[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2020-February-28, 09:16, said:

But since claiming also involves curtailing play, I think it's implied that you have to be claiming the entire number of tricks. It wouldn't make sense to call running a suit a claim when you still need to play other suits afterward.

Well, there's "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any" (Law 68B1). I do agree that "play from the top" doesn't necessarily claim any tricks — after all, the top card might get ruffed. :-) And it may also be true that the last card(s) in the suit might fail to win the trick. But I think this potential bone of contention is why the WBFLC deprecates the practice.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2020-February-28, 13:48, said:

Well, there's "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any" (Law 68B1). I do agree that "play from the top" doesn't necessarily claim any tricks — after all, the top card might get ruffed. :-) And it may also be true that the last card(s) in the suit might fail to win the trick. But I think this potential bone of contention is why the WBFLC deprecates the practice.

I don't think that is the bone of contention. I imagine that WBFLC deprecates the practice because it violates (the already laissez faire) Law 46 and implicitly involves dummy in the choice of card to play.

[blackshoe]

Well, yes, but I don't see a bone of contention there. Except perhaps for those who think "I've always done it this way and I'm damned if I'm going to let some bureaucrat tell me how to play cards from dummy".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2020-February-28, 15:53, said:

Well, yes, but I don't see a bone of contention there. Except perhaps for those who think "I've always done it this way and I'm damned if I'm going to let some bureaucrat tell me how to play cards from dummy".

I think this has always been a major issue during the various law changes since the first official international law was issued in 1936 (as a compromise between American and English interests).

Every law change since then bears the signs of careful evolution rather than dramatic revolution.

So yes, I believe that for instance Law 46 is there to protect existing habits whenever possible without creating conflicts within the laws.

[dsLawsd]

Perhaps the Laws should be rewritten for greater clarity?

And when extraneous info is overhead the Laws do REQUIRE said individual to call the Director and let the official decide what to do. Of course, the timing is always a concern since the player may not know he heard UI until they pick up their hand ,,,

A sloppy declarer (depends on their level of experience/expertise)
should not be allowed to profit- as to whether they can change courses or whether a Procedural penalty issue might be up for discussion.

[axman]

barmar, on 2020-February-28, 09:16, said:

No, because it doesn't claim a specific total number of tricks.

I admit that the definition of claim in L68 doesn't actually contain the word "total". But since claiming also involves curtailing play, I think it's implied that you have to be claiming the entire number of tricks. It wouldn't make sense to call running a suit a claim when you still need to play other suits afterward.

I suspect that you are referring to this provision:

68A. Claim Defined
Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

Now consider 'run the clubs.' The nature of the statement imputes from the top. 'run' has the effect of asserting that each club will win its trick; thus the quantity of clubs is a specific number of tricks asserted to be won. That comports with a claim of those tricks as provided by 68A.

It is notable 68A does not specify that the claiming of tricks must encompass all of the remaining cards (your (incorrect) inference being that not encompassing all of the remaining cards forecloses the action from being a claim). Taken together, run the clubs is a claim of those tricks; and being that a claim was made it behooves one to clarify the line of play for all of the remaining cards forthwith.

[pran]

axman, on 2020-February-29, 09:33, said:

I suspect that you are referring to this provision:

68A. Claim Defined
Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

Now consider 'run the clubs.' The nature of the statement imputes from the top. 'run' has the effect of asserting that each club will win its trick; thus the quantity of clubs is a specific number of tricks asserted to be won. That comports with a claim of those tricks as provided by 68A.

It is notable 68A does not specify that the claiming of tricks must encompass all of the remaining cards (your (incorrect) inference being that not encompassing all of the remaining cards forecloses the action from being a claim). Taken together, run the clubs is a claim of those tricks; and being that a claim was made it behooves one to clarify the line of play for all of the remaining cards forthwith.

I believe you have overlooked the impact of the enhanced part in

Law 68B1 said:

Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

'Run the clubs' is not a claim, or do you state that 'run the clubs' imply a concession of all remaining tricks (if any) after the club suit has been exhausted?

[lamford]

dsLawsd, on 2020-February-28, 17:06, said:

Perhaps the Laws should be rewritten for greater clarity?

And when extraneous info is overhead the Laws do REQUIRE said individual to call the Director and let the official decide what to do. Of course, the timing is always a concern since the player may not know he heard UI until they pick up their hand ,,,

A sloppy declarer (depends on their level of experience/expertise)
should not be allowed to profit- as to whether they can change courses or whether a Procedural penalty issue might be up for discussion.

I think that 49A could be rewritten so that:
"When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card". is replaced by
"When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should make the minimum statement required to uniquely identify that card."

An otherwise charming man I have sometimes played against always calls "three of hearts, please, partner"; "four of spades, please, partner", ad infinitum. I was tempted to strangle him with his cravat, but remembered BBB.

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-February-29, 11:41, said:

I think that 49A could be rewritten so that:
"When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card". is replaced by
"When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should make the minimum statement required to uniquely identify that card."

An otherwise charming man I have sometimes played against always calls "three of hearts, please, partner"; "four of spades, please, partner", ad infinitum. I was tempted to strangle him with his cravat, but remembered BBB.

What about

Law 46B said:

In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

Are there any doubts about Declarer's intentions in situations like what is discussed here?

I don't believe any (competent) director will have difficulties with this law?

[axman]

pran, on 2020-February-29, 11:12, said:

I believe you have overlooked the impact of the enhanced part in


'Run the clubs' is not a claim, or do you state that 'run the clubs' imply a concession of all remaining tricks (if any) after the club suit has been exhausted?

As I said, run the clubs can be part of a claim, or its entirety.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2020-February-29, 13:40, said:

As I said, run the clubs can be part of a claim, or its entirety.

Are those, in your view, the only two options?

[pescetom]

axman, on 2020-February-29, 13:40, said:

As I said, run the clubs can be part of a claim, or its entirety.

I guess this is the legitimate tail of the OP, but it's becoming sublime.

lamford, on 2020-February-29, 11:41, said:

I think that 49A could be rewritten so that:
"When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card". is replaced by
"When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should make the minimum statement required to uniquely identify that card."

46A and I think there is a bit more to it than that, but I agree it is a good start.

[jhenrikj]

axman, on 2020-February-29, 13:40, said:

As I said, run the clubs can be part of a claim, or its entirety.

Or not a part of a claim at all. The play does not stop when someone says "Run the clubs".

Assume dummy is xxx xx xxx AKQJT and the declarer has singleton club in a NT and a club is led. The Declarer now says "Run the clubs" you are saying that the play is suspended and declarer as conceded the rest even if declarer has AKxx AKxx Axxx x? The correct answer of course is that after 5 rounds of clubs the play continues as normal.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2020-February-29, 13:41, said:

Are those, in your view, the only two options?

In most cases I don't think it's either.

If declarer knows what's going to happen after he finished running the suit, they should just make a claim: "I'm going to run the clubs, discarding X and Y, then take A and B."

But in many cases declarer has to watch the opponents' cards carefully, and make appropriate discards, while running the suit. They might be hoping for a squeeze to materialize, for instance, or just trying to get a count of the hand.

The only point of saying "run the clubs" is that it's a convenient shorthand. And if anything, it should be helpful to the defenders, as they can think ahead about all their discards. But most of the time it will be pretty obvious that when there's a long, runnable suit in dummy, declarer is probably going to run it (not always -- sometimes declarer is concerned about squeezing themselves).

[axman]

jhenrikj, on 2020-March-01, 03:06, said:

Or not a part of a claim at all. The play does not stop when someone says "Run the clubs".

Assume dummy is xxx xx xxx AKQJT and the declarer has singleton club in a NT and a club is led. The Declarer now says "Run the clubs" you are saying that the play is suspended and declarer as conceded the rest even if declarer has AKxx AKxx Axxx x? The correct answer of course is that after 5 rounds of clubs the play continues as normal.

What I said was that when a player says run the clubs, he is foolish to not forthwith name his line of play for the remaining cards.

What I pointed out was that according to law 'run the clubs' is a claim of those club tricks. That according to law once a claim occurs……..

[PeterAlan]

The WBFLC minute I quoted in the initial response to the OP is not consistent with these suggestions about "run the clubs" constituting a claim. If WBFLC had thought that then they would have said so, and not what they did.

[PeterAlan]

axman, on 2020-February-29, 09:33, said:

Now consider 'run the clubs.' The nature of the statement imputes from the top. 'run' has the effect of asserting that each club will win its trick; thus the quantity of clubs is a specific number of tricks asserted to be won. That comports with a claim of those tricks as provided by 68A.

No. Even on your pedantic terms, this is not true.

Let's agree (despite my differing from you on the meaning of 'impute', which does not mean 'imply') that 'run the clubs' means from the top. That does not have 'the effect of asserting that each club will win its trick': for example, dummy may hold ♣AKQ2 and declarer intends to endplay a defender with the 2.

[barmar]

PeterAlan, on 2020-March-02, 02:20, said:

No. Even on your pedantic terms, this is not true.

Let's agree (despite my differing from you on the meaning of 'impute', which does not mean 'imply') that 'run the clubs' means from the top. That does not have 'the effect of asserting that each club will win its trick': for example, dummy may hold ♣AKQ2 and declarer intends to endplay a defender with the 2.

Have you ever actually heard a player use the word "run" in a situation like that?

It may technically fit the definition, but it's simply not how anyone thinks about the term.

[PeterAlan]

barmar, on 2020-March-02, 10:37, said:

Have you ever actually heard a player use the word "run" in a situation like that?

It may technically fit the definition, but it's simply not how anyone thinks about the term.

I agree, but that wasn't my point - I was merely constructing a counter-example to one of the steps in axman's chain of 'logic' in his absurd assertion about it being a claim.

[axman]

PeterAlan, on 2020-March-02, 02:20, said:

No. Even on your pedantic terms, this is not true.

Let's agree (despite my differing from you on the meaning of 'impute', which does not mean 'imply') that 'run the clubs' means from the top. That does not have 'the effect of asserting that each club will win its trick': for example, dummy may hold ♣AKQ2 and declarer intends to endplay a defender with the 2.

Well, from the top refers to order.

'Run' refers to the 'progression of turns' encompassed by the number of clubs. It is the progression of turns taken when the instruction 'run the clubs' is given. Run presumes that the first card wins the trick so that the 2nd card wins the trick, etc. It is the formulation of law that says it is a claim of those tricks.