[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-October-10, 09:38, said:

Neither the laws nor the director care whose fault it was. The responsibility is independent of fault. What needs to be done is to educate players as to their responsibility and then to make sure they meet it.

Fault is paramount. 90B2 states (with the possibility of a PP): 2. unduly slow play by a contestant. Note it does not say "by a table".

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2017-October-10, 05:58, said:

You miss my point about claiming. Say I am playing the second-to-last hand. My opponents have just three minutes left. I have an easy claim, but instead I play it out to force the opponents to use up more of their remaining time.
Yes, my opponents could call the TD to complain, but is that any easier than the current handling of slow pairs?

On superficial perusal, current claim-law encourages claims.

In practice, however, the present law discourages claims, especially when opponents are under time-pressure. A timer system, on its own, would be unlikely to do much to ameliorate this sorry state of affairs. The claim-law, itself, also requires change.

The previously suggested simplification to claim-law might help a bit. Declarer claims by facing his hand and specifying a number of tricks. His claim doesn't stop play, until defenders concede. Defenders can dispute the claim, by playing on (timed), until satisfied.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2017-October-10, 12:30, said:

The previously suggested simplification to claim-law might help a bit. Declarer claims by facing his hand and specifying a number of tricks. His claim doesn't stop play, until defenders concede. Defenders can dispute the claim, by playing on (timed), until satisfied.

Essentially the way claims are handled in rubber bridge?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-October-11, 08:02, said:

Essentially the way claims are handled in rubber bridge?

Similar. The ACBL rubber bridge laws (2014) contain:
"When his claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face up on the table. At any time either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner, and declarer may not impose a penalty for any irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced."

That does seem simpler and better than the current convoluted claim laws with their necessity for a TD to decide what would be careless, what would be worse than careless and what the declarer knew about missing trumps.

[chrism]

lamford, on 2017-October-11, 08:35, said:

That does seem simpler and better than the current convoluted claim laws with their necessity for a TD to decide what would be careless, what would be worse than careless and what the declarer knew about missing trumps.

The possible downside is that if declarer had indeed forgotten about an outstanding trump (or some other spanner in the ointment) and was in consequence about to fall short of the claimed number of tricks, it may be possible to diagnose and avoid the problem because the defenders are not conceding. Declarer may also be able to resolve a 2-way guess by claiming and seeing which defender does not concede.

While those problems may not be unsurmountable, they add complexity - in particular the requirement for a claim statement and the continuation of play in strict compliance with the statement. That seems to bring us close to the 2017 Laws with optional continuation of play after a claim.

[lamford]

chrism, on 2017-October-11, 09:01, said:

Declarer may also be able to resolve a 2-way guess by claiming and seeing which defender does not concede.

Why would declarer be able to tell who had the queen in an ending of AJx opposite KTx when a defender objects? Surely both defenders can see that it is a two-way guess.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2017-October-10, 05:58, said:

You miss my point about claiming. Say I am playing the second-to-last hand. My opponents have just three minutes left. I have an easy claim, but instead I play it out to force the opponents to use up more of their remaining time.
Yes, my opponents could call the TD to complain, but is that any easier than the current handling of slow pairs?

If there is an easy claim it will also be an easy defensive concession, which they can make and this stops the clock.

[cherdano]

lamford, on 2017-October-15, 10:53, said:

If there is an easy claim it will also be an easy defensive concession

Huh?

[nige1]

barmar, on 2017-October-11, 08:02, said:

Essentially the way claims are handled in rubber bridge?

And similar to BBO claim protocol. But simpler than either.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2017-October-15, 10:50, said:

Why would declarer be able to tell who had the queen in an ending of AJx opposite KTx when a defender objects? Surely both defenders can see that it is a two-way guess.

Anyway after claiming declarer is not permitted to get it right, so long as the defenders are not foolish enough to agree to resume play.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-15, 18:23, said:

Anyway after claiming declarer is not permitted to get it right, so long as the defenders are not foolish enough to agree to resume play.

He's permitted to get it right if his stated line of play got it right. He did state a line of play, didn't he?

BTW, vague claims like "I have the rest" or "dummy's up" or the like are not lines of play.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-October-15, 19:00, said:

He's permitted to get it right if his stated line of play got it right. He did state a line of play, didn't he?

BTW, vague claims like "I have the rest" or "dummy's up" or the like are not lines of play.

ChrisM's post 25 is based on the assumption that declarer did not state a line of play.