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

[barmar]

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.

Why would anyone think that the only thing that matters to the opponent is who will win that trick? No sane player plays each trick in a vacuum, they care about how the rest of the play will go. Therefore, a statement that something doesn't matter will naturally be construed as referring to the whole hand, not just that one trick.

 

There are some cases, though, where you might be able to say that about a specific trick without actually knowing how many tricks will be taken after that. If a player holds KJ, and is trying to decide which to play, and the player after him has AQ, it doesn't matter which one he plays. It won't affect that trick or the remainder of the hand, but since you don't know the rest of the distribution you can't actually claim. If someone were agonizing in a situation like this, you might put them out of their misery, and everyone will easily recognize that it's a case like this, not a claimable situation. Of course, if you're a defender, you also have to be careful that what you do doesn't pass UI to partner, but usually declarer's tank has already made things clear to everyone (but I can easily imagine SB finding a way to take advantage of it).

[WellSpyder]

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.

 

Why would anyone think that the only thing that matters to the opponent is who will win that trick? No sane player plays each trick in a vacuum, they care about how the rest of the play will go. Therefore, a statement that something doesn't matter will naturally be construed as referring to the whole hand, not just that one trick.

 

I don't understand how there can be any doubt as to which of these two interpretations makes more sense to someone who actually plays bridge.

[pran]

I don't understand how there can be any doubt as to which of these two interpretations makes more sense to someone who actually plays bridge.

Legally the player may for instance state:

Whatever you play I shall win the trick, but I am not sure whether my thirteenth card is high or not.

 

That player knows that there is no need to prolong the play, but he doesn't know whether to claim or concede the thirteenth trick so he does neither.

 

The best argument you can provide here is that his statement is a suggestion to curtail the play, but is it really that (technically)?

 

He doesn't say so.

 

And such argument will lead to any attempt to speed up the play shall be taken as a sugggestion to curtail play, which of course is nonsense.

[WellSpyder]

Legally the player may for instance state:

Whatever you play I shall win the trick, but I am not sure whether my thirteenth card is high or not.

 

That player knows that there is no need to prolong the play, but he doesn't know whether to claim or concede the thirteenth trick so he does neither.

So declarer doesn't know whether his last card is a winner, but he knows that the defender on lead doesn't have any of the suit and that there is no chance of the other defender discarding one of them if a suit is led in which he is void?

 

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying this as a practical possibility worth worrying about, however much of a theoretical possibility it might be. If I am defending and declarer tells me that it doesn't matter what I lead then I will ask him if he is claiming, and if he refuses to then I will tell him to put up or shut up, and I will continue to think about which card to play.

[pran]

Legally the player may for instance state:

Whatever you play I shall win the trick, but I am not sure whether my thirteenth card is high or not.

 

That player knows that there is no need to prolong the play, but he doesn't know whether to claim or concede the thirteenth trick so he does neither.

 

The best argument you can provide here is that his statement is a suggestion to curtail the play, but is it really that (technically)?

 

He doesn't say so.

 

And such argument will lead to any attempt to speed up the play shall be taken as a sugggestion to curtail play, which of course is nonsense.

 

So declarer doesn't know whether his last card is a winner, but he knows that the defender on lead doesn't have any of the suit and that there is no chance of the other defender discarding one of them if a suit is led in which he is void?

 

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying this as a practical possibility worth worrying about, however much of a theoretical possibility it might be. If I am defending and declarer tells me that it doesn't matter what I lead then I will ask him if he is claiming, and if he refuses to then I will tell him to put up or shut up, and I will continue to think about which card to play.

 

I am not concerned about the practicability, I am worried about the legal situation regardless of how theoretical it might be.

 

Sure you may ask your opponent if he is claiming, but if he answers "no" then it is you that must shut up (unless you call the Director). If you ask him to "put up or shut up" then you are seriously violating Laws 74A1 and 74A2.

[WellSpyder]

Sure you may ask your opponent if he is claiming, but if he answers "no" then it is you that must shut up (unless you call the Director). If you ask him to "put up or shut up" then you are seriously violating Laws 74A1 and 74A2.

OK, point taken. But I don't think it is unreasonable once an opponent has confirmed that he is not seeking to curtail play (since he is not claiming) to suggest that he lets me get on with thinking about the hand rather than making extraneous comments about whether or not my play matters.

[pran]

OK, point taken. But I don't think it is unreasonable once an opponent has confirmed that he is not seeking to curtail play (since he is not claiming) to suggest that he lets me get on with thinking about the hand rather than making extraneous comments about whether or not my play matters.

 

Agreed.

 

I believe you agree too that there is a difference between telling him to shut up and asking him to not disturb you with extraneous remarks?

 

Anyway, I should initially understand his original statement as an attempt to be helpful, sparing you unnecessarily spending much effort?

[barmar]

Legally the player may for instance state:

Whatever you play I shall win the trick, but I am not sure whether my thirteenth card is high or not.

If he makes such an explicit statement, I might buy that it's not a claim.

 

But if the statement is just "It doesn't matter", or something like that, the extent is left implicit. In that case, we have to interpret the intent of such a statement. If it's supposed to be "helpful", it can only be so if it applies to both tricks. So it's either a claim or it's misleading.

[Bbradley62]

Damn! Still can't upvote admins...

[aguahombre]

If he makes such an explicit statement, I might buy that it's not a claim.

 

But if the statement is just "It doesn't matter", or something like that, the extent is left implicit. In that case, we have to interpret the intent of such a statement. If it's supposed to be "helpful", it can only be so if it applies to both tricks. So it's either a claim or it's misleading.

Where, in Law, does it say you can only be helpful to the opponents with regard to more than one thing?

[barmar]

Where, in Law, does it say you can only be helpful to the opponents with regard to more than one thing?

It has nothing to do with law, it's just a matter of interpreting language. Words come out of someone's mouth, we have to figure out what they mean. When they aren't totally explicit, that often involves inferences about intent.

[blackshoe]

If you want to know what his intent was, ask him.

[WellSpyder]

Anyway, I should initially understand his original statement as an attempt to be helpful, sparing you unnecessarily spending much effort?

Yes, I agree that the original statement is likely to be an attempt to be helpful. My point, of course, is that it doesn't actually succeed in being helpful unless declarer is willing to demonstrate why my play doesn't matter, since otherwise (as the majority of TDs in this thread appear to confirm) any inference I draw from his comment will be at my own risk.

[Zelandakh]

My general impression is that anything interrupting my thinking time that does not curtail play is entirely unhelpful. I would suggest that I am not alone in this.

 

Put it another way, say that declarer, rather than making an extraneous comment, instead started whistling, or humming, or pulling funny faces - or anything else distracting for that matter. Presumably you would regard that type of thing as unacceptable, no? Would you then adjust if a defender made a mistake and claimed it was because of the distraction? and if so, under which law?

[pran]

To bring this discussion back to what is a claim:

 

The opening lead from your partner is a heart. Dummy shows up with KJx and you hold AQx.

 

Declarer goes into a tank. Don't argue whether it is stupid of you or not, but eventually you show declarer your two honours and say to him: "It doesn't matter what you do".

 

Legally (!!!) : Is this a claim or not, and if it is a claim then how many tricks do you claim and how many tricks do you concede?

[Zelandakh]

Bad example pran. No defender would ever do this because they have just passed UI to their partner. Also, declarer was not necessarily thinking about this trick but was certainly also considering the hand as a whole. Thinking time which the defender has just interrupted.

[pran]

Bad example pran. No defender would ever do this because they have just passed UI to their partner. Also, declarer was not necessarily thinking about this trick but was certainly also considering the hand as a whole. Thinking time which the defender has just interrupted.

I asked for the legal implications.

 

Please don't introduce irrelevant circumstances, there is nothing illegal with the described event.

[Zelandakh]

There is (probably) nothing in the Laws saying I cannot take my clothes off at the bridge table either but that does not mean it is going to happen any time soon. Your argument seems to be that it is not punishable for a player to deliberately distract another provided they do so in a curteous manner with some mild excuse. As it happens I agree with you that the statement alone is not a claim; however I think it can be dealt with in a similar manner to a player making any other distraction from which they subsequently and directly profit. If you think that that is not rectifiable under the laws then I am a little worried.

[pran]

There is (probably) nothing in the Laws saying I cannot take my clothes off at the bridge table either but that does not mean it is going to happen any time soon. Your argument seems to be that it is not punishable for a player to deliberately distract another provided they do so in a curteous manner with some mild excuse. As it happens I agree with you that the statement alone is not a claim; however I think it can be dealt with in a similar manner to a player making any other distraction from which they subsequently and directly profit. If you think that that is not rectifiable under the laws then I am a little worried.

 

Have you never seen (or experienced) an RHO showing his AQ tenace to declarer with dummy holding KJ?

 

Well, I have. But I have never experienced a declarer claiming distraction in such situations. And if I ever were I would probably ask him to play bridge rather than trying to act like SB.

 

I appreciate however, that you admit this has little or nothing to do with claims. Now the question is if you can see the similarity with OP sufficiently to accept that neither was that situation a claim.

 

(OP declarer's remark was indeed extraneous, but that has never been the real issue in this thread)

[WellSpyder]

Have you never seen (or experienced) an RHO showing his AQ tenace to declarer with dummy holding KJ?

Yes.

 

Well, I have. But I have never experienced a declarer claiming distraction in such situations. And if I ever were I would probably ask him to play bridge rather than trying to act like SB.

Yes.

 

I appreciate however, that you admit this has little or nothing to do with claims.

I think it would constitute a claim if it happened during trick 12, though!

 

Now the question is if you can see the similarity with OP sufficiently to accept that neither was that situation a claim.

No.

[barmar]

To bring this discussion back to what is a claim:

 

The opening lead from your partner is a heart. Dummy shows up with KJx and you hold AQx.

 

Declarer goes into a tank. Don't argue whether it is stupid of you or not, but eventually you show declarer your two honours and say to him: "It doesn't matter what you do".

 

Legally (!!!) : Is this a claim or not, and if it is a claim then how many tricks do you claim and how many tricks do you concede?

I discussed this exact issue in my post #76. As I said there, the context makes it clear what the intent is -- no one would ever presume that a holding in that one suit could affect how the entire hand will play out.

 

In fact, what's special about this case is that the decision has no impact on this trick or how the hand will play out. You don't know how many tricks will be taken, but you know that it's the same whether declarer plays the Jack or King.

 

That's very different from the situation that started this thread. The choice of lead doesn't affect the current trick, but it still MATTERS because it affects the rest of the hand. You simply cannot equate the two situations.

[nige1]

I discussed this exact issue in my post #76. As I said there, the context makes it clear what the intent is -- no one would ever presume that a holding in that one suit could affect how the entire hand will play out.

In fact, what's special about this case is that the decision has no impact on this trick or how the hand will play out. You don't know how many tricks will be taken, but you know that it's the same whether declarer plays the Jack or King.

That's very different from the situation that started this thread. The choice of lead doesn't affect the current trick, but it still MATTERS because it affects the rest of the hand. You simply cannot equate the two situations.

+

[pran]

I think it would constitute a claim if it happened during trick 12, though!

What is the legal difference depending on in which trick it happens?

 

Is it a claim if it happens in trick 12, but not if it happens in trick 11 or earlier? (Law reference please.)

[aguahombre]

What is the legal difference depending on in which trick it happens?

 

Is it a claim if it happens in trick 12, but not if it happens in trick 11 or earlier? (Law reference please.)

Come on! He was referring to trick 12 where KJ is under AQ. It was humor, and was obviously a claim.

[blackshoe]

At trick 12, where an opponent shows declarer that his remaining KJ is sitting under the AQ (and that suit has to be or has been led by someone other than the guy with the AQ) it doesn't matter whether it was a claim or not. It's silly to argue about whether it was.

 

Back to the OP. A defender made a comment. Some people think that constitutes a claim, some don't. The Law is not perfectly clear, so a director (or an AC) could go either way. Frankly, in a reasonable jurisdiction, if an AC disagreed with my reading of the law*, I would submit the case to the National Authority for a final ruling. I don't think the ACBL is a reasonable jurisdiction in that regard - my impression is that the NA (the Laws Commission) would at most tell me they're not going to look at it. More likely I'd submit it and never hear anything. But that's my optimism showing. :P

 

* Question: is a reading of the law in this case a matter of law, or a matter of judgement? It seems to me it's a matter of law, but I've been wrong about that before. What say you all?