[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on 2011-August-04, 05:05, said:

I don't think it means either of those things. We use this construction "...of..., of..." when we're illustrating the first part with the second, and there's some overlap but they aren't identical.

"I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my grandparents", which could alternatively be "I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my parents or grandparents".

Interesting - I certainly hadn't thought of it that way, perhaps because the part about the line of play or defence would then seem rather unnecessary since the order in which the cards will be played seems unambiguous and complete, but grammatically your interpretation looks logical. In any case, I suspect we both agree with David that the important thing is that the statement is adequate, rather than the precise form it takes.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-04, 07:31, said:

I suspect we both agree with David that the important thing is that the statement is adequate, rather than the precise form it takes.

Absolutely

[Ethel]

Declarer claims: "My hand is good". There is an objection. Declarer holds: Ten of Trump , 4 of trump and small other card. The Ten of trump is boss, the small other card can be played to dummy which holds boss card. Defender objects to claim. Declarer did not mention that all the trump were gone. How do you rule that Declarer has to play the cards? All trump had not been played. Do you need more information? Would a competent Declarer play the ten of trump, then the 4 of trump and then the small card to the dummy?

[jnichols]

Ethel, on 2011-August-04, 09:33, said:

Would a competent Declarer play the ten of trump, then the 4 of trump and then the small card to the dummy?

A competent declarer might do just that. But they might also start with the small card to the dummy. And then they might ruff the next trick high, or maybe low. Leaves a lot of ways for the opponents to score the outstanding trump.

The only play that would surprise me would be to start by leading the 4 of trump.

[Ethel]

[quote name='jnichols' timestamp='1312475719' post='566095']

[Ethel]

Thank you for your reply. The defender had two trump left plus and outside card that was good.
As the director you have to make the ruling before seeing the defender's cards, but to make life simple I shall show Dummy's last three cards, Declarer's last three cards and RHO's last three cards. The lead was in declarer's hand. LHO's cards have no play. See hand portrayal in next post. I am just learning how to work this system. Thanks.

]

[Ethel]

---

[jnichols]

Ethel, on 2011-August-04, 11:46, said:

---

First - as a director when I rule on a disputed claim I first have the claimer repeat their claim statement. Then I have all hands faced on the table. Then I make my ruling.


On this hand, from your post I expected that the defender had just one trump. However, since declarer doesn't realize this there are several reasonable ways to play the hand.
Starting with the ♠10 followed by the ♠4 is certainly one of them - 2 tricks to the defenders.

[Ethel]

jnichols, on 2011-August-04, 12:01, said:

First - as a director when I rule on a disputed claim I first have the claimer repeat their claim statement. Then I have all hands faced on the table. Then I make my ruling.


On this hand, from your post I expected that the defender had just one trump. However, since declarer doesn't realize this there are several reasonable ways to play the hand.
Starting with the ♠10 followed by the ♠4 is certainly one of them - 2 tricks to the defenders.

Thank you very much.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:37, said:

Perhaps we might remember this is not BLML, and the aim is to help people give and understand rulings. It is expected that claims are accompanied by an adequate explanation: if declarer has four winning trumps and no other cards putting his hand down without comment is an adequate explanation. The grammar behind this does not matter.

If the explanation leads to doubt it is inadequate and is liable to get a ruling in favour for the non-claimers.

That's good to know. If as declarer I am down to the only four remaining trumps, then I tend to claim in the method you describe.

blackshoe, on 2011-July-29, 13:28, said:

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?

I think we can infer from his counter example that Bluejak does not agree.

However, I agree with Gnasher that the original question in this thread is suitable for BLML.

[bluejak]

So do I. I just do not think some of the replies were on-topic.

[mrdct]

gordontd, on 2011-August-04, 05:05, said:

"I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my parents or grandparents".

I think a semicolon would work better in that sentence.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:37, said:

Perhaps we might remember this is not BLML, and the aim is to help people give and understand rulings. It is expected that claims are accompanied by an adequate explanation: if declarer has four winning trumps and no other cards putting his hand down without comment is an adequate explanation. The grammar behind this does not matter.

If the explanation leads to doubt it is inadequate and is liable to get a ruling in favour for the non-claimers.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is "BLML"?

This topic is all about whether or not Mike Flader's assertion that stating a line of play when you claim is "not a requirement" which is being properly assessed in this thread against the requirements of Law 68C. The grammatical construction and interpretation of Law 68C is entirely germane to this topic.

[mrdct]

jnichols, on 2011-August-04, 12:01, said:

First - as a director when I rule on a disputed claim I first have the claimer repeat their claim statement. Then I have all hands faced on the table. Then I make my ruling.


On this hand, from your post I expected that the defender had just one trump. However, since declarer doesn't realize this there are several reasonable ways to play the hand.
Starting with the ♠10 followed by the ♠4 is certainly one of them - 2 tricks to the defenders.

I agree with that ruling, but would add that it's important to refer to Law 70C which deals explicitly with the situation where the claim statement didn't make any reference to an outstanding trump. Basically if there is any likelihood that the claimer was unaware of the outstanding trump and he can lose a trick to it via a "normal" play (could be careless or inferior but not irrational and takes account of the class of the player involved) you award such trick or tricks to the opponents.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-04, 03:46, said:

I think it is grammatically acceptable when you have a list preceded by a preposition either to put the preposition before the first item of the list only, or before each item of the list. But it doesn't make sense to put the preposition before some of the items but not all.

To provide a well known counter-example, I'm reminded of Lewis Carroll's "The Walrus and the Carpenter":

Quote

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

Although I suppose this is the very definition of "poetic license".

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2011-August-04, 17:21, said:

Excuse my ignorance, but what is "BLML"?

Bridge Laws Mailing List.
http://lists.rtflb.o...n/listinfo/blml

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2011-August-03, 12:21, said:

So to answer Ed's original question, strictly speaking Mike Flader is incorrect; but in practice it is accepted by virtually all players that complete claim statements are not necessary.

Lots of people "accept" lots of illegal things. That doesn't make it right for someone who writes a column called "Ruling the Game" to claim such things are legal, or even just "okay".

It seems reasonable to me that, whatever opponents say when claiming, if you can see the claim is valid, you should accept it, and if you can't, you should either ask for clarification or call the director, or both.

It was, however, the fact that the author of a column supposed to educate players about the laws is putting out wrong information that bothers me.

[barmar]

Unfortunately, that's Flader's general style in that column. His answers are usually based on how directors rule in practice, not strict reading of the Laws.

[blackshoe]

If directors are, "in practice", making incorrect rulings, should they not be taken to task for it?

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-06, 20:35, said:

If directors are, "in practice", making incorrect rulings, should they not be taken to task for it?

I would say a resounding YES!!!!