[blackshoe]

If you don't believe you can articulate an accurate line of play, don't claim. But at some point in the hand, if you can't articulate an accurate line of play, you should probably take up a different game.

[akwoo]

blackshoe, on 2021-November-16, 11:14, said:

If you don't believe you can articulate an accurate line of play, don't claim. But at some point in the hand, if you can't articulate an accurate line of play, you should probably take up a different game.

Maybe, but if all the people who should take up a different game do, there probably wouldn't be bridge left in any city smaller than Las Vegas (2.265mil in the MSA in the 2020 census, 29th in the US).

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-November-16, 11:14, said:

But at some point in the hand, if you can't articulate an accurate line of play, you should probably take up a different game.

If you can't articulate it to yourself with calm, maybe.
But for many people who can, that does not guarantee the line will not suddenly disappear from their mind when an opponent asks an unexpected question or puts them under any kind of psychological pressure.
Those people should maybe give up some claims, not bridge.

People who have been playing bridge for decades (you, perhaps?) tend to have less such problems and find them harder to grasp

[mycroft]

Alternatively, if you can't or won't parse an accurate line of play presented to you by declarer, you should probably take up a different game. But we don't expect that, do we?

You are never going to get to the point where all claims you make will be understood by all defenders. Unless, of course, you do what some people I know do and never claim - and wonder why everybody's annoyed at them, and why they're always late.

There are claims that will be understood by everyone here, that will fail for a lot of players; there are claims that will be understood by those C players that people here will be saying "well, if you had the K all the time, why aren't we on the next hand already?"

I still remember the hand over 20 years ago where, after a blackwood auction to 7, declarer was carefully and with much thought running dummy's suits. Not my best moment, but I asked partner, "did he lie?" (about the one Ace he said he had). "No" led to the concession. But I can see him having to be careful against not Dan Korbel and partner because "I only claim when one hand is high, because otherwise people object".

But I'm not sure about where this subthread is going. "normal*" is a thing in the Laws, it's something we have case law and references about, when it happens, we deal with it. My "personal ethics", especially when I'm the playing director to avoid a sitout, may be higher than someone else's, [edit: even mine,] in a different game, against different opponents. But the Laws handle this just fine.

[Douglas43]

On a slightly different tack, one of the challenges in BBO claims is that it's obvious how many more tricks declarer is claiming, but not how many declarer is conceding to the defenders in the process.
As a defender when there is an early claim you may have to do a bit of counting. "Declarer claims 7 more tricks, OK, how many tricks gone? Ah, four, that means two more tricks to us..." before you start to look at the merits of the claim.

[pescetom]

Douglas43, on 2021-November-18, 08:39, said:

On a slightly different tack, one of the challenges in BBO claims is that it's obvious how many more tricks declarer is claiming, but not how many declarer is conceding to the defenders in the process.
As a defender when there is an early claim you may have to do a bit of counting. "Declarer claims 7 more tricks, OK, how many tricks gone? Ah, four, that means two more tricks to us..." before you start to look at the merits of the claim.

We have frequently said this here before, and once BBO even promised action. "Declarer claims 7 of 9 remaining tricks (conceding 2)" or something similar.
This would also make it less likely that declarer refuses a sensible concession by a defender.

[Douglas43]

pescetom, on 2021-November-18, 09:06, said:

We have frequently said this here before, and once BBO even promised action. "Declarer claims 7 of 9 remaining tricks (conceding 2)" or something similar.
This would also make it less likely that declarer refuses a sensible concession by a defender.

Thanks pescetom, sorry for going off-track

[pescetom]

Douglas43, on 2021-November-18, 10:40, said:

Thanks pescetom, sorry for going off-track

No apologies due, it is a very sensible observation. Just give it time