[mjj29]

gordontd, on 2011-July-01, 02:24, said:

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.

On the other hand, I've had an opponent show their hand and say "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you my hand so you can concede" - which is really bad form and just trying to get the benefit of any mis-claim/concession instead of the benefit of the doubt, as well as trying to get information if we _don't_ concede. Those should definitely be treated as claims. Where the line is... I'd rather just treat them all as claims, but maybe some of them can not be treated as such.

[pran]

jules101, on 2011-July-01, 09:32, said:

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

Please explain why he demonstrably did not intend to claim when he showed his cards (those cards that he actually showed)

jules101, on 2011-July-01, 09:32, said:

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?
[...]

IMHO: Definitely NO

(However, in a less serious event, like for instance an ordinary club evening, I might accept that opponents said OK, and let him play on. But then I wouldn't expect them to call TD anyway!)

[bluejak]

I have always assumed that the "tail" part of curtail means end. To me curtailing play is an attempt to end it. Players have made statements which attempt to shorten play before the end and I think it sad and unnecessary that they are treated as claims, especially when they clearly are not intended as what most people consider claims.

[semeai]

bluejak, on 2011-July-01, 13:03, said:

I have always assumed that the "tail" part of curtail means end. To me curtailing play is an attempt to end it. Players have made statements which attempt to shorten play before the end and I think it sad and unnecessary that they are treated as claims, especially when they clearly are not intended as what most people consider claims.

Not quite.

Merriam-Webster has:

Merriam-Webster said:

by folk etymology from earlier curtal to dock an animal's tail, from curtal, noun, animal with a docked tail, from Middle French courtault

So the root meaning is in fact shortened, not ended.

[bluejak]

How do you dock a tail without affecting the end of the animal?

[mycroft]

"Are you really? Well, I'm not conceding, go ahead and play on."

What that declarer is doing is trying to avoid the horrible horrible judgement that happens when he does claim and it turns out he forgot something, by putting the onus on the defenders. I see no reason to claim (=concede in this case) until I am certain, and I see no reason to work out partner's hand *for the purpose of accenting to declarer's non-claim*. So play on until you decide either to claim or I believe the hand's over, and if we're late, "you should have 'claimed' claimed." And I'll say that to the TD too.

[semeai]

bluejak, on 2011-July-01, 13:16, said:

How do you dock a tail without affecting the end of the animal?

Some nice wordplay and coincidence here.

Synonym discussion, again from Merriam-Webster:

Merriam-Webster said:

shorten, curtail, abbreviate, abridge, retrench mean to reduce in extent. shorten implies reduction in length or duration <shorten a speech>. curtail adds an implication of cutting that in some way deprives of completeness or adequacy <ceremonies curtailed because of rain>.

Anyways, sorry for butting in; I have no legal opinion on the semantics here.

Added: All right, I do have a legal opinion, if an unlearned one. If you show someone (oops! looks like showing your cards is option 2) tell someone about (maybe this is verboten, but enough with my trying to fix this example) your AQ lying over their KJ in order to speed up their guess, you're not attempting to deprive play of any sort of completeness or adequacy, you're just trying to reduce the duration. Fancier cases as discussed in this thread I abstain from.

[blackshoe]

My dictionary has

Quote

ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from obsolete curtal [horse with a docked tail,] from French courtault, from court ‘short,’ from Latin curtus. The change in the ending was due to association with tail 1 and perhaps also with French tailler ‘to cut.’

[dburn]

My dictionary (compiled by the clever men at Oxford) can find no use of the word "curtall" [not a typo, but one of the original spellings of the verb] in English prior to 1553. It is scarcely possible that the word was used in America prior to 1553, but it is entirely possible that American lexicographers believe that the year 1553 occurred in the fifteenth century, given some of the other things they believe.

[blackshoe]

Well, obviously if the clever men at Oxford say it, it must be true.

I have no idea where the editors of my dictionary got their information. Possibly they held a seance. Yeah, that must be it.

[semeai]

Though we've taken the tangent much too far: Strangely, the clever men of Oxford also say late 15th for curtail, both in my "Shorter OED" and, separately, online

I will say that for curtal (one ell) my Shorter OED gives L15 for short-barrelled cannon but E16 for animal with docked tail and L16 for adj form of curtail