Is this a claim or concession, and how should it be resolved?

[Finch]

I also would rule that it is a claim i.e. a suggestion to curtail the play.

I also understand why some people would not rule that way, because I am interpreting what I believe was the intent of the statement.

 

I believe that most (all?) people would interpret the statement "it doesn't matter what you play" as a claim.

What is less obvious is whether the actual statement is equivalent. Clearly it isn't in a logical/grammatical sense, but I think the import was intended to be the same, and I would rule accordingly.

[blackshoe]

I also would rule that it is a claim i.e. a suggestion to curtail the play.

I also understand why some people would not rule that way, because I am interpreting what I believe was the intent of the statement.

 

I believe that most (all?) people would interpret the statement "it doesn't matter what you play" as a claim.

What is less obvious is whether the actual statement is equivalent. Clearly it isn't in a logical/grammatical sense, but I think the import was intended to be the same, and I would rule accordingly.

If the intent was "it doesn't matter what you play, I have the rest (or at least one of the future tricks)" then it's a claim. If the intent was "it doesn't matter what you play, I'm winning this trick" it's not a claim. I don't think you can infer either intent reliably from the statement alone.

[barmar]

Why would a player make a statement that only pertains to whether he's going to win that trick? There's so much more to the play of a trick than who will win it that the statement is not at all helpful. And unless he makes it clear that he's only talking about how it affects what he does, I'd say that it's misleading, and deserves a PP.

[blackshoe]

Why would a player make a statement that only pertains to whether he's going to win that trick? There's so much more to the play of a trick than who will win it that the statement is not at all helpful. And unless he makes it clear that he's only talking about how it affects what he does, I'd say that it's misleading, and deserves a PP.

If no player would ever make a statement that only pertains to the current trick, why would the lawmakers word the beginning of Law 68 the way they did? I wouldn't call such a statement misleading, and I would certainly not say that it necessarily deserves a PP.

[barmar]

It's not just that it only pertains to the current trick, it's that it's not even true about the current trick. "It doesn't matter" means there's no difference between the choices, not just that the differences don't affect who will win that trick. Declarer was supposedly trying to be helpful, but it's not helpful if the choice still affects what his partner should play to the trick. On the contrary, it's misleading.

[blackshoe]

It seems that about the only thing we can all agree on here is that the comment was extraneous.

[WellSpyder]

It seems that about the only thing we can all agree on here is that the comment was extraneous.

Indeed.

 

I'm entirely happy to agree with the rest of Barmar's recent posts, though, and wish (not for the first time) that I could give them an upvote.

[Zelandakh]

I believe that most (all?) people would interpret the statement "it doesn't matter what you play" as a claim.

Say the table conversation went as follows:

Dec: "It does not matter what you play."

Def: "How many tricks are you claiming then?"

Dec: "I am not claiming."

 

How do you think the TD should resolve this?

[Bbradley62]

How do you think the TD should resolve this?

By telling Dec to either claim or stfu.

[blackshoe]

By telling Dec to either claim or stfu.

You want him to unsay what he said?

 

If a director said that to me I wouldn't say a word. After all, he's told me to shut up.

[Zelandakh]

By telling Dec to either claim or stfu.

Then you are accepting that declarer has not yet claimed?

[Bbradley62]

You want him to unsay what he said?

 

If a director said that to me I wouldn't say a word. After all, he's told me to shut up.

Obviously, he cannot unsay something. Now, he should either claim or shut up. In the future, he should either claim or not say anything in the first place and he risks a penalty for future extraneous comments.

 

Then you are accepting that declarer has not yet claimed?

Unfortunately, I think defender has tied my hands by asking the question. Without that question, giving declarer the first opportunity to clarify, I could have ruled that his comment was a claim, but now I don't think I can. If defender had said "since you're claiming..." that would be different.

[aguahombre]

Yes, "I am not claiming." is a clue that he hasn't claimed, unless we believe those words don't demonstrably indicate he didn't intend to claim.

[barmar]

Yes, "I am not claiming." is a clue that he hasn't claimed, unless we believe those words don't demonstrably indicate he didn't intend to claim.

In particular, perhaps the opponent's question about his intention alerted him to the fact that it DID matter what was played. "Are you claiming?" (lightbulb) "Uhh... no!"

[Zelandakh]

Unfortunately, I think defender has tied my hands by asking the question. Without that question, giving declarer the first opportunity to clarify, I could have ruled that his comment was a claim, but now I don't think I can. If defender had said "since you're claiming..." that would be different.

So it is your position that trying to find out declarer's intention stops it being an attempt to curtail play, whereas rephrasing to make it say what you want it to makes it such an attempt? An interesting idea but you will need to show me on which law you are basing this ruling on.

[barmar]

So it is your position that trying to find out declarer's intention stops it being an attempt to curtail play, whereas rephrasing to make it say what you want it to makes it such an attempt? An interesting idea but you will need to show me on which law you are basing this ruling on.

I'm guessing he's basing it on 68A, where it says "unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim". Asking declarer whether he's claiming, and him answering "no", seems pretty demonstrable. If you hadn't asked, he wouldn't have answered, and then the TD could use his judgement to decide whether the remark constituted a claim.

[pran]

I do wonder if most submitters to this thread have overlooked Law 68 (preamble):

 

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*.

 

So long as whatever declarer says to a defender about to decide his play apparently applies to the current trick and not specifically (also) to future tricks then such remark(s) cannot be a claim.

[aguahombre]

So it is your position that trying to find out declarer's intention stops it being an attempt to curtail play, whereas rephrasing to make it say what you want it to makes it such an attempt? An interesting idea but you will need to show me on which law you are basing this ruling on.

After reading it a few times (takes a bit of sorting out in my old age), I like this post a lot.

 

My "position" (though not solicited) is that 68A is unclear as to whether a mere statement, "I am not claiming.", is another (unwritten) example that Declarer did not make a claim at the time he did what he did. A defender who either asks for clarification or tries to paraphrase Declarer is not the person who should be deciding whether it was a claim. Nor do the defenders' words change the situation at all.

 

I personally think the OP situation should have been ruled a claim.

 

What I do, sometimes...when my LHO goes into a Woolridge trance late in the play...is show him my hand and state immediately "I am not claiming, but this should help." Nobody has ever tried to assert that it is a claim sans statement of what tricks I am taking; and I don't know if I have actually claimed or not according to L68A. Perhaps my actions, while it is clear I did not want to "claim", nevertheless amount to a claim.

[Bbradley62]

I do wonder if most submitters to this thread have overlooked Law 68 (preamble):

 

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*.

 

So long as whatever declarer says to a defender about to decide his play apparently applies to the current trick and not specifically (also) to future tricks then such remark(s) cannot be a claim.

I think it's clear that "it does not matter what you lead to Trick 12" means "regardless of what you lead to Trick 12, the net outcome of Tricks 12 and 13 is the same". So, it is making a reference to both the current and a future trick.

[pran]

I think it's clear that "it does not matter what you lead to Trick 12" means "regardless of what you lead to Trick 12, the net outcome of Tricks 12 and 13 is the same". So, it is making a reference to both the current and a future trick.

 

Or: "It doesn't matter what you lead to trick 12" means "I shall win that trick". There is no reference, express or implied, to trick 13 here.

[aguahombre]

I think it's clear that "it does not matter what you lead to Trick 12" means "regardless of what you lead to Trick 12, the net outcome of Tricks 12 and 13 is the same". So, it is making a reference to both the current and a future trick.

If defender is contemplating what to lead, the trick is not in progress. So, the preamble to 68 is irrelevant

[blackshoe]

I agree with Sven - and I think Agua's "irrelevant" is well, wrong.

[aguahombre]

I agree with Sven - and I think Agua's "irrelevant" is well, wrong.

I have been wrong before. but, I can read. The definition of a trick is four cards played in sequence. Thinking about what to lead is not part of that definition. Hence, during that interim, no trick is in progress.

 

The preamble to L68 refers to the trick in progress; therefore, it is not relevant to the period where someone is thinking about what to lead to the next trick.

[blackshoe]

I can read too. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[pran]

If defender is contemplating what to lead, the trick is not in progress. So, the preamble to 68 is irrelevant

 

I agree with Sven - and I think Agua's "irrelevant" is well, wrong.

 

I see and can appreciate Aqua's point:

A trick (IMO) becomes "current" as soon as the previous trick is completed, but whether it becomes "in progress" before the lead to that trick is made can be a matter of opinion.

 

I think the footnote to Law 68:

* If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.

may strengthen Aqua's view.

 

Does uncompleted imply that it is partially complete, i.e. that at least one card (but not all four) has been played to the trick?