Line of Play?

[aguahombre]

At the clubs, we have given up the aggravation of claiming unless we can set up all winners in one hand or the other. Then we can either lay down declarer hand and say, "these are all good tricks", or go to dummy and say "I can't get off the board".

 

This doesn't stop us from folding up our hands on defense and conceding when declarer is stringing us out.

[bluejak]

I'm saying average players don't like claims (my experience).

 

In fact I think that mostly they are confused by claims, made typically by stronger players, and probably they should almost always call the TD.

 

Some people may be surprised to know that many, particularly average, players expect the contract result to be demonstrated via play of the cards by declarer.

I think this is very unfair. It depends how the claims are made, and when I claim against weak players, they are not confused - and I claim more than any other player I know.

 

:ph34r:

 

In general threads here are not done as polls. If you want a poll you should say so. For example, when I read Frances’ post I thought I agreed with everything she said. So I did not post. So the failure of people to agree with Frances is quite likely because of the way threads here work, not that either people don’t know or don’t care.

 

In general, if someone posts a strong opinion, I generally post if [a] I disagree and I have not already said so. If I agree, or have already made the opposite point I do not see the need to post again.

[hrothgar]

This isn't a matter of opinion, the Law is quite clear that a statement of play is required.

 

That's why the discussion has devolved into the level of detail that's required in the statement.

 

Because the Laws have little to do with bridge?

[jh51]

It seems to me that the completeness of stating one's line of play depends upon the obviousness of the situation. For example, in a recent event I held AQ of trump, and RHO was on lead and was known to hold Kx of trump (LHO had shown out earlier). Before he lead I exposed my cards and they immediately conceeded.

 

If there is any doubt on the line, I immediately explain.

 

The most common "penalty' for failing to state your line seems to be having the claim overturned by the director.

[blackshoe]

The laws require that the benefit of any doubt as to the line of play be given to claimer's opponents. As annoying as failure to state a line can be to some players and directors, that should usually be sufficient. A procedural penalty is possible, of course, but should be rare.

[Cascade]

Almost all my claims specify the complete line - which will include all winners, all ruffs (and the cards they are ruffing) and discards - the rest are pretty much all just following suit. How long does it take to say "three spades, throwing a club, ruff two hearts and then the AK of diamonds"? Not only is it required by law, it's also just polite. I've seen enough people who make non-trivial claims without a statement in a manner that's effectively bullying weaker players, who often concede without properly considering whether the claim is good.

 

Excellent post.

 

As an opponent it is not my job to work out how you plan to play your cards when you face them. Extremely, I have even seen situations in which the cards have not even been faced - folded up and returned to the board.

[blackshoe]

Yes, that's an extreme, Wayne, but to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen it except among experts. Perhaps the expectation is that everyone is an expert, so everyone knows what's going on. Still not right, of course. :huh:

[AlexJonson]

I think this is very unfair. It depends how the claims are made, and when I claim against weak players, they are not confused - and I claim more than any other player I know.

 

:ph34r:

 

In general threads here are not done as polls. If you want a poll you should say so. For example, when I read Frances’ post I thought I agreed with everything she said. So I did not post. So the failure of people to agree with Frances is quite likely because of the way threads here work, not that either people don’t know or don’t care.

 

In general, if someone posts a strong opinion, I generally post if [a] I disagree and I have not already said so. If I agree, or have already made the opposite point I do not see the need to post again.

e

 

I have to say, Bluejak, that I don't understand your post. I was making observations from personal experience, without you in mind at all.

 

It seems your experience is different, apparently because of excellent personal qualities of your own.

 

The Laws allow claiming - a simple fact - so either way you are entitled to claim as often as you wish. But no doubt if inexperienced players were suitably coached, they could call the TD whenever unsure about anyone's claim.

[mjj29]

Extremely, I have even seen situations in which the cards have not even been faced - folded up and returned to the board.

To which you should say "I accept your concession of all the rest of the tricks, so that's 9 off then" and when they argue and call the director ask him to read the section about 'abandoning the hand'. :)

[mjj29]

The Laws allow claiming - a simple fact - so either way you are entitled to claim as often as you wish. But no doubt if inexperienced players were suitably coached, they could call the TD whenever unsure about anyone's claim.

And if they are unsure about a claim they should call the TD. It's the responsibility of the claimer to make it clear how he has the rest of the tricks. Not calling the TD just gives better players the opportunity to (probably inadvertently) get away with duff claims. Claiming without a clear line in such a fashion as to discourage inexperienced opposition from objecting is tantamount to bullying and not acceptible.

[Cascade]

Yes, that's an extreme, Wayne, but to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen it except among experts. Perhaps the expectation is that everyone is an expert, so everyone knows what's going on. Still not right, of course. :huh:

 

From memory they were not experts and I have seen it a few times now. More like wanna be experts.

[mrdct]

To make it clear, yes the laws require you to accompany your claim "at once" with a "clear statement of the order the cards are to be played" (L68C). While it is an often-flouted and rarely-penalised law, it is still there and Mike Flader is wrong

I'm going to buck the trend here and say that Mike Flader (who I wouldn't know from a bar of soap) isn't necessarily wrong here. The selective quote from Law 68C used by several people in this thread is misleading and you need to look at the entirety of Law 68C, if not the entirety of Law 68.

 

C. Clarification Required for Claim

 

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

To comply with Law 68C you have three choices:

 

1. 
    
   
2. state the order in which cards will be played;
   
3. state the line of play; or
   
4. state the defence through which the claimer proposed to win the tricks claimed.
   

One of the more fun things to do as declarer is to claim on a squeeze or end-play where your claim statement might be something like, "you are end-played" as you face your hand. I haven't indicated the order in which cards will be played or stated the line of play as these will be dependent on what the defender does next; but I have stated the defence through which I'm going to win the rest of tricks. Accordingly, Mike Flanders is correct that it is not a "requirement" to state a line of play when claiming.

[blackshoe]

Your argument is flawed, because for starters, the clause "the line of play or defense" is the equivalent of "the line of play or the line of defense". "You are end-played" does not meet the criteria for the required statement.

 

If "line of play" refers to declarer's play, and "line of defense" refers to defender's play, then I suppose it is true that a "line of play" is not required of a defender — but a "line of defense" is.

 

Added afterthoughts: it seems to me that the requirement is for "a clear statement as to the order in which the cards will be played", and that "of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed" is intended to clarify the meaning of the earlier part.

Edited August 2, 2011 by blackshoe
afterthoughts

[mrdct]

Your argument is flawed, because for starters, the clause "the line of play or defense" is the equivalent of "the line of play or the line of defense".

There is a comma after "... card will be played" so under normal grammatical construction the "or" you refer to splits the Law 68C requirements into three separate options.

 

"You are end-played" does not meet the criteria for the required statement.

Yes it does. I am telling my opponents that the defence that they are now forced to embark on will result in me winning the rest of the tricks.

[gnasher]

Mrdct, your argument would be correct if the law read "statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or of the defence", but it doesn't. If we expand the sentence in the way that you seem to think it was intended, we get:

"clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played"

or

"clear statement of the line of play"

or

"clear statement defence"

 

Since "clear statement defence" is ungrammatical and meaningless, that's obviously not what was meant.

[bluejak]

To which you should say "I accept your concession of all the rest of the tricks, so that's 9 off then" and when they argue and call the director ask him to read the section about 'abandoning the hand'. :)

The TD will then fine you a well-deserved DP for wasting their time and his.

 

Yes, it is not good to claim in this way usually, though there are circumstances: the last time I did this everyone at the table knew I had already blown two tricks and was very annoyed with myself. Everyone except me thought it hilarious.

 

There are too many posts here assuming things not in evidence. If you claim without stating a line then either

• there is absolutely no need to state a line and everyone knows it, or
  
• it is a poor claim
  

Assuming one or the other without knowing the situation gets you nowhere.

 

Similarly, claiming without showing your cards can be

• perfectly legitimate: everyone knows your hand, or
  
• done to gain psychological points, which is illegal [sadly, I have played with a partner who did this], or
  
• a one-off event in a special situation, in which case we need to know the situation, or
  
• cheating: trying to get away with a bad claim
  

Again, without knowing the situation we do not know which.

[gnasher]

The TD will then fine you a well-deserved DP for wasting their time and his.

Is it wasting the TD's time to expect him to deal with an infraction?

 

Claiming without showing your hand is illegal, discourteous and sometimes intimidatory. The claimer implies that he expects you to trust him. A corollory is that to ask to see his hand implies that you doubt either his integrity or his analysis. It is invidious to place the defenders in such a position.

 

It also unfairly disadvantages the defenders: declarer knows what his hand was, but the defenders may not. Therefore declarer is better placed to judge how good the result was.

 

When someone claims like this against me, I usually just ask to see his hand. I'd like, however, to be able to call the director when this happens, without worrying that I might be fined for wasting police time.

[bluejak]

Certainly you can and should call the TD. It was the rest of mjj's post that was clearly wasting time.

 

When you offer two completely different situations [as you describe and as mjj describes] it should come as no surprise that I think the ruling should be different.

[mjj29]

Certainly you can and should call the TD. It was the rest of mjj's post that was clearly wasting time.

 

When you offer two completely different situations [as you describe and as mjj describes] it should come as no surprise that I think the ruling should be different.

In what way does returning your hand to the board without showing it and without making any kind of claim statement not fulfill "A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand" (L68B1)?

 

Regardless of the above I don't think it is ever correct procedure and is certainly always discourteous. (doing so to accede to an opponents claim or concession is clearly different).

[G_R__E_G]

The laws state that you "should" state your line of play. They do not state that you "must" state your line of play. As an example, yesterday I threw in LHO on trick 11 leaving me with the KJ of trump in my hand and the ace of trump gone (the Q was still out). I showed my hand a said that the last 2 tricks were mine. When you claim in this manner you are running the risk of the Director ruling against you by saying that you might play it incorrectly but claiming this way is not inherently a violation of the law. Mike is correct that you don't "have" to state a line of play but it's probably the smartest thing to do if there's any doubt at all - just ask Jimmy Cayne.

[mjj29]

The laws state that you "should" state your line of play. They do not state that you "must" state your line of play. As an example, yesterday I threw in LHO on trick 11 leaving me with the KJ of trump in my hand and the ace of trump gone (the Q was still out). I showed my hand a said that the last 2 tricks were mine. When you claim in this manner you are running the risk of the Director ruling against you by saying that you might play it incorrectly but claiming this way is not inherently a violation of the law. Mike is correct that you don't "have" to state a line of play but it's probably the smartest thing to do if there's any doubt at all - just ask Jimmy Cayne.

"Should" defines correct procedure; not doing it is an infraction (if rarely penalised). See the intro to the laws. It _is_ wrong not to state your line of play.

[G_R__E_G]

Ok, if you say so. Until they upgrade the "should" to at least a "shall" I'm going to keep doing it my way. Even at the "shall" level I might not change. Now "must" - that I would respect.

[jh51]

"Should" defines correct procedure; not doing it is an infraction (if rarely penalised). See the intro to the laws. It _is_ wrong not to state your line of play.

 

I guess what some of us are having an issue with is that at times a detailed explanation might take longer than actually playing out the hand. For example, last night my last 7 cards were 4 good trump (the other 9 had been played) and 3 minor suit cards. Dummy had AK in one minor, A in the other and 4 other non-trump. I was on lead and faced my hand stating that I would win the 3 honor tricks in dummy, leaving me with 4 good trump. Did I really need to go into more detail?

 

In my prior post where I had AQ of trump and the opponent on lead was known to have Kx, do I really need to explain that I whatever he leads I will play the lowest trump that tops his?

[mjj29]

I guess what some of us are having an issue with is that at times a detailed explanation might take longer than actually playing out the hand. For example, last night my last 7 cards were 4 good trump (the other 9 had been played) and 3 minor suit cards. Dummy had AK in one minor, A in the other and 4 other non-trump. I was on lead and faced my hand stating that I would win the 3 honor tricks in dummy, leaving me with 4 good trump. Did I really need to go into more detail?

And saying "I'm going to win the three honours in dummy and then the 4 trumps in hand" is a clear statement of the line of play and doesn't take any time at all

 

In my prior post where I had AQ of trump and the opponent on lead was known to have Kx, do I really need to explain that I whatever he leads I will play the lowest trump that tops his?

"I'll cover whatever you lead and the other one is good"?

 

Sure, when it comes down to only two cards it usually is clear and nothing needs to be said - but on the other hand, it's not exactly hard to state a line anyway.

[jallerton]

To make it clear, yes the laws require you to accompany your claim "at once" with a "clear statement of the order the cards are to be played" (L68C). While it is an often-flouted and rarely-penalised law, it is still there and Mike Flader is wrong

 

Can anyone recall a claim at their table where declarer has stated exactly which specific cards he intends to play to every remaining trick from both his own hand and dummy?

 

I very rarely say "They're all good" - instead I'll say "dummy has 3 good spades, two hearts and a club". I might in very obvious situations say "crossruff", but I'm more likely to say "I can ruff the spades on table and the hearts in hand" - which while not strictly in the correct order, since I need to cross back and forth, it does at least specify clearly what's happenning to each card...

 

That's my point. Not even you comply with the strict wording of Law 68C. You do not make a "clear statement of the order cards are to be played". Granted, you may a clear statement as to how you propose to make the number of tricks claimed (and your claim statements are probably more detailed than 99% of claims made by other people), but you do not specify the order.

 

So to answer Ed's original question, strictly speaking Mike Flader is incorrect; but in practice it is accepted by virtually all players that complete claim statements are not necessary.