[blml] claim

[Eric Landau]

On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Guthrie wrote:

> [Sven Pran]
> With say 6 cards left my way of claiming takes a maximum of two
> seconds and hardly needs any explanation because everything is
> immediately clear. (And defenders are protected from Declarer
> inventing a new line of play if he discovers that his claim is flawed)
>
> How much verbal explanation can you give in two seconds after showing
> all your cards simultaneously?
>
> In either case you see all Declarer's cards and (should) know
> everything relevant for the claim before you decide how to play your
> own cards and whether to challenge the claim.
>
> [nige1]
> Sven suggested this some time ago. It seems an improvement on the
> current legal farrago. David Burn should approve because most claims
> would be complete and unequivocal: the visible order of declarer's
> claim cards usually remove any dispute about declarer's intentions.
>
> It is understandable that there are directors who demur at such
> drastic simplifications. They remove an opportunity for them to decide
> events by using their "judgement". But the new laws seem to provide
> many new opportunities to compensate for this small loss. And ordinary
> players like me will be delighted.

I for one would not be delighted at being unable to claim when I have  
the rest of the tricks for certain and an opponent in the tank for  
five minutes dithering over what to lead.  Two seconds is more than  
enough for "I have the rest".

Nor would I be  delighted when I have a clear and obvious conditional  
claim ("if the long club doesn't set up I'll take the heart finesse  
for the overtrick").

There are any number of situations in which one can have a perfectly  
reasonable and valid claim but in which the order one would play  
one's cards is not yet determined.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net