blackshoe, on 2011-August-07, 23:27, said:
We seem to have drifted. The original post was about whether it is correct to say - in effect to teach players and directors - that a line of play statement is "not required". The practical ruling effect of this would be that a player claims without a claim statement, and the TD fails to give the benefit of the doubt to the other side — and that players will expect this to happen.
When the intent of a claim is clear even without a line of play statement, no one except Mrs. Guggenheim should have a problem with it — and if she calls the director, he should ever so gently say "Sorry, Mrs. G., but you don't get any more tricks (than those conceded in the claim, if any)". Conversely, if a player's claim is questionable, Mrs. G. (or Meckwell, for that matter) gets the benefit of the doubt.
In the end, it seems to me far better to teach players and directors that a line of play statement is required (because it is), even though leaving it out will rarely if ever draw a penalty, and will probably not cause a problem at the table.
Perhaps if we could get defenders to sit still for a proper claim statement after declarer shows his cards, it would happen more often and sooner in the play. In practice what often happens is that a declarer knows he has the rest and begins to make a claim statement, misspeaks somehow, and the defenders pounce upon it, interrupting and calling the TD like a cat that suddenly spies a mouse. Many defenders seem to think that if they don't call the cops, the poor declarer might discover that he said "clubs" instead of "spades" and correct it.
But if we have the Bulletin insist that a claim statement must accompany each claim while simultaneously saying (confirmed by rulings) that "leaving it out will rarely if ever draw a penalty," or even change the ruling if the claim is contested, what happens? Players will soon realize it is just as bunk as the "requirement" to announce a 1NT opening, which, years after its introduction in ACBL-land, still is often ignored or forgotten, and virtually impossible to get the offender into any kind of trouble.
Better to write in the Bulletin, with examples, that not making a claim statement, or interrupting one, is hazardous: if the statement-less claim is contested, the question is not "what did declarer intend to do?" but more like "is there any reasonable line of play that fails?" And the same thing goes for catch-as-catch-can defenders: an interrupted claim statement changes the question from "does declarer's stated line work?" to "what did declarer probably mean to say, and does THAT work?"