[blackshoe]

smug: having or showing excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements
rude: offensive, impolite, or ill mannered

I don't think the mere act of claiming before the opening lead is faced meets either of these two definitions. However, it is IMO illegal: claims occur during the play period, and that period doesn't start until the lead is faced.

[mycroft]

Oh, the one time I did it, there was definitely some smug by that exact definition...

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 09:18, said:

smug: having or showing excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements
rude: offensive, impolite, or ill mannered

I don't think the mere act of claiming before the opening lead is faced meets either of these two definitions. However, it is IMO illegal: claims occur during the play period, and that period doesn't start until the lead is faced.

Nothing in the laws prohibits claims before the play has started.

When

Law 68 said:

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*.

it clearly applies also when no trick (yet) is currently in progress.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, particular when using the WBF version of the laws, which is basically just a list of laws with no subdivisions. However, the ACBL version still divides the laws into Chapters, Sections, and Parts, and "Claims and Concessions" is Part V of Chapter VI "The Play", so here, at least, claims are clearly part of the play.

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2013-January-24, 03:24, said:

How does one defender know the other has HHxx ?

Declarer has shown out, and he can see dummy.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 17:26, said:

Fair enough, particular when using the WBF version of the laws, which is basically just a list of laws with no subdivisions. However, the ACBL version still divides the laws into Chapters, Sections, and Parts, and "Claims and Concessions" is Part V of Chapter VI "The Play", so here, at least, claims are clearly part of the play.

Are headings (etc.) part of the laws in ACBL? They are (as far as I know) not in other parts of the world.

[blackshoe]

No, they're not, but they do provide a guide.

I would organize the law book thusly:

I. Correct Procedure
....A. Preliminaries (current Laws 1-8, and probably Law 40)
....B. In the Auction (current Laws 17-22)
....C. In the Play (current Laws 41-45 and 65-71)
II. Irregularities
....A. General (current Laws 9-16) (Law 23 might be better here)
....B. In the Auction (current Laws 23-39)
....C. In the Play (current Laws 46-64)
III. After Play Ends (I might put some of the claim laws in here instead of in I.C.)
....A. Scoring (current Laws 77-79)
IV. Proprieties (current Laws 72-76) (Law 76 might well go under "Administration", and the Proprieties might be better at the very beginning of the law book. Law 75 should be with or part of Law 20)
V. Administration
....A. Tournament Organization (current Law 80)
....B. The Tournament Director (current Laws 81-91)
....C. Appeals (current Laws 92 and 93)

That's rough and off the top of my head; some adjustments to the individual laws or the placing of them might be appropriate. Of course, this scheme would require renumbering the laws, and it ignores the fact that renumbering was a "show stopper" in the last revision.

In this scheme, putting the claim laws under "correct procedure in the play" would make it clear that claims should occur only during the play period. Putting them under "after play ends" would allow for claims any time (but I think there should be a law in "correct procedure in the auction" as well as one "... in the play" specifying that claims can be made, and referring to what is now Law 68 about how they are made).

IMO there are too many cases of laws which contain both "correct procedure" and "what to do about irregularities", and too many laws which are usually interpreted as "general" (as you want to interpret the claims laws) which are not clearly specified as such.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-25, 10:30, said:

I would organize the law book thusly:

Have you told the WBFLC?

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-24, 09:12, said:

It happens quite a lot when playing a relay system. Nonetheless, I would never claim before the opening lead was faced. If nothing else it is rude (and smug).

I don't think so.
I've claimed in 7NT before the opening lead (only once that I can remember) saying "If partner has got what he's shown I have 13 top tricks", after we have explained what the auction means (so partner knows what I think he's shown).
It saves defender wasting time thinking about what to lead.

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on 2013-January-21, 16:34, said:

The only suggestion I can imagine as workable is not on the list:

A player (declarer or defender, but not dummy) may only claim or concede at his own turn to play.

I know quite a few players who already think that is the law.
It slows down the game horribly. It's common to sit there as a defender trying to decide how you can possibly beat the contract; you finally lead something and declarer immediately says "I've got the rest"

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-January-26, 03:21, said:

Have you told the WBFLC?

I have not. And I seem to have missed Grattan's deadline.

[pran]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-January-26, 06:09, said:

pran, on 2013-January-21, 16:34, said:

The only suggestion I can imagine as workable is not on the list:

A player (declarer or defender, but not dummy) may only claim or concede at his own turn to play.

I know quite a few players who already think that is the law.
It slows down the game horribly. It's common to sit there as a defender trying to decide how you can possibly beat the contract; you finally lead something and declarer immediately says "I've got the rest"

The fact that I wrote this as the only workable suggestion I could imagine doesn't imply that I shall agree with it. In fact I directly oppose it.

Any player except dummy is at present free to claim or concede at any time, at his own risk, and so be it so long as we at all accept claims and/or concessions.

Should the impossible happen that a player picks up 37 HCP he will certainly be entitled to bid 7NT and claim before even the closing pass!

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 09:18, said:

smug: having or showing excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements
rude: offensive, impolite, or ill mannered

I don't think the mere act of claiming before the opening lead is faced meets either of these two definitions. However, it is IMO illegal: claims occur during the play period, and that period doesn't start until the lead is faced.

At one time the Sharples brothers had a reputation as Britain's best slam bidders. Once they bid up to 7♥ then put their hands back in the board.

"Excuse me," said John Collings, "I think I still have a bid."

"Sorry" said one of them (they were great friends with John) and they took their hands out again.

"Seven Spades," said John, holding xxxx xxx xxx xxx.

Jim thought for five minutes, then bid 7NT. This was on a finesse, which he knew, of course.

The finesse won.

[jnichols]

mycroft, on 2013-January-24, 15:11, said:

Oh, the one time I did it, there was definitely some smug by that exact definition...

I was feeling quite smug, that's for sure.