[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-28, 10:47, said:

"incontrovertible" is a very high standard. I believe this should only be invoked in very obvious circumstances. Like the player is clearly running a suit, and forgets to say "high" one time.

This brings up an interesting question: is "run the suit" a claim? It certainly suggests that he expects to win a specific number of tricks - those in the suit.

[billw55]

I would interpret "run the suit" as an instruction to dummy to play that suit from the top down, until gone (or until it isn't dummy's lead anymore), at which point declarer will resume playing cards in the normal fashion. Not sure if this would be legal, but I would have no trouble understanding it.

I guess it could be taken as a claim if there is some accompanying indication, such as facing or folding cards in hand, etc.

[aguahombre]

It is defined as a claim, but not a claim which curtails play. Declarer can choose to stop running the suit as well, so it doesn't seem to matter what we call it.

[gnasher]

From http://www.worldbrid...000Bermuda2.pdf

WBFLC minutes said:

Being aware that declarers sometimes give an instruction to Dummy to run a suit and then leave him to do this without giving, as is procedurally correct, a separate instruction for each card. A question can arise as to when the second, or a later, card is played from dummy, since the Declarer is not able to stop play of the card once it is played. The Committee ruled that the card is deemed to be played when Declarer's RHO follows to the trick. However, the committee deprecates instructions given to Dummy in this irregular manner.

Evidently they don't consider it to be a claim.

In England, we also have this regulation:

EBU White Book said:

Declarers do say this when running a long suit in dummy. It is no more than a statement of intent, however, and declarer cannot be held to it. For example, if declarer finds to his surprise that they are not all winners he is allowed to change to an alternative line.

If it is felt that an opponent was misled then an adjustment via Law 73F may be in order.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-January-28, 12:07

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-28, 11:55, said:

It is defined as a claim, but not a claim which curtails play. Declarer can choose to stop running the suit as well, so it doesn't seem to matter what we call it.

Is it defined as a claim? Law 68 says that a claim is a "statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks". When running a suit, you're expressing the expectation that you'll win at least the tricks in that suit, but that's not a "specific number of tricks" because it doesn't say what will happen subsequent.

And the EBU interpretation is that you're allowed to tell dummy to stop running the suit if something unexpected happens, so it isn't even a claim of all the tricks in that suit.

[aguahombre]

What 68 says is that any claim to the effect that we will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of "those tricks". That type of claim, which does not curtail play, has been rendered moot...pretty much relegated to the status of a boast, because we can stop the command to run a suit any time during the process unless a particular trick is in progress (next hand having played to that trick). AFAIK, ACBL practice in this regard is the same as EBU.

[blackshoe]

Thanks, Andy for pointing out that WBFLC minute, which I had forgotten.

barmar, on 2013-January-28, 15:51, said:

Is it defined as a claim? Law 68 says that a claim is a "statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks". When running a suit, you're expressing the expectation that you'll win at least the tricks in that suit, but that's not a "specific number of tricks" because it doesn't say what will happen subsequent.

And the EBU interpretation is that you're allowed to tell dummy to stop running the suit if something unexpected happens, so it isn't even a claim of all the tricks in that suit.

"A specific number of tricks" is exactly what it says, and if declarer expects to win the N tricks in the suit he's running, that's for damn sure a specific number. The fact that it doesn't say anything about the rest of the tricks is irrelevant, for as Law 68B1 defines, "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the rest, if any".

Given the minute, the EBU interpretation, and the fact that I suspect there would be Hell to pay if a TD ruled it was a claim, I would say that technically it is a claim, but this is one of those times where we don't rule according to what the law says, but according to "custom and practice". I don't like it, but there it is.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-28, 20:24, said:

What 68 says is that any claim to the effect that we will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of "those tricks". That type of claim, which does not curtail play, has been rendered moot...pretty much relegated to the status of a boast, because we can stop the command to run a suit any time during the process unless a particular trick is in progress (next hand having played to that trick). AFAIK, ACBL practice in this regard is the same as EBU.

I don't see where in the laws it says that "this type of claim does not curtail play". AFAICS, all claims by declarer curtail play. The only claims that don't curtail play are claim-and-concessions by a defender, and then only when his partner immediately objects. I stand by what I said just above: technically it's a claim, play ceases, the TD adjudicates, but custom and practice says otherwise.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-28, 20:49, said:

Given the minute, the EBU interpretation, and the fact that I suspect there would be Hell to pay if a TD ruled it was a claim, I would say that technically it is a claim, but this is one of those times where we don't rule according to what the law says, but according to "custom and practice". I don't like it, but there it is.

I find it a bit annoying when declarers say "run the suit", but I don't think it's a big deal compared to other annoying things opponents do. Do you?

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-28, 11:32, said:

This brings up an interesting question: is "run the suit" a claim? It certainly suggests that he expects to win a specific number of tricks - those in the suit.

Sometimes a player instructs dummy to play a card with the unorthodox instruction "win it". That phrasing also contains the implication that declarer expects to win a certain number of tricks, precisely one, being the present trick. But surely no one would suggest that declarer is, in his mind, doing anything like making a claim. Or indeed that it is desirable to interpret it as a claim. Of course the instruction "win it" can be some kind of an abuse, especially if it looks like declarer is making use of dummy's judgment, but there are other ways of addressing that than treating it as a claim. Even the entirely legal instruction "play the Ace of trumps" could even be construed as containing the implication that declarer expects to win the trick.

I think that to be a claim, you need to be rather more explicitly saying something about the whole of the rest of the hand, rather than merely implying through your phraseology that you think that certain cards are winners (and it isn't even 100% clear that "run teh suit" implies that because we all know sometimes suits don't run).

Most of the time, when a player claims, we know it because he is plainly intending to claim. The only reason for extending the definition of claim to some occasions where a player wasn't really intending to claim, or at least not claim properly, is becaues the player is abusing the situation. This is usually a situation where declarer is tempting the opponents to concede by implying that there isn't much to the remaining play, but hoping to avoid the responsibilities that come with a proper claim. But I think stretching claims to situations which are nothing like claims is bridge-lawyering beyond the call.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-29, 05:07, said:

I find it a bit annoying when declarers say "run the suit"

It is even more annoying when you are in a foreign country and (known to be) a non-native speaker and Declarer issues the instruction. You can end up sitting there a long time waiting for Declarer's next designation.

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-29, 07:42, said:

It is even more annoying when you are in a foreign country and (known to be) a non-native speaker and Declarer issues the instruction. You can end up sitting there a long time waiting for Declarer's next designation.

If dummy thinks they don't have to move each card to the played position in succession when the instruction "run the suit" is given, they are mistaken. Whilst WBFLC instructions say that when the instruction "run the suit" is given, dummy's successive card is deemed played when RHO plays, this is to prevent declarer from changing his mind about running the suit (as he may) after he has seen RHO's card; it is no relief upon dummy's wider responsibility to place the card in the played position. In general a card once designated must be played, but the act of playing the card is not complete until dummy moves the card to the played position. So I think it is always legal, and moreover wise, to wait for dummy to do this, even when declarer is using more orthodox designation. Because if dummy moves a card to the played position, and you then play a card, then you have some degree of protection when declarer later asserts he did not designate the card that dummy put in the played position.

[jeffford76]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-29, 07:18, said:

Sometimes a player instructs dummy to play a card with the unorthodox instruction "win it". That phrasing also contains the implication that declarer expects to win a certain number of tricks, precisely one, being the present trick.

It's pretty much guaranteed if I say this that I am not expecting to win the trick and that dummy has a singleton. We all have our quirks.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-29, 05:07, said:

I find it a bit annoying when declarers say "run the suit", but I don't think it's a big deal compared to other annoying things opponents do. Do you?

No.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-29, 07:18, said:

Sometimes a player instructs dummy to play a card with the unorthodox instruction "win it". That phrasing also contains the implication that declarer expects to win a certain number of tricks, precisely one, being the present trick. But surely no one would suggest that declarer is, in his mind, doing anything like making a claim.

Of course not. Law 68 specifies that to be a claim it must refer to tricks other than the current trick.

[barmar]

"Play the trump Ace" is also a statement to the effect that you'll win that specific trick. Would even a SB contend that this is a claim?

I'm with iviehoff that the intent of the claim definition is that you're stating a specific number of all the remaining tricks. Custom also allows for conditional claims, where you state something like "I'll win X tricks if the finesse is on, Y tricks otherwise." But I don't think "I'll win X spade tricks and then figure out how to play the rest", which is essentially what's being said when you run the spades (ignoring the possibility of halting the run) counts as stating a specific number of tricks to be won -- it's just a minimum number.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-28, 20:53, said:

I don't see where in the laws it says that "this type of claim does not curtail play". AFAICS, all claims by declarer curtail play.

"AFAICS" is interesting. We don't have to look further than 68A. Claim Defined to get the answer.

The first sentence covers "run the suit". It is a statement to the effect that dummy will win a specific number of tricks if the suit is in fact run, and thus is a claim of those tricks.

The second sentence says "A contestant ALSO claims when he suggests that play be curtailed..." This would imply that play is not curtailed by the mere show of intention to play some winners.

[campboy]

I don't think it is a statement that he will win a specific number of tricks, since the number of tricks he will win has not been specified. He might win some more after dummy has finished running the suit.

[blackshoe]

specify: verb. Identify clearly and definitely. It is clear and definite to all at the table that dummy has N cards in the suit. Therefore 'run the suit' is a claim of N tricks. If there are M tricks remaining, M>N, then by 68B1, 'run the suit' is a concession of the remaining M-N tricks. I suppose you might argue that declarer can't possibly mean to do that, but the law as written does not care.

I stand by my reading of the law, and also by my statement that "custom and practice" says the law doesn't mean what it says. Again.

[bluejak]

No, it is not a claim. Yes, it is annoying. No, it is not as annoying as having to wait for some prat who is looking for his pen so he can write down the contract before he leads before I can find out what is in dummy: writing on a score-card that he will throw away unread at the end of the session.