[iviehoff]

nige1, on 2013-April-26, 07:56, said:

Under current law, is declarer allowed to say "I'm not claiming. But with your permission, I'm going to play the rest of the tricks with my cards face-up." If so, that might speed up the game without harassing such defenders.

L68A says "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 – for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply)."

It seems obvious to argue that prefacing your statement with "I'm not claiming but..." means that you demonstrably aren't claiming. But I'd disagree. What it often means is that a player is trying to duck out of the responsibilities of actually claiming properly, such as stating a line of play he'll be held to, while obtaining some of the advantages. So I'd be inclined to rule it was a claim despite the statement that it wasn't, and the asking the opps if they'd be willing.

It's only a very little point, but another reason I'm wary of this is that there can be a coffeehouse - sometimes showing the opps your cards enables you to learn something from their reaction to seeing them. It's probably a very rare situation, but it's something to bear in mind.

Claiming is part of the game and your opponents are going to have to get used to it. It's an education to them to have to cope with your claim. So today it's going to take as long as playing it out, but in future if you persist they'll get used to it. Clearly one doesn't claim against very weak players until it's really clear cut, but they really must learn to cope with simple claims.

I probably shouldn't say this, and you can't make a habit of doing it this way, but I can imagine someone thinking the way around this is just to hold your cards a bit low so that the opponent can see them, but thinks you aren't doing it deliberately. Probably someone will be kind enough to tell you to lift your cards up, but even the most honest of "I don't take advantage" players finds it very hard to put out of their mind what they have seen: if what there is to see is that it just doesn't matter, they'll now be able to play quickly. Of course this would be just how to pull off the coffeehouse.

[blackshoe]

Yes we did. I'm not inclined to revisit it - although it does occur to me to wonder whyinhell declarer would want to do that. IME it doesn't speed up the game - even seeing three of four hands these folks can't figure out what's going on.

[paua]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-24, 08:33, said:

I am wondering what other little things people put up with, normally without calling the director?

I met a pair, husband and wife, where the wife making her first discard would tap it on the edge first, "wake up dear". I would report this to the director now.

I had another woman who called the cards from dummy, "the three please luvvie". Every card !

I hate declarers playing from dummy before LHO.

I realy hate defenders making comment on the dummy.

I really really hate dummy playing a singleton, especially on the first trick.
I've even known a defender to play the singleton for dummy because they didn't want to wait !

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-26, 14:56, said:

Yes we did. I'm not inclined to revisit it - although it does occur to me to wonder whyinhell declarer would want to do that. IME it doesn't speed up the game - even seeing three of four hands these folks can't figure out what's going on.

On line, it usually does speed up the game. Defenders have less to think about when playing double-dummy. And they often concede after a trick or two.

[GreenMan]

paua, on 2013-April-26, 17:05, said:

I met a pair, husband and wife, where the wife making her first discard would tap it on the edge first, "wake up dear". I would report this to the director now.

I've known a couple of men who, when their wife/partners were declaring, would announce after each trick, "In the dummy" or "In your hand." They generally only get to do it once or twice before I remind them it's illegal.

[ggwhiz]

paua, on 2013-April-26, 17:05, said:

I had another woman who called the cards from dummy, "the three please luvvie". Every card !

Hehe. I played against one of those once and when my pard shouted "Get a room!" she stopped.

[Antrax]

paua, on 2013-April-26, 17:05, said:

I really really hate dummy playing a singleton, especially on the first trick.

As third hand, when this happens I just don't play until declarer calls for a card from dummy. Doesn't win me a lot of friends.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I once got, from declarer, a somewhat exasperated "are you going to play?" I replied "not until you play from dummy" where, of course, there was a singleton. I might have done the same if dummy had "played" the singleton by himself.

[nige1]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-26, 18:51, said:

I've known a couple of men who, when their wife/partners were declaring, would announce after each trick, "In the dummy" or "In your hand." They generally only get to do it once or twice before I remind them it's illegal.

Some players at the club defend that behaviour, saying that it's OK for dummy to try to prevent declarer's infraction. If you wait until after partner has started to lead from the wrong hand, is it legal to try to stop him?

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2013-April-27, 07:13, said:

Some players at the club defend that behaviour, saying that it's OK for dummy to try to prevent declarer's infraction. If you wait until after partner has started to lead from the wrong hand, is it legal to try to stop him?

Yes. I am sure Declarer starting to pull from hand or starting to say something is a valid trigger.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-27, 07:28, said:

Yes. I am sure Declarer starting to pull from hand or starting to say something is a valid trigger.

Absolutely. But be aware that once Declarer has completed his play from the wrong hand it is too late. In that case it is not an attempt to prevent an irregularity but calling attention to the irregularity committed.

So dummy may try to prevent Declarer's play from the wrong hand, but only after Declarer has started to do so and before Declarer has actually exposed a card from his own hand in an act of playing it, pulled a card from Dummy or completed his call for a card from Dummy.

[aguahombre]

Excellent clarification of the whole thing. IMO, that kind of post should happen more often. It serves the non-regular readers for whom it might not be obvious.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-27, 13:23, said:

Excellent clarification of the whole thing. IMO, that kind of post should happen more often. It serves the non-regular readers for whom it might not be obvious.

We do try to do that, even if we don't always succeed.

[iviehoff]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-27, 07:28, said:

Yes. I am sure Declarer starting to pull from hand or starting to say something is a valid trigger.

So it's sufficient, but is it necessary? Maybe you can exercise your right to prevent an irregularity merely on the grounds taht it might occur. And, after all, if declarer is allowed to be warned off an attempt to lead from the wrong hand, why wait to warn him?

[aguahombre]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-29, 07:55, said:

So it's sufficient, but is it necessary? Maybe you can exercise your right to prevent an irregularity merely on the grounds taht it might occur. And, after all, if declarer is allowed to be warned off an attempt to lead from the wrong hand, why wait to warn him?

Refer back a couple ticks to Pran's post.

[barmar]

It's a matter of finding the boundary between preventing an irregularity and "participating in the play". The common understanding is that this boundary is when declarer does something that explicitly suggests he's about to commit the irregularity.

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-April-29, 08:45, said:

It's a matter of finding the boundary between preventing an irregularity and "participating in the play". The common understanding is that this boundary is when declarer does something that explicitly suggests he's about to commit the irregularity.

Precisely!

[iviehoff]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-29, 08:17, said:

Refer back a couple ticks to Pran's post.

I was aware of it. You said it was excellent, and it was indeed excellent in its clarity and confidence. But for it to be fully excellent we need to check whether it is also correct. It may well be correct, but that was not fully evident to me, and I was drawing attention to a shortage of evidence for part of it. I think what Barmar said is relevant to this.

[blackshoe]

You can rest easy, Iviehoff, Sven is right.

[broze]

barmar, on 2013-April-24, 10:40, said:

You still have to hunt for the ones that are different, and could easily miss one. Using a different way of highlighting your non-standard leads avoids this difficulty. This is the information the opponents most need, it should stand out.

MickyB, on 2013-April-24, 10:55, said:

Yes, this.

After having yet another opponent ask "Why have you underlined leads that aren't even part of your system? - it's confusing", I've come to the conclusion that you guys are in the minority although I do have sympathy. I blame the EBU CC.