[bluejak]

They don't. But custom + practice, logic, and experience do so. There are lots of hands where declarer shows his hand and the opponents have their hands back in the board and have written the score down before he has a chance to even speak. For example, five winning trumps and nothing else. So, in practical terms, not stating a line in completely obvious cases is normal.

[qwery_hi]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2010, 03:37 AM, said:

They don't. But custom + practice, logic, and experience do so. There are lots of hands where declarer shows his hand and the opponents have their hands back in the board and have written the score down before he has a chance to even speak. For example, five winning trumps and nothing else. So, in practical terms, not stating a line in completely obvious cases is normal.

You're wrong. Custom+practice, logic + explanation make an exception when the line of claim is obvious * to the opponents *

For example, you or I wouldn't dream of claiming on a routine double squeeze when playing against 299'ers.

[bluejak]

Sounds like what I said.

[blackshoe]

qwery_hi, on Aug 31 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

You're wrong. Custom+practice, logic + explanation make an exception when the line of claim is obvious * to the opponents *

For example, you or I wouldn't dream of claiming on a routine double squeeze when playing against 299'ers.

Heh. I once claimed the last four tricks in what seemed to me a completely obvious position, and stated what I thought was a very clear line of play. I don't remember the details, but something like two trumps and two losers in dummy, and two trumps and two losers in a different suit in my hand, saying "I'll crossruff these losers" or something like that. LHO said "I'm sorry, I just can't see it. Would you play it out, please?" I said we would need the director, and called her. She gave me all four tricks.

LHO may have been the same woman who I on another day overheard say to her partner, during a post-mortem after the game, "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!"

[aguahombre]

I know all the stuff about play stopping when there is a claim, Blackshoe. And certainly you acted by the book.

I would have done what the Lil ol Lady asked, though; if it all-of-a-sudden dawns on her that she was being silly, no one else (TD) is involved to add to the embarrassment. If she really didn't understand about cross-ruffing, it would be instructional.

[qwery_hi]

blackshoe, on Aug 31 2010, 09:24 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Aug 31 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

You're wrong. Custom+practice, logic + explanation make an exception when the line of claim is obvious * to the opponents *

For example, you or I wouldn't dream of claiming on a routine double squeeze when playing against 299'ers.

Heh. I once claimed the last four tricks in what seemed to me a completely obvious position, and stated what I thought was a very clear line of play. I don't remember the details, but something like two trumps and two losers in dummy, and two trumps and two losers in a different suit in my hand, saying "I'll crossruff these losers" or something like that. LHO said "I'm sorry, I just can't see it. Would you play it out, please?" I said we would need the director, and called her. She gave me all four tricks.

LHO may have been the same woman who I on another day overheard say to her partner, during a post-mortem after the game, "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!"

So what are the questions you want to ask before you make your decision?

[qwery_hi]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2010, 07:45 AM, said:

Sounds like what I said.

Not really - the difference being whether the claim is obvious to me or the opponents or both.

[qwery_hi]

blackshoe, on Aug 31 2010, 09:24 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Aug 31 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

You're wrong. Custom+practice, logic + explanation make an exception when the line of claim is obvious * to the opponents *

For example, you or I wouldn't dream of claiming on a routine double squeeze when playing against 299'ers.

Heh. I once claimed the last four tricks in what seemed to me a completely obvious position, and stated what I thought was a very clear line of play. I don't remember the details, but something like two trumps and two losers in dummy, and two trumps and two losers in a different suit in my hand, saying "I'll crossruff these losers" or something like that. LHO said "I'm sorry, I just can't see it. Would you play it out, please?" I said we would need the director, and called her. She gave me all four tricks.

LHO may have been the same woman who I on another day overheard say to her partner, during a post-mortem after the game, "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!"

She said she's sorry, what the ***** more do you want her to do?