[mrdct]

I had a situation on the weekend where I lead my long suit (which I'd opened and received a weak raise from partner) against 3NT with partner's ace picking up dummy's stiff J and then partner duly continued the suit with a highish pip that declarer didn't cover.

I then went into quite a long tank (probably more than a minute) as I tried to fully assess declarer's prospects and what our best chance of defeating the contract was just in case there was any need for me to overtake the current pip and/or switch to another suit.

Declarer then made the comment "you don't need to worry about anything" after which I assumed he had 9 top tricks and proceeded to severely misdefend the hand to let it make when it was quite simple to beat it.

Having regard to the definition of a claim in Law 68A:

Quote

68A. 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).

Could declarer's comment be construed as a "suggestion that play be curtailed" in which case the play (i.e. my misdefence) subsequent to the claim is voided?

The TD ruled (some 15 hours later) that the comment wasn't a claim and allowed the table result to stand but cautioned declarer not to make such comments in future. The Appeals Advisor recommended against appealing (so I didn't) but did recommend that the incident be reported to the Recorder.

Since this incident, I've been contemplating adopting an approach when similar comments are made by the opps to say, "I'll take that as a claim" and then face my hand and say, do you agree with the claim partner?

In fairness to declarer, his comment was predicated on an assumption that I held 6 cards in the suit I made a weak-jump overcall in and that he could safely take a finesse in dummy's long suit into the safe hand; but as it turns out I bid it on a 5-card suit (partner holding 4 and the K of dummy's long suit).

[bluejak]

Since a TD has ruled such a remark was not a claim I think facing your hand and pretending it is a claim is just unethical. Call the TD if you like, and see what he thinks, but the pressure play of facing your hand to try and force a specific ruling is sharp practice. In fact, if the TD knew you had a ruling that said it was not a claim a DP would be in order.

Personally, I do not think it was a claim anyway. He did not suggest play be curtailed: he did not say how many tricks he was taking: he did not show his hand. How can you say it was a claim?

Of course, you might easily get an adjustment under Law 73F. If I had been the Appeals Adviser I would have recommended appealing and putting a Law 73F case.

[campboy]

I would adjust the score to (at least some percentage of) 3NT going off using law 73F. I don't think it was a claim, but it is certainly an illegal remark which declarer might know could work to his beneift.

[edit] Aha, now it's my turn to be ninja'd by bluejak

[axman]

mrdct, on Jun 16 2010, 08:49 PM, said:

I had a situation on the weekend where I lead my long suit (which I'd opened and received a weak raise from partner) against 3NT with partner's ace picking up dummy's stiff J and then partner duly continued the suit with a highish pip that declarer didn't cover.

I then went into quite a long tank (probably more than a minute) as I tried to fully assess declarer's prospects and what our best chance of defeating the contract was just in case there was any need for me to overtake the current pip and/or switch to another suit.

Declarer then made the comment "you don't need to worry about anything" after which

Declarer has interrupted your thinking by his improper distraction. It is up to you to recognize it and summon the TD to establish that by so doing that declarer has improperly delayed the game because you have to start over and before you start over it will take several minutes to get past the agitation that declarer has caused.

[peachy]

Declarer's extraneous remark was an infraction of 73F. If it is determined that this extraneous remark either caused or significantly contributed to your misdefense, adjustment is clear. You should have called the TD at the time of the remark, IMO.

[mrdct]

peachy, on Jun 16 2010, 11:21 PM, said:

Declarer's extraneous remark was an infraction of 73F.  If it is determined that this extraneous remark either caused or significantly contributed to your misdefense, adjustment is clear.  You should have called the TD at the time of the remark, IMO.

I didn't realise the remark was erroneous until declarer made his "real" claim after I made a seemingly safe switch to dummy's ♠AK tight to contain the overtricks rather than continue ♥ (my suit). I did call the director as soon I realised that declarer's hand was not consistent with his comment.

[Free]

A lot of people have the bad habbit of saying "it doesn't matter" or something similar. When they say it to me, I tell them to either claim or shut up, and I thank them for interrupting my thought process so I have to start all over again. Usually they need a few more moments to realise that I will in fact think this thing through, and finally they claim. Another situation is when they refuse to claim, in which case they get very annoyed (that's their own fault).

I agree that this looks like some kind of claim, but it's not clear cut. I definitely wouldn't put my hand on the table after such comment. TD might interpret your action as a claim from your side!

I think in the spirit of the game, your result should stand, but opps should get an adjusted score. They made the mistake of confusing you, for which they can't be rewarded. You made the mistake of letting your concentration slip and asuming something which hasn't been said.

[Phil]

Free, on Jun 17 2010, 06:26 AM, said:

A lot of people have the bad habbit of saying "it doesn't matter" or something similar.  When they say it to me, I tell them to either claim or shut up

I have been guilty of saying "it doesn't matter". If my contract is a lock, I will show my hand, but say, "I'm not claiming".

[mjj29]

Phil, on Jun 17 2010, 08:57 AM, said:

Free, on Jun 17 2010, 06:26 AM, said:

A lot of people have the bad habbit of saying "it doesn't matter" or something similar.  When they say it to me, I tell them to either claim or shut up

I have been guilty of saying "it doesn't matter". If my contract is a lock, I will show my hand, but say, "I'm not claiming".

Tough, by showing your hand you have just claimed (L68A). Not then actually claiming is an attempt to intimidate the other side into conceding more tricks than they might get and should _definitely_ warrant a PP.

[OleBerg]

mrdct, on Jun 17 2010, 03:49 AM, said:

Declarer then made the comment "you don't need to worry about anything"

Autocomment: "Then show me your hand"

If rejected: "Then allow me to defend in peace"

[Phil]

mjj29, on Jun 17 2010, 09:20 AM, said:

Tough, by showing your hand you have just claimed (L68A). Not then actually claiming is an attempt to intimidate the other side into conceding more tricks than they might get and should _definitely_ warrant a PP.

portion of"Law 68A" said:

"...unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim"

It seems the words "I'm not claiming" would be demonstrable.

[aguahombre]

mjj29, on Jun 17 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 17 2010, 08:57 AM, said:

Free, on Jun 17 2010, 06:26 AM, said:

A lot of people have the bad habbit of saying "it doesn't matter" or something similar.  When they say it to me, I tell them to either claim or shut up

I have been guilty of saying "it doesn't matter". If my contract is a lock, I will show my hand, but say, "I'm not claiming".

Tough, by showing your hand you have just claimed (L68A). Not then actually claiming is an attempt to intimidate the other side into conceding more tricks than they might get and should _definitely_ warrant a PP.

I guess in your world, "I am not claiming" does not constitute demonstrably not intending to claim (per 68A).

edit: Especially at the club level, showing your hand but not claiming can be helpful to a B/I opponent (and even instuctional, if presented in that vein), rather than intimidating.

[OleBerg]

aguahombre, on Jun 17 2010, 06:22 PM, said:

mjj29, on Jun 17 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 17 2010, 08:57 AM, said:

Free, on Jun 17 2010, 06:26 AM, said:

A lot of people have the bad habbit of saying "it doesn't matter" or something similar.  When they say it to me, I tell them to either claim or shut up

I have been guilty of saying "it doesn't matter". If my contract is a lock, I will show my hand, but say, "I'm not claiming".

Tough, by showing your hand you have just claimed (L68A). Not then actually claiming is an attempt to intimidate the other side into conceding more tricks than they might get and should _definitely_ warrant a PP.

I guess in your world, "I am not claiming" does not constitute demonstrably not intending to claim (per 68A).

edit: Especially at the club level, showing your hand but not claiming can be helpful to a B/I opponent (and even instuctional, if presented in that vein), rather than intimidating.

And it might be faster too.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on Jun 17 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

mjj29, on Jun 17 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 17 2010, 08:57 AM, said:

Free, on Jun 17 2010, 06:26 AM, said:

A lot of people have the bad habbit of saying "it doesn't matter" or something similar.  When they say it to me, I tell them to either claim or shut up

I have been guilty of saying "it doesn't matter". If my contract is a lock, I will show my hand, but say, "I'm not claiming".

Tough, by showing your hand you have just claimed (L68A). Not then actually claiming is an attempt to intimidate the other side into conceding more tricks than they might get and should _definitely_ warrant a PP.

I guess in your world, "I am not claiming" does not constitute demonstrably not intending to claim (per 68A).

edit: Especially at the club level, showing your hand but not claiming can be helpful to a B/I opponent (and even instuctional, if presented in that vein), rather than intimidating.

It can be, but there are players who will show their hand saying "I'm not claiming" in an attempt to get opponents to concede without incurring the danger of making a claim (or stating a line of play).

I lean towards Matt's point of view here; if the player demonstrably did not intend to claim he would not need to say "I'm not claiming".

[blackshoe]

The "demonstrably did not intend to claim" bit in Law 68, as that law itself says, is to avoid people ruling, or suggesting the TD rule, that declarer did intend to claim, even when he is doing something else IAW with the laws, such as setting his hand down as dummy so that his partner can play it, as allowed by Law 54. That it has opened the door for some players to attempt to intimidate or hornswoggle opponents is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that the lawmakers are human, and make mistakes.

I would be happier if the laws explicitly prohibited this tactic, or at least required a declarer who perpetrated it to play it out double dummy. But they do not, so I am left with leaving it to the discretion of the TD. I will say, though, that the tactic is not proper procedure as described in the laws, and therefore when it happens, the defense should immediately call the TD and ask for a ruling. If as TD I find that the tactic was a genuine attempt to be helpful to opponents, I'll probably let it go, perhaps with a warning, but if I find otherwise, I will certainly consider, and probably award, a PP. And if the tactic causes the defenders to "lose the bubble" as submariners say, I will adjust the score (Law 73F).

[dburn]

bluejak, on Jun 16 2010, 09:09 PM, said:

Since a TD has ruled such a remark was not a claim I think facing your hand and pretending it is a claim is just unethical.  Call the TD if you like, and see what he thinks, but the pressure play of facing your hand to try and force a specific ruling is sharp practice.  In fact, if the TD knew you had a ruling that said it was not a claim a DP would be in order.

Personally, I do not think it was a claim anyway.  He did not suggest play be curtailed: he did not say how many tricks he was taking: he did not show his hand.  How can you say it was a claim?

This is unclear to me. If I am thinking and someone says "it doesn't matter", this is at the very least a suggestion that I cease thinking.

Now, to "curtail" is

Oxford English Dictionary said:

To shorten in duration or extent; to cut down; to abbreviate, abridge, diminish, or reduce, in extent or amount.

(and is also a very stupid choice of word by the Lawmakers - what is the Japanese for "curtail"? - but it will take longer to remove Kaplanese from the Laws of bridge than it will to remove spilled oil from the Gulf of Mexico).

To say "it doesn't matter" whilst at the same time to say "but I'm not claiming" appears to me on a par with saying "I smoked, but I didn't inhale". Of course "it doesn't matter" is an attempt to curtail play (and so is showing your hand to one opponent but not the other), and just because some Director rules that it is not does not mean the Director in question isn't an idiot.

[campboy]

Yes, cut down, abbreviated or abridged. A suggestion that play be curtailed is a suggestion that less play should happen, that is to say that not all the tricks should be played out.

The situation in the OP, on the other hand, was a suggestion that the same amount of play happen more quickly.

[dburn]

campboy, on Jun 17 2010, 08:59 PM, said:

Yes, cut down, abbreviated or abridged. A suggestion that play be curtailed is a suggestion that less play should happen, that is to say that not all the tricks should be played out.

The situation in the OP, on the other hand, was a suggestion that the same amount of play happen more quickly.

Not bad, campboy. Not bad at all.

But "play" is (as Defined in the Laws)

Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

2. The aggregate of plays made.
3.The period during which the cards are played.
4.The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board.

It is my contention that if someone suggests that his opponent cease to deliberate, this is a deliberate attempt to shorten the period during which the cards are played, and hence to "curtail play".

That is: to suggest that there "be less play" and to suggest that "the same amount of play happen more quickly" are both "attempts to curtail play" per the dictionary definition of "curtail" and the Lawful definition of "play" according to [3] above.

Keen observers will have noted that there is no [1] above. But that, as the same keen observers will also have noted, is sub judice - I await as keenly as other observers the further arguments of pran to the effect that a card led may not be a card played (previous arguments to that effect having been more or less complete nonsense).

[axman]

blackshoe, on Jun 17 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

The "demonstrably did not intend to claim" bit in Law 68, as that law itself says, is to avoid people ruling, or suggesting the TD rule, that declarer did intend to claim, even when he is doing something else IAW with the laws, such as setting his hand down as dummy so that his partner can play it, as allowed by Law 54. That it has opened the door for some players to attempt to intimidate or hornswoggle opponents is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that the lawmakers are human, and make mistakes.

I would be happier if the laws explicitly prohibited this tactic, or at least required a declarer who perpetrated it to play it out double dummy. But they do not, so I am left with leaving it to the discretion of the TD. I will say, though, that the tactic is not proper procedure as described in the laws, and therefore when it happens, the defense should immediately call the TD and ask for a ruling. If as TD I find that the tactic was a genuine attempt to be helpful to opponents, I'll probably let it go, perhaps with a warning, but if I find otherwise, I will certainly consider, and probably award, a PP. And if the tactic causes the defenders to "lose the bubble" as submariners say, I will adjust the score (Law 73F).

There are quite a few things that a player can do that by law are claims, whether or not the player intended to claim when he did them. The referenced provision of 68 makes it possible for a player to announce prior to doing some of those things that what he is about to do is to not be construed as a claim and thus for the TD to rule that the player did not claim- should it be asserted that he did.

For instance, this afternoon at my table a not so gentle lady from LA seemed to believe that 'I have the rest.' was not a claim and persisted at great length to continue playing tricks but not not permitting the opponents to contribute cards to tricks. It took the TD quite some time to get declarer to face the remaining cards: void-void-Ax-Kxx opposite void-void-KQ-A9x there having been no club tricks and but one club pitch- which might illuminate declarer's great persistance.

[blackshoe]

That she "seemed to believe" that "I have the rest" is not a claim doesn't mean she was right. And if she was not claiming, and instead was playing on, then doing so without allowing the defenders to play to the tricks was IMO a serious breach of etiquette.