Line of Play?

[Cascade]

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.

 

I am lost.

 

Is the consensus that "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."

 

does not mean that the "order in which cards will be played" and "the line of play" are not alternatives.

 

The language is confusing but it always seemed to me that these were alternatives and "defence" was there to cater for defensive claims.

[mjj29]

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.

You don't think they count as "The line of play" ?

[jallerton]

I am lost.

 

Is the consensus that "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."

 

does not mean that the "order in which cards will be played" and "the line of play" are not alternatives.

 

The language is confusing but it always seemed to me that these were alternatives and "defence" was there to cater for defensive claims.

 

Law 68C does NOT say "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, or of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed."

 

Maybe that's what it ought to say, but we have to use the wording of the Laws as written.

 

In the actual wording, the "of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed" clause does not release the claimer from his requirement to accompany the claim "at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played".

[barmar]

Is that sentence in 68C even grammatically correct as written?

 

Every time I see it, I can't help thinking that "of" is a typo for "or". I've gotten so used to auto-correcting spelling/grammar errors on the Internet.

[WellSpyder]

Is that sentence in 68C even grammatically correct as written?

 

Every time I see it, I can't help thinking that "of" is a typo for "or". I've gotten so used to auto-correcting spelling/grammar errors on the Internet.

I think it is pointless to argue about exactly what the words as written actually mean since there is no way accurately to parse the sentence - as you suggest it is not grammatically correct whatever it is suppose to mean. Either the "of" should be "or" or there should be an additional "of" before the existing "or". So let's interpret it in a common sense way and accept that it is acceptable to provide a line of play without a precise order of cards, provided that it does not lead to any ambiguity that might affect the number of tricks taken.

[gordontd]

- as you suggest it is not grammatically correct whatever it is suppose to mean.

It doesn't seem grammatically incorrect to me, even though its intended meaning is not very clear.

[WellSpyder]

It doesn't seem grammatically incorrect to me, even though its intended meaning is not very clear.

Oh, sorry, perhaps I should have been more careful to explain why I said this. So here goes, with apologies to those for whom this is entirely tedious....

 

I think it is grammatically acceptable when you have a list preceded by a preposition either to put the preposition before the first item of the list only, or before each item of the list. But it doesn't make sense to put the preposition before some of the items but not all. To take a random example, I could say "I am thinking about a, b, c and d" or "I am thinking about a, about b, about c and about d". But if I said "I am thinking about a, about b, and c and about d" then I would argue that this is three sets of thoughts, one of which is a another of which is b and c, and the third of which is d, rather than four separate sets of thoughts.

 

In the actual sentence we are trying to parse, "as to" is equivalent to "of". So a statement is required "of a, of b or c", which doesn't make sense because it reads like a list of two alternatives without a conjunction between them. If it means EITHER a OR (b OR C) then it should read "of a, or of b or c". If it means any one of a, b, or c then it could read "of a, b or c" or it could read "of a, of b or of c".

[bluejak]

Perhaps we might remember this is not BLML, and the aim is to help people give and understand rulings. It is expected that claims are accompanied by an adequate explanation: if declarer has four winning trumps and no other cards putting his hand down without comment is an adequate explanation. The grammar behind this does not matter.

 

If the explanation leads to doubt it is inadequate and is liable to get a ruling in favour for the non-claimers.

[gordontd]

Oh, sorry, perhaps I should have been more careful to explain why I said this. So here goes, with apologies to those for whom this is entirely tedious....

 

I think it is grammatically acceptable when you have a list preceded by a preposition either to put the preposition before the first item of the list only, or before each item of the list. But it doesn't make sense to put the preposition before some of the items but not all. To take a random example, I could say "I am thinking about a, b, c and d" or "I am thinking about a, about b, about c and about d". But if I said "I am thinking about a, about b, and c and about d" then I would argue that this is three sets of thoughts, one of which is a another of which is b and c, and the third of which is d, rather than four separate sets of thoughts.

 

In the actual sentence we are trying to parse, "as to" is equivalent to "of". So a statement is required "of a, of b or c", which doesn't make sense because it reads like a list of two alternatives without a conjunction between them. If it means EITHER a OR (b OR C) then it should read "of a, or of b or c". If it means any one of a, b, or c then it could read "of a, b or c" or it could read "of a, of b or of c".

I don't think it means either of those things. We use this construction "...of..., of..." when we're illustrating the first part with the second, and there's some overlap but they aren't identical.

 

"I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my grandparents", which could alternatively be "I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my parents or grandparents".

[gnasher]

Perhaps we might remember this is not BLML, and the aim is to help people give and understand rulings.

 

If that's the sole function of this forum, the entire thread, including Blackshoe's original question, is off-topic. If a moderator posts a question that is off-topic, it seems unreasonable for another moderator to object to replies that are pertinent, and therefore also off-topic.

[WellSpyder]

I don't think it means either of those things. We use this construction "...of..., of..." when we're illustrating the first part with the second, and there's some overlap but they aren't identical.

 

"I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my grandparents", which could alternatively be "I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my parents or grandparents".

Interesting - I certainly hadn't thought of it that way, perhaps because the part about the line of play or defence would then seem rather unnecessary since the order in which the cards will be played seems unambiguous and complete, but grammatically your interpretation looks logical. In any case, I suspect we both agree with David that the important thing is that the statement is adequate, rather than the precise form it takes.

[gordontd]

I suspect we both agree with David that the important thing is that the statement is adequate, rather than the precise form it takes.

Absolutely :)

[Ethel]

Declarer claims: "My hand is good". There is an objection. Declarer holds: Ten of Trump , 4 of trump and small other card. The Ten of trump is boss, the small other card can be played to dummy which holds boss card. Defender objects to claim. Declarer did not mention that all the trump were gone. How do you rule that Declarer has to play the cards? All trump had not been played. Do you need more information? Would a competent Declarer play the ten of trump, then the 4 of trump and then the small card to the dummy?

[jnichols]

Would a competent Declarer play the ten of trump, then the 4 of trump and then the small card to the dummy?

 

A competent declarer might do just that. But they might also start with the small card to the dummy. And then they might ruff the next trick high, or maybe low. Leaves a lot of ways for the opponents to score the outstanding trump.

 

The only play that would surprise me would be to start by leading the 4 of trump.

[Ethel]

[Ethel]

Thank you for your reply. The defender had two trump left plus and outside card that was good.

As the director you have to make the ruling before seeing the defender's cards, but to make life simple I shall show Dummy's last three cards, Declarer's last three cards and RHO's last three cards. The lead was in declarer's hand. LHO's cards have no play. See hand portrayal in next post. I am just learning how to work this system. Thanks.

 

]

[Ethel]

[hv=pc=n&s=st4hdc3&w=shdc&n=shdct98&e=s86hdac]399|300[/hv]

[jnichols]

[hv=pc=n&s=st4hdc3&w=shdc&n=shdct98&e=s86hdac]399|300[/hv]

First - as a director when I rule on a disputed claim I first have the claimer repeat their claim statement. Then I have all hands faced on the table. Then I make my ruling.

 

 

On this hand, from your post I expected that the defender had just one trump. However, since declarer doesn't realize this there are several reasonable ways to play the hand.

Starting with the ♠10 followed by the ♠4 is certainly one of them - 2 tricks to the defenders.

[Ethel]

First - as a director when I rule on a disputed claim I first have the claimer repeat their claim statement. Then I have all hands faced on the table. Then I make my ruling.

 

 

On this hand, from your post I expected that the defender had just one trump. However, since declarer doesn't realize this there are several reasonable ways to play the hand.

Starting with the ♠10 followed by the ♠4 is certainly one of them - 2 tricks to the defenders.

 

 

Thank you very much.

[jallerton]

Perhaps we might remember this is not BLML, and the aim is to help people give and understand rulings. It is expected that claims are accompanied by an adequate explanation: if declarer has four winning trumps and no other cards putting his hand down without comment is an adequate explanation. The grammar behind this does not matter.

 

If the explanation leads to doubt it is inadequate and is liable to get a ruling in favour for the non-claimers.

 

That's good to know. If as declarer I am down to the only four remaining trumps, then I tend to claim in the method you describe.

 

In his latest "Ruling the Game" column, Mike Flader asserts that stating a line of play when you claim is "not a requirement". Do we here agree?

 

I think we can infer from his counter example that Bluejak does not agree.

 

However, I agree with Gnasher that the original question in this thread is suitable for BLML.

[bluejak]

So do I. I just do not think some of the replies were on-topic.

[mrdct]

"I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my parents or grandparents".

I think a semicolon would work better in that sentence.

[mrdct]

Perhaps we might remember this is not BLML, and the aim is to help people give and understand rulings. It is expected that claims are accompanied by an adequate explanation: if declarer has four winning trumps and no other cards putting his hand down without comment is an adequate explanation. The grammar behind this does not matter.

 

If the explanation leads to doubt it is inadequate and is liable to get a ruling in favour for the non-claimers.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is "BLML"?

 

This topic is all about whether or not Mike Flader's assertion that stating a line of play when you claim is "not a requirement" which is being properly assessed in this thread against the requirements of Law 68C. The grammatical construction and interpretation of Law 68C is entirely germane to this topic.

[mrdct]

First - as a director when I rule on a disputed claim I first have the claimer repeat their claim statement. Then I have all hands faced on the table. Then I make my ruling.

 

 

On this hand, from your post I expected that the defender had just one trump. However, since declarer doesn't realize this there are several reasonable ways to play the hand.

Starting with the ♠10 followed by the ♠4 is certainly one of them - 2 tricks to the defenders.

I agree with that ruling, but would add that it's important to refer to Law 70C which deals explicitly with the situation where the claim statement didn't make any reference to an outstanding trump. Basically if there is any likelihood that the claimer was unaware of the outstanding trump and he can lose a trick to it via a "normal" play (could be careless or inferior but not irrational and takes account of the class of the player involved) you award such trick or tricks to the opponents.

[barmar]

I think it is grammatically acceptable when you have a list preceded by a preposition either to put the preposition before the first item of the list only, or before each item of the list. But it doesn't make sense to put the preposition before some of the items but not all.

To provide a well known counter-example, I'm reminded of Lewis Carroll's "The Walrus and the Carpenter":

"The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--

Of cabbages--and kings--

And why the sea is boiling hot--

And whether pigs have wings."

Although I suppose this is the very definition of "poetic license".