[jules101]

Declarer takes a couple of tricks.

Then says, "OK, I'll take these" and tables AKJ of a suit...

.... and then says "Oh I'm not sure - I should play it out", and picks up the cards he tabled.



Does play now cease because declarer has started to state a claim?

Or may declarer continue to play out the hand?


I was looking at Law 48B, but this make it clear whether facing some - rather than all - of declarer's cards constitutes a claim!

[pran]

jules101, on 2011-June-26, 15:38, said:

Declarer takes a couple of tricks.

Then says, "OK, I'll take these" and tables AKJ of a suit...

.... and then says "Oh I'm not sure - I should play it out", and picks up the cards he tabled.



Does play now cease because declarer has started to state a claim?

Or may declarer continue to play out the hand?


I was looking at Law 48B, but this make it clear whether facing some - rather than all - of declarer's cards constitutes a claim!

The applicable law is 68 which begins:

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*. If it does refer to subsequent tricks:

A. Claim Defined

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. 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

The described action is certainly a claim.

[ahydra]

Well, one might argue that declarer hasn't stated a specific number of tricks he will win, nor has he showed all his cards (though he did show some) - the Law doesn't state "shows any of his cards". But I would tend to agree with pran, declarer did intend to claim - and should have checked his claim before showing any cards.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2011-June-28, 17:18, said:

Well, one might argue that declarer hasn't stated a specific number of tricks he will win…

Sure he has. He laid down AKJ and said "I'll take these…" That's three tricks. Seems pretty specific to me. NB: I'll grant he hasn't finished his claim statement, and it's likely he intended to claim more tricks, but he said specifically that he would take these three.

[phil_20686]

I have always been a bit fuzzy on this. Often when one defender is tanking and declarer knows that it won't matter, he might kindly show the defender his cards without claiming. This might be the case, if for example, you always have twelve tricks but the line chosen might depend on lho's discards. Or if all possible returns give up a trick but change the entry position so that the squeeze you have to chose is different depending which trick they give away. I.e. the claim statement would be longer than playing out the hand, but you dont want some poor defender squirming when nothing they do matters.

So if I show him my cards am I "claiming"? Do I have to state a line? IF I do not state a line am i liable to get ruled against. Does showing only one defender your cards count as "obviously not claiming"?

[RMB1]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-29, 10:03, said:

So if I show him my cards am I "claiming"? Do I have to state a line? IF I do not state a line am i liable to get ruled against. Does showing only one defender your cards count as "obviously not claiming"?

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

You are attempting to curtail play, and anything you do will be a suggestion that play is curtailed; that is a claim (Law 68A).

All I can suggest is: show your hand and explain clearly
"I think I have the rest, it is quite complicated to explain, but here goes, ...
If you discard such-and-such then I will ...
...
Is that clear?"

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2011-June-29, 10:22, said:

You are attempting to curtail play, and anything you do will be a suggestion that play is curtailed; that is a claim (Law 68A).

Does the same apply to the defence? I have certainly seen defenders show their hand to declarer in such a way as to ensure partner does not see it, presumably with the same idea of curtailing play but trying to avoid problems of UI, penalty cards or whatever if declarer does not agree. I suppose those "problems" shouldn't exist in theory anyway since play ceases when there is a claim...

[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on 2011-June-29, 10:57, said:

Does the same apply to the defence? I have certainly seen defenders show their hand to declarer in such a way as to ensure partner does not see it, presumably with the same idea of curtailing play but trying to avoid problems of UI, penalty cards or whatever if declarer does not agree. I suppose those "problems" shouldn't exist in theory anyway since play ceases when there is a claim...

Yes it is a claim if a defender suggest play is curtailed (Law 68A does not distinguish.)

Showing your hand to declarer (only) is regarded as good practice by some, when claiming and conceding some tricks as defender. It is not to avoid problems if declarer does not accept the claim but to avoid problems if partner objects to the concession. Then play continues (Law 68B2) and by not showing his hand to partner, the defender has avoided "problems of UI, penalty cards or whatever".

[bluejak]

I am surprised that you believe it is a claim if you give information to your opponents. It seems to me that you believe that "shorten" play is the same as "curtail" play but I do not believe it is. Traditionally players have done it to avoid a specific waste of time but not to end the hand. Surely this is not a clam?

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-June-30, 16:40, said:

It seems to me that you believe that "shorten" play is the same as "curtail" play but I do not believe it is.

What do you think is the difference?

[blackshoe]

curtail: reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on : civil liberties were further curtailed.
shorten: make or become shorter : [ trans. ] he shortened his stride | [ intrans. ] around mid-September, days shorten and temperatures dip.

Not quite the same, I think.

[barmar]

"reduce in extent" is essentially the same as "make shorter".

However, in the context of claiming, curtailing is presumably intended to mean that it gets reduced to 0, since the Laws clearly state that play stops once a claim is made. If I show an opponent my cards, I'm trying to speed up the remainder of the play, but not necessarily curtail it entirely. Often, the opponent is in the tank trying to make a decision, and I know that it doesn't matter on this trick (e.g. he's leading toward a KJ and I have AQ behind it), and once he gets past this trick he'll be able to claim.

I'm sure we've all done this, and we weren't in a position where we could make a valid claim about the rest of the hand, all we could do is get declarer out of this silly tank.

[blackshoe]

Well, that's fair enough, but I suppose a player who's doing that should issue a disclaimer along the lines of "not claiming, but…" At least, it would nice if that were to happen. I grant you no law or regulation requires or even suggests it. In the end, I suppose the alleged claimer is going to have to present his argument for why he wasn't claiming to the TD, and then the TD will have to decide.

[alphatango]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-30, 21:47, said:

Well, that's fair enough, but I suppose a player who's doing that should issue a disclaimer along the lines of "not claiming, but…" At least, it would nice if that were to happen. I grant you no law or regulation requires or even suggests it.

Isn't that precisely what the parenthetical clause in 68A does? (I refer to "unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim...") I think it applies only to the showing of cards and not the other methods of claiming, but it does cover the situations where a player wants to show his cards (or some of his cards) in order to speed play without claiming.

Furthermore, I think we should interpret "curtail" as follows: it could be regarded as referring to shortening in time, or to reducing the number of cards played. It clearly cannot be the former, since otherwise statements like "We should hurry up; we've still got a board to play" would be claims. So it must be the latter.

Then the cases described above are attempts to speed play, but not attempts to curtail play (although one's aim might be to allow opponents to so suggest).

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-30, 21:47, said:

Well, that's fair enough, but I suppose a player who's doing that should issue a disclaimer along the lines of "not claiming, but…" At least, it would nice if that were to happen. I grant you no law or regulation requires or even suggests it. In the end, I suppose the alleged claimer is going to have to present his argument for why he wasn't claiming to the TD, and then the TD will have to decide.

Actually many TDs (other than bluejak) will decide it was a claim even if there is a disclaimer issued. Of course if you think "curtail" doesn't mean "shorten", you might take a different view.

[shyams]

The OP says "Declarer takes a couple of tricks" and then describes declarer's next few actions and words.

If the first line of the post was meant to suggest only two tricks have been played, then I fail to understand how the showing of AKJ of one suit constitutes a claim. If it wasn't, then I'd appreciate if we can get a clarification on how many cards remained when the claim was made.

I like the point introduced in bluejak's post that declarer may have been trying to shorten the game.

If declarer says "I am playing the AKJ of trumps next" and shows those three cards from his hand, would he be claiming? I don't think so. He is probably trying to shorten the game by telling opps to follow to 3 rounds of trumps or identify suitable discards. It may be illegal for the declarer to say or do that but it still doesn't mean declarer has made a claim. (Edit: added "doesn't" - erroneously missed typing it earlier)

This post has been edited by shyams: 2011-July-01, 08:04

[pran]

I have already stated that IMHO the actions by declarer as described in OP clearly constitute a claim according to Law 68.

Now, with the additional matters brought into this thread, may I just state that in the Norwegian translation of Law 68 we have used the Norwegian word "avbryte" which is synonymous to the English words "break off", "terminate" or "interrupt".

We are also clear on the point that the clause "unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim" specifically applies to the player exposing his cards, not to any of the other activities described as constituting a claim.

I have noticed with interest that the Danish translation is equivalent to our in this respect (we try to cooperate in such matters). I expect also the Swedish translation to be equivalent, but I haven't looked up that one.

[gordontd]

shyams, on 2011-July-01, 02:58, said:

I like the point introduced in bluejak's post that declarer may have been trying to shorten the game.

That's what players are generally trying to do when they claim.

[jules101]

---

Declarer ducked opening ♦ lead and won his ace at trick 3.

Trick 4 declarer ran J♥ to his AKT. [I've written this slightly wrong in original post - from memory I thought he had AKJ in hand cos they were start of statement but I've just checked the hand records.]


Then declarer started to claim, saying "OK, I have, A♦, AKJ♥, (tabling AK♥) and.... oh I'm not sure - I should play it out".

This back step was that he realised East might hold 5 card ♣ suit.

This wasn't the case, so the claim when it was eventually made was good! Declarer had nine tricks and was content to concede the others.


But that's not really the point...........


I'm trying to get to grips with the principle here.

Once declarer has tabled a couple of their cards and started to make a claim statement are they allowed to continue to play out the hand?


It made no absolutely no difference to this hand, but it may do on some future occasion, so I'd like to know the answer to my question - "when is a claim a claim?"

[blackshoe]

Well, if there's a dispute, then a claim is a claim when the TD says it is. "Unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim" is a judgement call — one that should be left to the TD to make.