when is a claim a claim?

[bluejak]

I never trust anyone who claims to be an authority. The authorities I have faith in are those where other people decide they are authorities.

[axman]

This is covered by a WBF LC minute and the EBU White Book. (Why is it always clubs? :))

Suppose declarer instructs dummy to “run the clubs”. Declarer may change this instruction at a later trick, and a card from dummy may be changed until declarer’s RHO plays to the trick. At this point the card becomes played. Note that the Committee does not approve of the procedure of declarer naming several cards simultaneously in this fashion.

46.1 “Run the clubs”

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 73F2 might be in order.

Robin

I was/am not contesting that players, when they say, ‘run the clubs’ typically intend to play clubs [even from the top].

However, I thought that it is clear that when such phase is used, it carries with it the expectation that such tricks will be won forthwith. Consequently I thought it clear that such tricks are future tricks for the current hand. Yet, the custom/ tradition of treating such a statement as an instruction TO play rather than recognize additionally that it satisfies the L68A conditions that a claim has occurred has resulted in players and TDs long being in conflict with the law.

 

Thus, I was pointing out that with respect to L68A their 'intention' is irrelevant.

 

As for the LC minute supporting such notion of custom and tradition I fail to find a basis** in law for it

 

** as in it conflicts with law; had the LC stated that such a statement constituted a claim, then there would have been no ‘need’ to comment ‘Note that the Committee does not approve of the procedure of declarer naming several cards simultaneously in this fashion.’

[barmar]

The reason "run the clubs" isn't necessarily a claim is because it doesn't say what you plan to do after you finish running the clubs. It would only be a claim if dummy were down to only clubs and trumps are all gone.

 

It's not uncommon to run a long suit in dummy, and have to keep an eye on the opponents' discards, perhaps to execute a squeeze. Unless you get things right, you can't be sure of how many total tricks you're going to win, so you can't claim.

[bluejak]

If you want to argue that the WBFLC instruction is in conflict with the Law because of the exact wording, this is not the forum for it: try BLML, it is their sort of question.

 

Here we give advice on how to rule, and when the WBFLC has made a pronouncement, we follow it, as any good TD should.

 

Players should not say "Run the clubs", but they do. When they do, as a matter of Law and interpretation, it means play the next top card and continue to do so unless instructed otherwise. As a matter of Law, interpretation and commonsense, it is not a claim. As a matter of interpretation and commonsense, if something unexpected happens they cannot be held to this instruction but may stop running the clubs. As a matter of Law and interpretation, if an opponent has been damaged by the belief that his opponent is running all the clubs, an adjusted score may be given.

[axman]

Players should not say "Run the clubs", but they do. 

 

In such a case should it be ruled properly that a claim has occurred, then I would expect it unlikely that such player would ever do it again. Nor would anyone who became aware of the ruling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying that something is an interpretation of law is not sufficient for it to be so, as in the case when the so called interpretation is not based in law [or is in conflict with law]. And because there are consequences from a ruling predicated on a so called interpretation that is not valid, I would think that it is something that is worthwhile to raise to the attention of others, particularly when others have cited it as authority.

 

That players and directors have been getting it wrong for decades merely means that they have been getting it wrong for decades.

[blackshoe]

Nine years ago, the WBFLC implicitly interpreted the law in such a way that "run the clubs" (or whatever suit) is deemed not to be a claim. While Axeman's logic makes a lot of sense to me, it is nonetheless true that we have this existing interpretation. We can take one of two positions, it seems to me: {a} we have the interpretation, the statement is not a claim, play continues. Declarer may abort the run at any time and issue new instructions to declarer, or {b} "run the clubs" meets the criteria of Law 68. The statement is a claim of however many tricks are included in "run the clubs", and a concession (by default, because the player didn't claim them) of the remaining tricks. The claim shall be adjudicated by the TD. Now, while it may seem to some that {b} is "better" in several ways (for one thing, it does not involve a demonstrably incorrect interpretation of the law), {a} is in fact the official interpretation. One might hope that the WBFLC will see the error of its ways and correct the interpretation, but until that happens {a}, however wrong it may be, is the law of the land. So it seems to me, anyway.

[pran]

Nine years ago, the WBFLC implicitly interpreted the law in such a way that "run the clubs" (or whatever suit) is deemed not to be a claim. While Axeman's logic makes a lot of sense to me, it is nonetheless true that we have this existing interpretation. We can take one of two positions, it seems to me: {a} we have the interpretation, the statement is not a claim, play continues. Declarer may abort the run at any time and issue new instructions to declarer, or {b} "run the clubs" meets the criteria of Law 68. The statement is a claim of however many tricks are included in "run the clubs", and a concession (by default, because the player didn't claim them) of the remaining tricks. The claim shall be adjudicated by the TD. Now, while it may seem to some that {b} is "better" in several ways (for one thing, it does not involve a demonstrably incorrect interpretation of the law), {a} is in fact the official interpretation. One might hope that the WBFLC will see the error of its ways and correct the interpretation, but until that happens {a}, however wrong it may be, is the law of the land. So it seems to me, anyway.

I agree with (a) above, but I do so for the following reason (which I assume also was the foundation for the WBFLC interpretation):

 

"Run the clubs" is literally not a statement to the effect that the player will win a specific number of the remaining tricks. It is simply a command to Dummy that he shall play a certain set of cards.

 

Declarer is in fact even free to use this command for instance when a defender holds the highest outstanding card in the named suit, implying that he may use that card at whatever time it pleases him.

 

Therefore this statement fails to meet the fundamental definition of a claim as given in Law 68: A. Claim Defined. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks

 

I also disagree that players should avoid saying "run the clubs". This is a perfect and unambiguous command from Declarer to Dummy with the (as far as i know of) commonly agreed understanding that each lead from Dummy should be made with the highest available card in the named suit. The only questionable point is that Dummy must be prepared to stop "running" the suit, either on command from Declarer or when/if Dummy no longer has the lead.

[bluejak]

axman, the fact that you consider the WBFLC is wrong is not relevant to this forum: go argue with them. It is not a claim, and this is not a suitable forum for arguing otherwise. Of course, one might argue that where the top World authorities, the Regulatory Authorities in various countries, TDs, ACs, custom & practice, logic, and everything else say one thing, and you say a different thing, it is within the bounds of possibility that you are not correct. But suppose you are? It does not matter: this is not a forum to argue that the WBFLC does not understand the Law, so please leave such arguments out of this forum.