[benlessard]

Declarer start stating his claim. Put 6 card on the table then find out he has communication problem and start thinking.

How much time do you allow him to finish his claim ?

[Echognome]

I don't know how I'd view it legally, but I would just ask declarer to pick up his cards. Then if he thought and wanted to claim or to play on, no biggie.

[JoAnneM]

IMHO the claim is made whether the player stated a line of play or not if he stated he was claiming and was facing his cards. It sounds harsh but I think it is a claim. I am reminded of situations where someone might claim with a finesse outstanding and proceed to finesse correctly if one of the opponents tells him to "play it out". Yes, I know "play it out" is not what is supposed to happen but that is exactly what happens, especially online.

Now Blackshoe can come on and tell what the real rule is. lol

[barmar]

I'd allow him as much time as he needs to think about it, as long as he notices the problem himself. It's not really much different from him going into the tank before claiming. I think it should also be OK if he starts stating a claim and then changes his mind about part of it -- again, as long as he does this on his own.

But if someone else points out the problem, I think the TD needs to adjudicate.

[matmat]

i'm with the gnome here.

[TimG]

Echognome, on Jun 17 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

I don't know how I'd view it legally, but I would just ask declarer to pick up his cards. Then if he thought and wanted to claim or to play on, no biggie.

I agree, right down to not being sure legally, but not caring much about knowing, either.

[blackshoe]

Heh. It's a claim.

Law 68A said:

…A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim…)

Legally, once a claim is made, play ceases.

Law 69D said:

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.

The law says, regarding the clarification statement,

Law 69C said:

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

In the instant case, as a player, I'd give the claimer a reasonable time to come up with a clarification statement (and I wouldn't say anything at all until either he makes a statement, or I feel he's had long enough, at which point all I would do is call the TD). If he does make a statement, I'd treat it as any other claim statement, and either agree, or call the TD.

Telling him to pick up his cards and then decide what he wants to do is technically illegal*, but if, as a TD, I don't hear about, well, what can I say? (That does not say I won't reprimand the players if I do hear about it).

*

Law 82C said:

The director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage…

Law 10A said:

The director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative.

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on Jun 17 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

Now Blackshoe can come on and tell what the real rule is. lol

ROFL! I missed this before I made my previous post.

[jdonn]

Agree with gnome. We have already got an advantage and I would rather finish the hand with actual bridge.

Blackshoe is right about the rules as always, but if he was directing and found out this had been done then I think reprimanding the players would be horrible judgment. It is also based on misplaced incentives, as it won't encourage the players to call the director the next time but just to make sure he doesn't find out.

[Codo]

I strongly disagree with Gnome.

Why should I break the clearly written rules?

We discussed this on several topics. It is not great sports to change the rules at our table just because we think it is fair. Surely there is a grey area, especially with beginners, but when someone claims in the middle of the hand and realiszes that he has communication problems, he is no beginner....

I will give him some extra time and even then he has an advantage, because as Blackshoe wrote, he should state his line "at once".

[andy_h]

Yeah I've been dogged by this. I once put my hand out to the table so the opponents can see my hand for about 2 seconds without saying any words and then straight away pulled my hand back. It was considered a claim, which I thought was annoying.

[jillybean]

Agree with Roland

Quote

Why should I break the clearly written rules?

[Codo]

andy_h, on Jun 18 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

Yeah I've been dogged by this. I once put my hand out to the table so the opponents can see my hand for about 2 seconds without saying any words and then straight away pulled my hand back. It was considered a claim, which I thought was annoying.

Why did you show your hand when you did not want to claim?

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Jun 18 2009, 01:01 AM, said:

Blackshoe is right about the rules as always, but if he was directing and found out this had been done then I think reprimanding the players would be horrible judgment. It is also based on misplaced incentives, as it won't encourage the players to call the director the next time but just to make sure he doesn't find out.

Maybe "reprimanding" was too strong. I did try to tone it down - I had originally written "censure". I think, depending on how experienced the players are, I would likely simply say to them that they must not make their own rulings, but must call the TD whenever there's a problem, and that it's the TD's job, not theirs, to sort it out.

[JoAnneM]

I think "remind" is a gentle word, which is one that I seem to be using frequently. Actually we have only two players who think they can make rulings at the table and neither of them knows the rules. I always arrive at the table with my book, because if the Tournament Directors carry their books then surely I should have mine too.

[Echognome]

Codo, on Jun 17 2009, 10:32 PM, said:

I strongly disagree with Gnome.

Why should I break the clearly written rules?

<snip>

I will give him some extra time and even then he has an advantage, because as Blackshoe wrote, he should state his line "at once".

Interesting that you are happy to break the "clearly written rules" in terms of the time allotted to make his claim, but not to let him play on. Sounds as though you are selective in which rules should be firm and which ones should have some leeway. Guess what? Everyone does the same. Some just disagree on where you draw the line. If it makes you feel any better, I also wouldn't care if I happened to be declarer in the above situation and you called the director... as long as you were nice about it.

[Lobowolf]

"Play ceases" is black and white. There's no play after a claim. Regarding extra time, the claimant "should" make his clarification, which is fuzzier, and doesn't carry an inherent penalty.

As an aside, while as defenders, we can obtain an advantage from seeing declarer's hand, sometimes an astute declarer can get an advantage on an aborted claim by drawing an inference based on which defender is objecting to the claim.

[Echognome]

"At once" is pretty clear too. Look, there's always going to be some gray areas when interpreting rules. Heck, you can just go over to the bridgetalk forums and see all the debates. My point is that the regulations are set and the TD's enforce them. But that doesn't mean you have to play the game to the strict letter of the law all the time. I can give you many, many examples where this is all meted out in real life. A simple one is whether you ever break the speed limit? If a police officer sees you going five miles an hour over the speed limit, will he stop you? Or does he give you some reasonable leeway? We all have to judge what we can bend and what we cannot. Some things we view as black and white and others view as gray.

I can assure that although TD's will carry out the bridge laws in a complete and fair manner when called, they will also turn a blind eye with many smaller infractions. Where they draw the line depends on their own views.

[OleBerg]

Codo, on Jun 18 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

<snip>

Why should I break the clearly written rules?

<snip>

Because:

1) You came to enjoy the game.
2) Many TD's suck.

[jdonn]

The "clearly written rules" make no allowances for common sense because there is no easy way that they could. Thus common sense is up to the players involved to invoke.