[sanst]

axman, on 2020-March-03, 11:30, said:

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.

Why you insist that “run the clubs” constitutes a claim, is incomprehensible to me. It isn’t a claim and nobody but you thinks so. It doesn’t say so in the laws and besides, it’s not a statement ‘claiming’ a specific number of tricks. It’s not proper procedure but it’s understandable. At least in the jurisdiction I’m in you can stop the dummy when you notice that the suit doesn’t break. It’s considered not to be a normal line of play to continue the suit if it doesn’t run and the declarer makes clear that he has noticed this.

[barmar]

I think this discussion is mostly a waste of time.

Everyone has always understood a claim to be claiming the total number of tricks that will be won or lost, possibly with conditions applied (e.g. "2 or 3 tricks depending on whether the finesse succeeds"). Despite the fact that the wording doesn't say it clearly, no one considers saying that you're going to win a certain number of tricks in the middle of the hand to be a claim.

If you want to suggest that the language more clearly describe what everyone understands, that belongs in the "Changing Laws" forum. But nothing said here is going to convince anyone that telling dummy to run a suit constitutes a claim.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2020-March-01, 12:15, said:

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.

And that is the issue with the question in the OP (and many, many more) about whether declarer can stop.

If declarer says "run the clubs", I can work out my 5 discards, and play them in the order that may be most deceptive to her. Ah, but declarer then decides she'll stop after the Q...

Declarer is giving defenders a false impression of the play, with no consequence to her if she later decides to go back on it. This, if not illegal under 72D2 or 74C3 (or at least "similar to the example in 74C3"), is certainly worth "deprecating".

I would be very happy with equating "run the clubs" with "top club, please"; I would be very happy with "run the clubs" being a commitment. What we have now is absolutely a shock to the defenders the first time "actually, stop, please" happens to them, and I find "surprise" rulings like this uncomfortable.

[pran]

To have one (important) question clarified by those who understand "run the clubs" to be a claim:

Declarer says "run the clubs", There are five clubs in Dummy but for whatever reason the third of them is won by a defender.

Shall Declarer be ruled to having led the fourth club out of turn from Dummy?

If not, then he must also be allowed (for whatever reason) to change his mind after playing the second club and play a different suit from Dummy (instead of leading the third club)!