[blackshoe]

In his latest "Ruling the Game" column, Mike Flader asserts that stating a line of play when you claim is "not a requirement". Do we here agree?

[jnichols]

Practical answer - People claim without stating a line of play all the time. And those claims are usually accepted. I would guess that well over 50% of claims are accepted without a line of play being accepted.

[blackshoe]

Not an answer, I'm afraid. What does the law actually say?

[FrancesHinden]

The Law just says that any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks, as is showing his cards, or suggesting that play be curtailed.
68C says that a claim _should_ be accompanied by a line, but not that it must be. Which means that not doing so is an infraction, but not often penalised.

And has already been pointed out, I would say thte majority of claims aren't.

[AlexJonson]

A large proportion of claims do not conform to the Laws, but no-one draws attention to the irregularity, and life goes on.

[mjj29]

To make it clear, yes the laws require you to accompany your claim "at once" with a "clear statement of the order the cards are to be played" (L68C). While it is an often-flouted and rarely-penalised law, it is still there and Mike Flader is wrong

[jallerton]

Can anyone recall a claim at their table where declarer has stated exactly which specific cards he intends to play to every remaining trick from both his own hand and dummy?

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-July-30, 04:14, said:

Can anyone recall a claim at their table where declarer has stated exactly which specific cards he intends to play to every remaining trick from both his own hand and dummy?

Do you think that this is actually required? The law reads "the order in which cards will be played", not "the order in which every card will be played".

[blackshoe]

So far I've seen one response which actually answers the question. Thanks, mjj29. Well, okay, Frances came close, I suppose.

The point, I think, is that when the laws say you "should" do something, not doing it is an infraction, so doing it is required.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-30, 05:41, said:

So far I've seen one response which actually answers the question.

Were you hoping to see ten responses all saying the same thing? Or one correct response followed by a respectful silence?

[blackshoe]

No, I was hoping to see how many people agreed with Mike, and how many did not. What I got was one who did not, one who probably did not, and a number of responses that were discussions of something else.

[matmat]

Did the forum users pass your test, then?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-30, 08:36, said:

No, I was hoping to see how many people agreed with Mike, and how many did not. What I got was one who did not, one who probably did not, and a number of responses that were discussions of something else.

I expect we all thought that your question was answered correctly and completely by Frances's second paragraph, and confirmed by mjj29's quotation of the relevant law.

Is there more to it, or can we get on with hijacking your thread?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-30, 08:36, said:

No, I was hoping to see how many people agreed with Mike, and how many did not. What I got was one who did not, one who probably did not, and a number of responses that were discussions of something else.

This isn't a matter of opinion, the Law is quite clear that a statement of play is required.

That's why the discussion has devolved into the level of detail that's required in the statement.

[jallerton]

mjj29, on 2011-July-29, 18:07, said:

To make it clear, yes the laws require you to accompany your claim "at once" with a "clear statement of the order the cards are to be played" (L68C). While it is an often-flouted and rarely-penalised law, it is still there and Mike Flader is wrong

jallerton, on 2011-July-30, 04:14, said:

Can anyone recall a claim at their table where declarer has stated exactly which specific cards he intends to play to every remaining trick from both his own hand and dummy?

gnasher, on 2011-July-30, 04:35, said:

Do you think that this is actually required? The law reads "the order in which cards will be played", not "the order in which every card will be played".

That's how I interpret the wording 'quoted' by Matt: "clear statement of the order the cards are to be played". However, having now read my own Law Book, I agree that Law 68C actually says: "...clear statement of the order cards are to be played". To satisfy this requirement, it seems that the claimer needs to specify clearly the order in which at least two cards are to be played; for example, "discarding dummy's ♣3 at trick 12 and dummy's ♣6 at trick 13" would suffice for a trick 1 claim.

[barmar]

jallerton, on 2011-July-30, 04:14, said:

Can anyone recall a claim at their table where declarer has stated exactly which specific cards he intends to play to every remaining trick from both his own hand and dummy?

My partner did it 2 nights ago in a midnight KO. It was the last 4 tricks, and he had to repeat it 3 or 4 times until the LOLs we were playing against got it. So much for speeding up the game.

[axman]

barmar, on 2011-July-30, 09:23, said:

This isn't a matter of opinion, the Law is quite clear that a statement of play is required.

Actually, the law is not quite clear.

For instance, the matter about should. The bridge definition of should rather than being amongst where you expect defintions to be is in a place you expect players to avoid reading.

As such, the law becomes clear on the matter at the point when one knows that there is something that needs straightened out and where to look. As a case in point, the first 30 odd times I read TFLB cover to cover- I skipped the intro.

[gordontd]

mjj29, on 2011-July-29, 18:07, said:

To make it clear, yes the laws require you to accompany your claim "at once" with a "clear statement of the order the cards are to be played" (L68C). While it is an often-flouted and rarely-penalised law, it is still there and Mike Flader is wrong

I agree with this.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2011-July-30, 09:22, said:

I expect we all thought that your question was answered correctly and completely by Frances's second paragraph, and confirmed by mjj29's quotation of the relevant law.

Is there more to it, or can we get on with hijacking your thread?

Nope, carry on.

[AlexJonson]

Nearly all players play with an idea of the cards they hold, that partner may hold and that oppos may hold.

Unless they are experts some of their assumptions will eventually prove to be wrong.

I've not met an average player who welcomes being jerked into the real world by an opponent tabling some cards and gabbling.