[Zelandakh]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-August-20, 05:44, said:

By telling Dec to either claim or stfu.

Then you are accepting that declarer has not yet claimed?

[Bbradley62]

 blackshoe, on 2014-August-20, 08:21, said:

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.

 Zelandakh, on 2014-August-20, 10:06, said:

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]

 aguahombre, on 2014-August-20, 11:41, said:

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]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-August-20, 11:23, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-August-21, 04:56, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-August-21, 04:56, said:

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]

 pran, on 2014-August-21, 10:58, said:

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]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-August-21, 12:55, said:

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]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-August-21, 12:55, said:

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]

 blackshoe, on 2014-August-21, 16:04, said:

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]

 aguahombre, on 2014-August-21, 13:31, said:

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

 blackshoe, on 2014-August-21, 16:04, said:

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?

[barmar]

 pran, on 2014-August-21, 13:10, said:

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]

 pran, on 2014-August-21, 13:10, said:

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.

 barmar, on 2014-August-22, 10:06, said:

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]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-August-26, 04:16, said:

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]

 pran, on 2014-August-26, 04:57, said:

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]

 pran, on 2014-August-26, 04:57, said:

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, on 2014-August-26, 05:21, said:

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.