[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-29, 11:25, said:

The second sentence says "A contestant ALSO claims when he suggests that play be curtailed..." This would imply that play is not curtailed by the mere show of intention to play some winners.

I don't think that's the part that's in question. What makes this difficult is 68D: "After any claim or concession, play ceases". So if "run the spades" is a considered a claim, we have to stop playing when this statement is made, and declarer should then make a statement of how he plans to win tricks after running the suit.

This is why I believe the definition of claim intends that the player state how many of all the remaining tricks he expects to take. All of the claim procedures seem to depend on this assumption.

[blackshoe]

Do they? "A claim of some of the remaining tricks is a concession of the remainder". Nowhere in the claim laws, as far as I can see, is a player required to say how he's going to lose tricks.

[barmar]

I think that supports my point -- "specific number of tricks" is intended to be the exact number out of all the remaining tricks that you expect to win, and you expect to lose the other ones. When you run a suit, that's not usually what you intend -- you're not stating a specific number of tricks, just a minimum number of tricks (the tricks in the suit you're running).

[blackshoe]

To me, when the law says "specific number of tricks" it means "specific number of tricks". It doesn't mean "specific number of tricks and no more" - that's taken care of by a different law.

[barmar]

"at least 5 tricks" is not very specific, "exactly 5 tricks" is specific.

The fact that the law says that a claim is a concession of all the other tricks seems to support this interpretation.

[mycroft]

I find "run the suit" to be incredibly annoying - because I will be happily working out which 5 discards to make secure in the knowledge that I will be doing so, only to find that after 3, "no, wait".

I find "run the suit" annoying enough that I realio trulio Secretary Bird when, as dummy, partner tells me to do so. Oddly enough, they only do it once.

However, yes, compared to the others of the issues - even the SB-level issues - it is certainly low on the annoyance scale.

P.S. Just this week saw my first images of Sagittarius Serpentarius. I thought it was just a Molloism. Huge blind spot removed.

[aguahombre]

Wow. If incredibly annoying is low on your annoyance scale, I had better ship you some of my blood pressure meds.

Other than than part, I fully agree with what you do as dummy to forestall the practice, and the adverse affect it can have on the opponents' focus.

[mycroft]

nah, it's just a personal trigger. It's annoying, inconsiderate of the opponents, and when they *do* decide they want to change their mind, it's all good. *to me*, it's incredibly annoying.

Looking calmly and in an unbiased manner, it's really low on the scale. It *shouldn't* piss me off as much as it does. But I'm sure you, too, have "that one guy" that shouldn't affect you the way he does. Doesn't mean he doesn't, though.

[aguahombre]

One guy?? Nah. Multiple. Hence, the blood pressure meds.

[barmar]

I can't recall ever having an opponent start running a suit and change their mind in the middle.