squeeze"
  
• Nevertheless, if a player claims as Sven once suggested, by rapidly exposing his cards, one at a time, in the order that he intends to play them, I think the director should regard that as "playing out the hand" and hold him to it.

[bluejak]

I think the claim Law works well and play on suggestions are ridiculous. They do not work online so why should they work in real life?

But the main point I am making is that it should be consistent: if you do not play on after 99%+ of claims as a matter of law, why is not 100%?