[blackshoe]

 nige1, on 2011-March-31, 18:28, said:

IMO, the proposed protocol is no panacea but it forms a sound basis of an improved claim-rule that meets the stipulated objectives. I hope it's not beyond the wit of law-makers to mitigate its flaws.

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.

You were challenged to provide a laws change that would make things better. You have provided a laws change, and now suggest that, since it was flawed, "the law makers" should fix it.

IMO, that's not good enough.

[axman]

 nige1, on 2011-March-31, 18:28, said:

Mycroft's criticism is tair. I concede the point (I hinted at it myself). But with this protocol, (just as with current TFLB protocol) your opponents may "reject" your claim on a whim: Playing on does not imply bad breaks. A claim still speeds up the game because claimer's opponents play double-dummy until satisfied that the claim is valid.

I assert that nigel is mistaken in his belief that opponents would thereby conclude a hand more quickly because in actuality the effect is quite the opposite. Invariably, there will be more to think about as there will be more to attempt to remember correctly so as to 'try to' conclude the hand double dummy. This can take quite a bit of time in and of itself.

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-31, 20:17, said:

You were challenged to provide a laws change that would make things better. You have provided a laws change, and now suggest that, since it was flawed, "the law makers" should fix it. IMO, that's not good enough.

Please don't patronize me, Blackshoe. Judging from the confusion and argument that current claim-law generates, it has flaws that are difficult or impossible to fix. IMO the proposed protocol has fewer flaws and is better than current claim-law. Of course, I don't think it is, necessarily, the final word on the subject

[nige1]

 axman, on 2011-April-01, 01:03, said:

I assert that nigel is mistaken in his belief that opponents would thereby conclude a hand more quickly because in actuality the effect is quite the opposite. Invariably, there will be more to think about as there will be more to attempt to remember correctly so as to 'try to' conclude the hand double dummy. This can take quite a bit of time in and of itself.

My opinion derives from the on-line experience of those with whom I play. Axman may still be right and, presumably, BBO could provide statistics that would cast some light on this. Indubitably, however, this is quicker than getting a director to resolve a rejected claim.

[blackshoe]

I'm not patronizing you, Nigel. I'm disagreeing with you, and I'm suggesting that perhaps its not easy to formulate a good law — and that your attempt here shows that.

[Jeremy69A]

When declarer claims they have had some time looking at their combined assets and when they lay their hand down and make an inadequate statement it is hard for the opponents to get to grips with the hand quickly. The non claiming side is this at an initial disadvantage.

The manual of good claiming should include a section on playing out for a few extra tricks against bad opponents so that if and when you do claim it is a simple ending otherwise it does not really save time. I don't see a great deal wrong with the law as it stands. Don't claim unless you are going to get it right. I'm sure we have all seen the attempted claim where declarer has 3 trumps and 3 of the same plain suit in each hand and claims on a cross ruff. Assuming this is not deliberate(in which case surgical removal of a limb without anaesthetic is an appropriate penalty) it is my belief that the claimer should pay for their carelessness. It may give a bonus to the non offending side but many breaches of the law do this.

A poor claim is a mistake just as returning the wrong card to let a game through or ruffing a winner accidentally is.
A problem ,on this site, in my opinion is that there are correspondents who are always looking for a reason to excuse the poor claim and allow declarer tricks that they are manifestly not allowed. If they can't phrase their claim properly then they deserve what is coming and will either take more care or continue to lose tricks. Sometimes it is stated that if officials are really tough on claiming it will discourage claimers and slow the game but I think there is little evidence of this. Poor players generally do not claim and when there is a contested claim it usually occupies 8 times as much time as playing it out ever would have done.

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-30, 16:34, said:

I've seen a thousand "the law should do this" or "the law should do that". I've seen zero suggested rewrites of the law that would (presumably) achieve these goals. Such a rewrite would at least provide a concrete platform from which to launch discussion, rather than the current vague pronouncements countered with other vague pronouncements.

I suggested a "concrete" claim-rule that meets the goals I specified.

[blackshoe]

Does it? Sorry, it didn't seem that way to me, from the responses you got.

[cloa513]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-30, 12:23, said:

Sorry, that is completely wrong. Two reasons: first, many people will not accept the approach. Second, people get things wrong when there is a clear penalty, consider revokes.

How is revoke law clear cut?
It is established late in the game at some uncertain time (some people don't even realise it occurred), the penalties vary all over the place. This law is clear cut because its at one time and while there is some variance in the penalty its not much.

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-03, 19:16, said:

Does it? Sorry, it didn't seem that way to me, from the responses you got.

As yet, nobody except Blackshoe has queried whether the suggested claim-rule met the specified goals. And he only in "vague pronouncements" (Blackshoe's own description)

[iviehoff]

 nige1, on 2011-March-30, 16:27, said:

IMO, claim law should

• 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.

These aims seem easily achievable.

The problem is that your list of objectives omits the important and necessary objective of an equitable result. That is why your list of aims are so easily achievable, because simple, but unfair, rules are easy to find.

People have been objecting to your proposal because it fails to meet their idea of an equitable result. You then say "where does it fall short of the objectives I set out?" The answer is, they don't agree that your list of objectives is complete.

Is it equitable that a claimer should be allowed to take advantage of the fact of an objection to his claim to then give a line of play it seems implausible he had in mind when he felt it unnecessary to mention it earlier? No, clearly not. Is it ever acceptable that someone committing an irregularity should gain specifically from that irregularity (and I'm not talking of rub of the green, where a penalty card you never would otherwise have played proves the only way to take a contract down). In general we would say not, but in on-line bridge they have made this trade-off. I don't think this is acceptable for top level FTF bridge.

If we are to have a simplified claims process, that would deal adequately with the majority of faulty claims, I think there still needs to be a back-up to it to cover the case where the claimer takes advantage of the fact of the objection to his claim. So maybe we could have something like you suggest, but we would further state that an objection to a claim should be UI to the claimant, and claimant must not take advantage of that information to do something he did not anticipating before objection to the claim. Then at this point if there was a claim of abuse of UI, we would obtain what we have long sought, a weighted adjustment of the score, instead of an adjudication of the claim.

[nige1]

 nige1, on 2011-March-30, 16:27, said:

IMO, claim law should

• 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.

These aims seem easily achievable.

 iviehoff, on 2011-April-05, 09:45, said:

The problem is that your list of objectives omits the important and necessary objective of an equitable result. That is why your list of aims are so easily achievable, because simple, but unfair, rules are easy to find.

Thank you, Iviehoff: for accepting that the specified goals may be achievable; and for conceding that the suggested claim-rule may meet them.

 iviehoff, on 2011-April-05, 09:45, said:

People have been objecting to your proposal because it fails to meet their idea of an equitable result. You then say "where does it fall short of the objectives I set out?" The answer is, they don't agree that your list of objectives is complete.

If Iviehoff is using the word equitable in the law-book sense of restoring the status-quo then the suggested rule is an improvement on current claim-law. After a claim, current law stops play. Hence, an artificial result is often unavoidable. Under the suggested rule, if a claim is queried, the hand can still be played out to completion for a table-result. If equitable has the more sensible dictionary meaning of fair and even-handed then, obviously, the suggested claim-law leads to fewer inconsistent rulings because, almost always, the result is determined by the actions of the players themselves..

 iviehoff, on 2011-April-05, 09:45, said:

Is it equitable that a claimer should be allowed to take advantage of the fact of an objection to his claim to then give a line of play it seems implausible he had in mind when he felt it unnecessary to mention it earlier? No, clearly not.

If the suggested claim-rule were in force, this danger would be high-lighted. Even the veriest tyros would know that, if they want to play on, they can do so. They may continue, double-dummy, until satisfied with the claim -- without implying that the claimer has made a mistake. My on-line experience (which I admit is different from Bluejack's) is that this problem doesn't arise, in practice.

 iviehoff, on 2011-April-05, 09:45, said:

Is it ever acceptable that someone committing an irregularity should gain specifically from that irregularity (and I'm not talking of rub of the green, where a penalty card you never would otherwise have played proves the only way to take a contract down). In general we would say not, but in on-line bridge they have made this trade-off. I don't think this is acceptable for top level FTF bridge.

Under the suggested claim-rule, a mistaken claim isn't an irregularity, in itself. Although, with opponents playing double-dummy, it's likely to fail.

 iviehoff, on 2011-April-05, 09:45, said:

If we are to have a simplified claims process, that would deal adequately with the majority of faulty claims, I think there still needs to be a back-up to it to cover the case where the claimer takes advantage of the fact of the objection to his claim. So maybe we could have something like you suggest, but we would further state that an objection to a claim should be UI to the claimant, and claimant must not take advantage of that information to do something he did not anticipating before objection to the claim. Then at this point if there was a claim of abuse of UI, we would obtain what we have long sought, a weighted adjustment of the score, instead of an adjudication of the claim.

Iviehoff may well be right. In an earlier post I touched on the possible need for an anti-fishing rule. Iviehoff's suggestion is the kind of thing I meant when I expressed the hope that it's not beyond the wit of legislators to mitigate flaws in the suggested claim-rule. IMO, we can't expect perfect rules. But we can aspire to better rules.

[AlexJonson]

Nige1

Let's look at the human aspect. I might argue that talk about ethics implies the human aspect.

Your opponent makes a faulty claim, 7NT is always simplest.

You 'know' the claim is faulty, and requires a finesse to make, and that if you asked the player to play on, they would make the contract, for sure.

You know that you(?), dburn(?), Jeremy(?), various others would say 'tough luck, one off'. Maybe dburn would find a way of making it seven off.

Nige1, if you are in the 'tough luck' camp, your other objectives are out of the window. Because, as a team captain, I will say to my players 'never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'.

[nige1]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-April-05, 13:44, said:

Nige1 Let's look at the human aspect. I might argue that talk about ethics implies the human aspect. Your opponent makes a faulty claim, 7NT is always simplest. You 'know' the claim is faulty, and requires a finesse to make, and that if you asked the player to play on, they would make the contract, for sure. You know that you(?), dburn(?), Jeremy(?), various others would say 'tough luck, one off'. Maybe dburn would find a way of making it seven off. Nige1, if you are in the 'tough luck' camp, your other objectives are out of the window. Because, as a team captain, I will say to my players 'never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'.

AlexJonson is right about my views, up to a point....

• I would prefer a player-friendly claim-rule similar to on-line claim law -- for all the reasons I've stated (including encouraging claims and speeding up the game). Under those rules, declarer would probably make 7NT if the finesse worked. That seems fair to me.
• I don't like face-to-face claim-law. Currently, if declarer misclaims 7NT that needs an unstated finesse, I'm in the "tough-luck" "seven-down" camp (assuming that is the correct interpretation of current law, according to Burns and Co). I don't think directors or players should deliberately break the law. That includes team-captains (although I accept that current rules make claiming a risky business)

[AlexJonson]

 nige1, on 2011-April-05, 16:13, said:

AlexJonson is right up to a point....

• I would prefer a player-friendly claim-rule similar to on-line claim law -- for all the reasons I've stated (including encouraging claims and speeding up the game).
• I don't like the current face-to-face claim-law. But I'm in the "tough-luck" "seven-down" camp because that seems its correct interpretation. In any case, I don't think directors or players should deliberately break the law. That includes team-captains (although I accept that current rules make claiming a risky business).

You'll be able to tell me which Law I'm breaking as a team captain, Nige1?

[bluejak]

 nige1, on 2011-April-05, 16:13, said:

(although I accept that current rules make claiming a risky business)

Less risky than taking a finesse. It is only risky if you are lazy or silly. The current rules make claiming perfectly safe for anyone who is careful.

[nige1]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-April-05, 13:44, said:

Because, as a team captain, I will say to my players 'never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'.

 nige1, on 2011-April-05, 16:13, said:

I don't think directors or players should deliberately break the law. That includes team-captains (although I accept that current rules make claiming a risky business)

 AlexJonson, on 2011-April-05, 16:20, said:

You'll be able to tell me which Law I'm breaking as a team captain, Nige1?

I'm not sure that you'd be breaking any law but you'd need to be careful. I'm not a director so I had to look this up

TFLB, L74, B. 4 said:

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.

I suppose this is another unenforceable law that hinges on subjective interpretation and mind-reading.

[bluejak]

 nige1, on 2011-April-05, 16:59, said:

I suppose this is another unenforceable law that hinges on subjective interpretation and mind-reading.

No, it is another Law that is helpful to the game and is generally followed. It does not lead to problems in practice.

[nige1]

 bluejak, on 2011-April-05, 17:27, said:

No, it is another Law that is helpful to the game and is generally followed. It does not lead to problems in practice.

Fair enough.. Where is the line drawn? As an illustrative example, does Bluejack think it's OK for a captain to instruct his team 'Never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'?

[iviehoff]

 nige1, on 2011-April-05, 10:35, said:

If the suggested claim-rule were in force, this danger would be high-lighted. Even the veriest tyros would know that, if they want to play on, they can do so. They may play on until satisfied with the claim -- without implying that the claimer has made a mistake. My on-line experience (which I admit is different from Bluejack's) is that this kind of problem doesn't arise, in practice. ... In an earlier post I touched on the possible need for an anti-fishing rule.

Fairness is more important than you imply. Some really unfair rules would satisfy your criteria. Eg, "claimer gets all of the tricks" is a rule that satisfies your criteria, but is obviously unfair. Less ridiculously, "Play on, cards concealed" or "Play on, claimer's cards selected by the opposition" are other rules that satisfy your criteria, but aren't fair. We do have to decide what is fair. The fact that a table result is obtained is not, of itself, sufficient for fairness to be seen.

Fishing is not a problem under the present laws, it practically doesn't arise, such are the rules for settling disputed claims. But under a rule where the result of an objection to your claim is that you play on, then fishing becomes a risk. Doubtless an exceedingly rare risk like the Alcatraz coup, and almost certainly stumbled on by accident rather than engineered.

However it is not fishing that I was referring to as the fairness problem of your rule. No. The fairness problem is the case of a claim where the claimer has made a mistake of the kind that the fact of an objection wakes him up to. A lot of the claims that are submitted to this forum as worth discussing are precisely of this nature. So this kind of claim problem remains controversial just under your rule as under the current rule. Of course under your rule they cease to be controversial in the sense that we now have a rule that clearly determines the outcome. But that is rather like saying that the hanging of Derek Bentley wasn't controversial, because the rules were properly followed and that led to him being properly hanged.

Suppose the player hadn't considered the possibility of a really bad break in a suit, or had temporarily forgotten there was a trump still out; but now hearing an objection to his claim he wakes up and caters for it and makes his contract. Is that the kind of outcome we want? No, it is taking advantage of UI, and the player who does this should be adjusted against in a play-on-after-the-claim type rule. The situation is even worse when the player, on hearing the objection, can't cater for every possibility he is now warned of, but guesses correctly.

Consider the A10xx opposite KQ9x type of case where the declarer (apparently) faultily thought such a holding always amounted to 4 tricks at time of making the claim. Given the opportunity to play on, he now has a roughly 50% chance of making his contract if in fact the J isn't dropping, if the identity of the objector is concealed. In this case, it is not the fact of an objection that helps him, but rather the identity of the objector. On-line, this is fair enough, but in FTF it is probably impossible to conceal the indentity of the objector. I think we would have to say that he must avoid use of UI, and cater for the J being in the hand of the non-objector, going down when the objector has it guarded.

There are claims where "play-on" is fair enough. For example, in the "I claim on a double squeeze" case, where the opps said play on and he messed it up, I would say that the table result was fairer than the legally correct ruling of making. The reality is that your rule, made suitably fair, will reduce the number of claims that the director has to deal with. But in a substantial fraction of the cases that are currently controversial, the claimer will be in a position to get an unfair result from the rule, and we need to have a rule to cater with those, which will inevitably involve judgment by a director.