Is this a claim?

[Cascade]

Declarer has

 

♣ Kx and at least one trump - all other trumps have been drawn.

 

Clubs have never been played. Dummy has no significant cards.

 

LHO is on lead.

 

Declarer looks at LHO and says "I was thinking of claiming."

 

Is this a claim?

 

This induces LHO a relatively inexperienced junior to face her ♣ A thus allowing declarer to win the ♣ K and his contract.

 

LHO has an alternative safe exit which declarer will have to ruff and lead from his ♣ Kx

[NickRW]

Declarer looks at LHO and says "I was thinking of claiming."

 

Is this a claim?

It is a statement describing declarer's state of mind - so no.

[Free]

Declarer looks at LHO and says "I was thinking of claiming."

 

Is this a claim?

It is a statement describing declarer's state of mind - so no.

He was thinking of claiming, he's not anymore... So ask him if he's going to claim or not?

[Cyberyeti]

Declarer looks at LHO and says "I was thinking of claiming."

 

Is this a claim?

It is a statement describing declarer's state of mind - so no.

It's clearly not a claim, however it is coffee housing which declarer knows could adversely affect the opponents, hence I'd adjust.

 

There are bits of 74B/C and 12A that might apply.

 

It's not clear whether in 74C "indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed" applies to one that has not been started (declarer said claim not concede, so the implication is that he was claiming at least 1).

[mrdct]

Yet again no hand, no auction, no jurisdiction, etc. but this is totally, unambiguously, clearly, obviously and incontrovertibly a claim.

 

Having been a victim of this sort of nonsense before, it's time to stand-up for Law 68A "a contestant claims when he suggests that play be curtailed".

 

Cards played after the claim is made are disregarded, and we rule favourably for the non-claiming side.

[Cyberyeti]

Yet again no hand, no auction, no jurisdiction, etc. but this is totally, unambiguously, clearly, obviously and incontrovertibly a claim.

 

Having been a victim of this sort of nonsense before, it's time to stand-up for Law 68A "a contestant claims when he suggests that play be curtailed".

 

Cards played after the claim is made are disregarded, and we rule favourably for the non-claiming side.

It's clearly not a claim (68A):

 

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of

tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests

that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably

did not intend to claim – for example, if declarer faces his cards after an

opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

 

He has not suggested play might be curtailed, he has suggested that he might have suggested that play be curtailed. Pedantic point, same effect, restitution under different laws.

[mycroft]

"okay, go ahead then."

 

My standard answer to "I can claim/don't think too hard/..." (varying slightly to match the comment). Then, unless declarer does claim, I go back to working out the hand.

[mrdct]

"okay, go ahead then."

 

My standard answer to "I can claim/don't think too hard/..." (varying slightly to match the comment).  Then, unless declarer does claim, I go back to working out the hand.

Perhaps a better standard response is, "are you suggesting that play be curtailed"? Then, if they say "yes" they won't have a leg to stand on when the director comes to the table to determine whether or not a claim has been been.

 

When declarer looks at LHO and says "I was thinking of claiming" what else ciould he be suggesting other than that play be curtailed? Law 68A purposefully uses the word "suggests" and this situation looks tailor-made for it.

[Cascade]

I didn't think the jurisdiction mattered. It seemed to be just an interpretation.

 

It happened last week in New Zealand in the mixed pairs. I was the other defender at the table.

 

I thought this was coffee housing and our only course for redress would be based on a deceptive remark that declarer could have known would work to his advantage.

 

At the time I wasn't sure if my partner had misdefended or been deceived by the opponent's comment. At the end of the round after the opponents had gone I checked with her and she said she was annoyed by his comment. There was one round to go to the end of the session so I said I would talk with the director at the end of the session.

 

The director listened to our complaint and went away to consult and I presume talk to the opponents.

 

Eventually when he came back I was surprised when he said the directors had decided that the statement made constituted a claim based on the word "suggested" and that play had ceased and we were awarded an additional trick.

 

When i looked at the wording in the laws last night I was not sure that the statement really constituted a claim hence I posted here.

[jdonn]

I feel very strongly this is not a claim though I still would adjust in your favor. I can not believe "I was thinking of claiming" should be interpreted identically to "I claim".

 

I have been in the exact same situation before (probably even worse - the statement against me was a clear "it doesn't matter what you do") and I (wrongly) did not receive a favorable ruling. The director told me I should have played on unless declarer claimed. Frankly that just seems rude and obnoxious to me when he tells me it doesn't matter what I do, but later it dawned on me. What I will do next time in that situation is ask declarer if I can look into his hand. If he objects, well then he can wait for me to think about it.

[karlson]

What I will do next time in that situation is ask declarer if I can look into his hand. If he objects, well then he can wait for me to think about it.

That's what I do. If they make noise, I just tell them to show their hand.

 

In other news, when I hear someone say "Are you suggesting play be curtailed?" with a completely straight face, I will know I have finally met mrdct.

[mrdct]

The situation of declarer trying to hurry-up the defenders because it's obvious to him how the hand is going to play-out is exactly what Law 68A was designed to capture as a claim.

 

Quite overtly in the Laws you don't need to say you are claiming and you don't need to show your hand; all you need to do is suggest that play be curtailed. To my mind any comment by declarer along the lines of: "it doesn't matter what you do", "I wouldn't think too long on this one if I was you", etc. are clearly claims under Law 68A.

 

Josh's rationale of "I was thinking of claiming" should not be interpreted identically to "I claim" is irrelevant. The real question is can the statement "I was thinking of claiming" be reasonably interpreted as "I suggest play be curtailed".

 

I think pretty much anything coming out of declarer's mouth that indicates a desire to hurry things along is a suggestion to curtail play and should be dealt with as a claim.

[blackshoe]

I feel very strongly this is not a claim though I still would adjust in your favor. I can not believe "I was thinking of claiming" should be interpreted identically to "I claim".

On what basis would you adjust?

[bluejak]

Misleading remarks, Law 73.

[mrdct]

On what basis would you adjust?

If we aren't treating it as a claim, it's very obviously a Law 73F situation:

 

73F. Violation of Proprieties

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

[jdonn]

Josh's rationale of "I was thinking of claiming" should not be interpreted identically to "I claim" is irrelevant. The real question is can the statement "I was thinking of claiming" be reasonably interpreted as "I suggest play be curtailed".

My rationale is perfectly relevant. If "I claim" means "I suggest play be curtailed" then "I was thinking of claiming" means "I was thinking of suggesting play be curtailed" which does not mean "I suggest play be curtailed".

[mrdct]

The statement "I claim" includes but does not mean "I suggest play be curtailed".

 

A suggestion that play be curtailed can come in many shapes and sizes, and to my mind would include:

 

"It doesn't make any difference what you do";

"Don't bother thinking too hard about this";

"I think I've got the rest";

"I was thinking of claiming".

 

The laws clearly contemplate claims being made without uttering the C-word nor showing one's hand. Pretty much any gratuitous comment implying a desire, belief or intent to bring proceedings to an end sooner rather than later is a claim.

[blackshoe]

That's one opinion. Might be right, might not. Me, I'm not so sure.

[mrdct]

That's one opinion. Might be right, might not. Me, I'm not so sure.

Well can you give me some examples of potential comments by declarer that you would consider a suggestion that play be curtailed for the purposes of Law 68A?

[blackshoe]

What I'm saying is that there are likely to be statements that fit your criterion that do not constitute claims, so giving you examples of statements that do constitute claims is probably not going to be much help.

 

And right at the moment I should be asleep, so I don't have any examples of not-claims at my fingertips.

[barmar]

People say things for a reason, they don't just blurt out irrelevant facts.

 

What do you think the point of his statement was, if not equivalent to one of those other ways that people usually suggest that play be curtailed?

 

I suppose he could mean "I was thinking of claiming, but I changed my mind." But why would a declarer tell the opponents that while the play is in progress? This interpretation generally only makes sense during the post mortem.

[Trinidad]

Josh's rationale of "I was thinking of claiming" should not be interpreted identically to "I claim" is irrelevant.  The real question is can the statement "I was thinking of claiming" be reasonably interpreted as "I suggest play be curtailed".

My rationale is perfectly relevant. If "I claim" means "I suggest play be curtailed" then "I was thinking of claiming" means "I was thinking of suggesting play be curtailed" which does not mean "I suggest play be curtailed".

That is not entirely true. Claiming can mean more things, the obvious one being "making a statement about the amount of tricks you win and how you do that".

 

That means that "I was thinking of claiming" could mean "I was thinking of making a statement about the amount of tricks I win and how I do that". That last meaning is certainly a suggestion that play should be curtailed and hence the statement would be a claim.

 

That's at least how I think Escher would reason. ;)

 

Rik

[helene_t]

It's clearly not a claim, however it is coffee housing which declarer knows could adversely affect the opponents, hence I'd adjust.

I think that is a sensible approach. Dunno if I would go so far as to adjust, though. Depends maybe on the likelihood that declarer would make the contract anyway without the defender showing his hand. But at least I would have a talk with declarer about it, trying to prevent this from happening again.

[qwery_hi]

This incident happened when I was relatively new to bridge -

 

One time I landed in 3NT, doubled by LHO and before leading, she remarked to her partner "He's going down (just) like before". I remember being annoyed by this, and after the tournament asked one of the directors at my club what I should have done. She said that she would treat that statement as a claim, and ask LHO to describe her line of play.

 

Edit : Background was I had played the previous hand in a silly 3NT contract that went down quite a few.

[aguahombre]

On what basis would you adjust?

If we aren't treating it as a claim, it's very obviously a Law 73F situation:

 

73F. Violation of Proprieties

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

It certainly was the easy way out, for the actual director to rule it a claim. With play curtailed, no Ace of clubs was played and the defenders got their two tricks.

 

If he went the 73F route, he would have to determine effect of the coffee housing before making the same adjustment. The wording in 73F seems to require a determination that the defender has drawn a false inference ---not that the defender's play might have been influenced by.....

 

A tougher standard, I think.