[FrancesHinden]

This actually comes up surprisingly often, just in every case I've seen so far declarer has done exactly what Andy said originally and given the defence their trick back.

I've seen three cases in the past few weeks (one from a match a couple of weeks ago, and two at the weekend). In all three declarer was in a slam, went off very early in the play (the defence cashed an AK, the defence took a ruff, and trumps were 4-1 offside) and declarer just put his cards back and said one off. (To be strictly accurate, on the second one declarer threw his cards on the table and said "******* hell" but that's much the same).

What these cases have in common is that the key point of the hand - declarer going off in slam - has already happened, and it's assumed no-one really cares that much now. The problem, of course, is that matches can be decided by 1 IMP.

In real life:
- on the first hand declarer had no hope of avoiding another loser, but we didn't discover it until after the correction period; we'd won the (KO) match anyway so didn't test out oppo's reaction on being told
- on the second a real secretary bird probably could have generated another one off, but we didn't try (declarer needed to take a finesse, playing the weak jump overcaller to hold the king in their long suit)
- on the third it required the defence to do something right - not 100% obvious but not difficult - to get the second undertrick. I believe (this was gnasher's hand) declarer immediately agreed to change the result to 2 off when this was pointed out.

[bluejak]

It is very rare that I claim without showing my hand, but it happened recently. Partner opened 3NT, showing a 4-level pre-empt in a minor, I bid 4♣ [pass or correct] which, despite much heavy breathing, was passed out. The opposition cashed an ace and I realised that if trumps were 2-2 we had missed a game: I had singleton ten, dummy had A98 to 8. I led the ten, LHO showed out and I emitted a word that was nearly rude and put my hand away in the board. RHO looked happy enough!

The point of this story is that with all the hands being played, assumptions as to why something happens may be flawed. Some players - I played with one about three years ago - do this claiming without showing frequently, and I would not be surprised if it was not one-upmanship. In my case it was temper.

[paulg]

Claiming without showing your hand happened quite frequently in the Premier League and it's normally a sign of respect to the opponents that they should know what you have at that point. I would have been amazed if anyone doing this tried to keep any 'dubious' tricks.

FrancesHinden, on 2012-November-13, 15:53, said:

(To be strictly accurate, on the second one declarer threw his cards on the table and said "******* hell" but that's much the same).

We got the swearing but not the claim from our declarer on this hand.

[gordontd]

paulg, on 2012-November-14, 02:06, said:

Claiming without showing your hand happened quite frequently in the Premier League and it's normally a sign of respect to the opponents that they should know what you have at that point. I would have been amazed if anyone doing this tried to keep any 'dubious' tricks.

As TD at the Premier League, I had a couple of players from opposite sides of the same match come to me to tell me they had mis-scored a board, so I duly corrected it. This was immediately followed by a player from a different match wanting to know why he doesn't get rewarded for being diligent and checking claims. What I finally worked out was that in both cases an imperfect claim had been made in identical situations; in the first case the players later agreed between themselves what the correct outcome should have been and presented it to me as a scoring error, but the third player had "caught" the imperfect claim at the table and thought he should be rewarded for it.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2012-November-14, 03:22, said:

As TD at the Premier League, I had a couple of players from opposite sides of the same match come to me to tell me they had mis-scored a board, so I duly corrected it. This was immediately followed by a player from a different match wanting to know why he doesn't get rewarded for being diligent and checking claims. What I finally worked out was that in both cases an imperfect claim had been made in identical situations; in the first case the players later agreed between themselves what the correct outcome should have been and presented it to me as a scoring error, but the third player had "caught" the imperfect claim at the table and thought he should be rewarded for it.

If one of those players was me, then I'm sorry - I don't think we should have misled you about what was going on. I think one should describe it as "a score that needs correcting", and rely on the good sense of the director not to ask any questions.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2012-November-14, 02:06, said:

Claiming without showing your hand happened quite frequently in the Premier League and it's normally a sign of respect to the opponents that they should know what you have at that point. I would have been amazed if anyone doing this tried to keep any 'dubious' tricks.

Personally I can do without that sort of respect. It places me in the unreasonable position of either having to accept the claim blind or to imply that I don't trust him. And why should I waste my mental energy on working out what his hand is when he could just show it to me instead?

I sometimes put up with it to avoid a silly argument, or because (as in the PL case) it occurred in the heat of the moment when declarer was unhappy with his result, but in general I agree with the respected writer who said "Some think this is 'expert play'; it's not, it's both illegal and rude."

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2012-November-13, 10:29, said:

For Law 23 to be applicable, I think he'd have to be aware that there's a possibility he's wrong -- then making an inferior claim could work to his advantage if the defenders don't call him on it.

No. Law 23 would require only that if he had been aware that he was wrong in his claim, then making the claim in irregular fashion could well work to his advantage. The key point of a Law 23 ruling, as Bluejak has just reminded us, is that the director is absolved from deciding whether or not the player was aware of what was going on in committing his irregularity.

I think that we can all agree that making a claim for more tricks than you are due, while failing to give a line of play and keeping your cards unfaced, could well work to your advantage, specifically in the case where the ops fail to spot it.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2012-November-14, 03:22, said:

As TD at the Premier League, I had a couple of players from opposite sides of the same match come to me to tell me they had mis-scored a board, so I duly corrected it. This was immediately followed by a player from a different match wanting to know why he doesn't get rewarded for being diligent and checking claims. What I finally worked out was that in both cases an imperfect claim had been made in identical situations; in the first case the players later agreed between themselves what the correct outcome should have been and presented it to me as a scoring error, but the third player had "caught" the imperfect claim at the table and thought he should be rewarded for it.

Give him a pat on the back and a "well done".

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2012-November-14, 03:22, said:

As TD at the Premier League, I had a couple of players from opposite sides of the same match come to me to tell me they had mis-scored a board, so I duly corrected it. This was immediately followed by a player from a different match wanting to know why he doesn't get rewarded for being diligent and checking claims. What I finally worked out was that in both cases an imperfect claim had been made in identical situations; in the first case the players later agreed between themselves what the correct outcome should have been and presented it to me as a scoring error, but the third player had "caught" the imperfect claim at the table and thought he should be rewarded for it.

I was just going to post "Give him a pat on the head and a bun" when Ed went and posted:

blackshoe, on 2012-November-14, 05:11, said:

Give him a pat on the back and a "well done".