[shyams]

Hopefully a quick & simple question (for my edification)

Say a pair have a long & complicated bidding sequence leading to a contract of 7NT.

After the final pass, the Opening Leader seeks some explanations of the bids. At this time, Declarer says "If my partner has bid correctly, I can make 13 tricks on any lead". His partner indicates that no misbids were made.

1. Does this qualify as a claim?
2. If Opening Leader insists on explanations, can Declarer say "I claim 13 tricks"?

I am interested to know whether this would be considered improper behaviour or bad etiquette on the part of the Declarer. Please assume Declarer did this for no reason other than to save time & efforts.

[pescetom]

shyams, on 2024-May-25, 11:39, said:

Hopefully a quick & simple question (for my edification)

Say a pair have a long & complicated bidding sequence leading to a contract of 7NT.

After the final pass, the Opening Leader seeks some explanations of the bids. At this time, Declarer says "If my partner has bid correctly, I can make 13 tricks on any lead". His partner indicates that no misbids were made.

1. Does this qualify as a claim?
2. If Opening Leader insists on explanations, can Declarer say "I claim 13 tricks"?

I am interested to know whether this would be considered improper behaviour or bad etiquette on the part of the Declarer. Please assume Declarer did this for no reason other than to save time & efforts.

Declarer's affirmation is inappopriate (he should limit himself to explaining calls of his partner, if this is F2F).
The Opening Leader would do well to refrain from asking further explanations and call the Director instead.
As Director I would consider it improper behaviour, but comprehensible (assuming there are indeed 13 tricks).

Whether it is a legally valid claim is an interesting point.
68A says that any such affirmation is a claim.
But that Law is already in the play phase.
48B2 says that Declarer showing his cards following a LOOT is not a claim.
That might suggest (as would seem logical) that one can only claim after play has legally commenced.
But it might also be that he is simply considered an idiot.

[blackshoe]

It's a claim if he's wrong.

[sanst]

If I was the declarer my answer might be something like; "Please, don't take offence and I will gladly explain, but, assuming there was no misbid, all thirteen tricks are ours on any lead. We both will put our cards on the table, which would make the explanation clearer to understand and so you can see that I'm right."
As a director I would tell the declarer that he should answer the question. And it certainly is a claim, first sentence of Law 68A: "Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks."

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2024-May-25, 14:52, said:

Whether it is a legally valid claim is an interesting point.
68A says that any such affirmation is a claim.
But that Law is already in the play phase.
48B2 says that Declarer showing his cards following a LOOT is not a claim.
That might suggest (as would seem logical) that one can only claim after play has legally commenced.

The Laws are seemingly organised in a way that follows the sequence of actions in a game. But that's not always the case. Law 75 belongs to the auction phase and Law 74 could easily be Law 1. Not without importance, Law 68A doesn't mention any restriction about the moment of a claim, so I don't see how this cannot be a legal claim.
Besides, if it's not a claim, the declarer would have a free escape if he made a mistake, e.g. not being able to pick up the free tricks in the dummy which he expected after the auction.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2024-May-27, 09:35, said:

The Laws are seemingly organised in a way that follows the sequence of actions in a game. But that's not always the case. Law 75 belongs to the auction phase and Law 74 could easily be Law 1. Not without importance, Law 68A doesn't mention any restriction about the moment of a claim, so I don't see how this cannot be a legal claim.

I agree that the Laws are "more or less" organized in a way that that follows the sequence of actions in a game.
It is clearly desirable that they should be so organized, and that there should be clear transitions and firewalls between phases.
Alas this is not always so, in particular the transition from Auction to Play is a real mess.
So the Director has at times only Case Law (if known) and/or his own interpretation to go on.

As a Director applying my own interpretation, I don't buy your argument that L68A applies in any moment at all, in particular I would note the premise of L68:

Quote

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

My emphasis above.
In the OP situation the final pass has been made, but explanations are still in order and no lead has been made: it would seem to me that no trick is yet "in progress".

[mycroft]

I don't have a position for this one, in practise; if you want to allow it, great. If not, fine, make the lead and once we see that dummy has the cards the auction said it did, declarer can repeat the claim.

However, I do not see where the quote from L68 matters. If no trick is in progress, then the claim clearly refers to tricks other than the one in progress. I don't think that those words require there to *be* a trick in progress to create a claim - the intent is to remove "I'll win this" from the "ends play" claim trigger.

There are other things that don't trigger "ends play" or "claim of X is concession of N-X" but that refer to tricks not currently on progress, but that - as they say - is another thread. One I'm sure nobody wants me to go down (again).

[axman]

pescetom, on 2024-May-27, 14:53, said:

I agree that the Laws are "more or less" organized in a way that that follows the sequence of actions in a game.
It is clearly desirable that they should be so organized, and that there should be clear transitions and firewalls between phases.
Alas this is not always so, in particular the transition from Auction to Play is a real mess.
So the Director has at times only Case Law (if known) and/or his own interpretation to go on.

As a Director applying my own interpretation, I don't buy your argument that L68A applies in any moment at all, in particular I would note the premise of L68:

My emphasis above.
In the OP situation the final pass has been made, but explanations are still in order and no lead has been made: it would seem to me that no trick is yet "in progress".

Food for thought. I would think that once there is a turn to play a card (as in OL), that trick is in progress, albeit a turn has not yet been executed even if in progress.

[blackshoe]

Let's see if I can make this work...

<hand>
....<Preliminaries(primarily Laws 7 & 8)>
....<Auction Period Begins(Law 17A)>
.......<Auction Begins(Definitions)>
.......<Auction Ends(Law 22)>
.......<Clarification Period(Law 17D, Law 41B,C)>
....<Auction Period Ends(Law 17D, Law 41C)>
....<Play Period Begins(Law 41C),Definitions)>
....<Play Period Ends(Definitions)>
</hand>

It seems to me the transition from Auction Period to Play Period is not a mess. What's a mess is that the definitions of these four periods are scattered among various laws and the definitions in Chapter One.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2024-May-27, 16:36, said:

Food for thought. I would think that once there is a turn to play a card (as in OL), that trick is in progress, albeit a turn has not yet been executed even if in progress.

I don't think a trick is in progress until a card has been led to it.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-May-27, 16:32, said:

I don't have a position for this one, in practise; if you want to allow it, great. If not, fine, make the lead and once we see that dummy has the cards the auction said it did, declarer can repeat the claim.

However, I do not see where the quote from L68 matters. If no trick is in progress, then the claim clearly refers to tricks other than the one in progress. I don't think that those words require there to *be* a trick in progress to create a claim - the intent is to remove "I'll win this" from the "ends play" claim trigger.

Hmm. I quoted the Law in English here, but I remembered it from the Italian version which says "prese diverse da quella in corso" meaning "tricks other than the one in course". I concede that the gratuitously added article makes a difference.

[mycroft]

Interesting. Still reminded of one director who, when asked about a complicated Laws question ("why don't we ask J, after all she wrote them?") said "I'm going to have to look at my [native language] copy (that I'm pretty certain she wrote), to see what we intended here."

Again, not really sure it matters. I did this once, definitely showing off; but if the opponents objected - especially if they objected because they didn't lead a card, I'd happily let them lead, see dummy, confirm it matched my description, and see my hand and the claim.

Legally, this is an interesting question. Practically (apart from the "showing off" issue), what's the problem?

Spoiler

Yes, it is obvious who I am referring to. Yes, there are reasons why I'd prefer if you worked it out for yourselves rather than putting the name out. Yes, I'm unhappy about those reasons. No, I'm not going to say more.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2024-May-27, 20:46, said:

Let's see if I can make this work...

<hand>
....<Preliminaries(primarily Laws 7 & 8)>
....<Auction Period Begins(Law 17A)>
.......<Auction Begins(Definitions)>
.......<Auction Ends(Law 22)>
.......<Clarification Period(Law 17D, Law 41B,C)>
....<Auction Period Ends(Law 17D, Law 41C)>
....<Play Period Begins(Law 41C),Definitions)>
....<Play Period Ends(Definitions)>
</hand>

It seems to me the transition from Auction Period to Play Period is not a mess. What's a mess is that the definitions of these four periods are scattered among various laws and the definitions in Chapter One.

It's not terrible but it could be so much better, as your good work illustrates. The Preliminaries are scattered all over the place and should distinguish between General Principles, the higher level Sequence of Rounds and Boards and the Start of Board (Pre-Auction) phase of placing board on table with correct orientation, extracting cards and so on up to Dealer's first call. The Auction period Begins well and Ends fairly well (except for non obligatory face down), but the Law that describes the End is 22 when the Auction drags on until 40. The Clarification Period does not have equal status to the Auction and Play Periods, despite being inbetween them, and it actually figures as part of the Play Period. The Play Period otherwise starts well, but sputters out with no defined end (such as last trick completed or claim accepted) that I recall. There is no End of Board (Post-Play) Period in which the number of tricks won is agreed, the score is registered and confirmed and the cards are sorted and irreversibly returned to board, some of which is scattered down to 79 and some simply missing.

I think it is important to have a well defined and logical sequence of phases related to what actually happens in sequence in a tournament, as this not only makes the Laws easier to consult but establishes a framework that can be matched by RA regulations and by future specific WBF modules for electronic play too.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-May-28, 10:58, said:

Interesting. Still reminded of one director who, when asked about a complicated Laws question ("why don't we ask J, after all she wrote them?") said "I'm going to have to look at my [native language] copy (that I'm pretty certain she wrote), to see what we intended here."

I often do it the other way round, having a look at the original English to be sure. But if you know the native language version and think in the native language you do tend to assume it will be right. The errors are actually very few, but they all get to bite sooner or later

[blackshoe]

What I left out in that outline is that my intent was that it only shows the "correct procedure" part of the laws. Irregularities and how to deal with them would come after. That way, players really only need to look at the correct procedure and know that if something isn't correct, call the director.

[barmar]

If it walks like a claim and quacks like a claim, I think it's a claim.

If it's not a claim, what is it? I suppose it could be a "gratuitous comment", which violates 74B2, although I think it would be quite extreme to punish it.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2024-May-27, 14:53, said:

As a Director applying my own interpretation, I don't buy your argument that L68A applies in any moment at all, in particular I would note the premise of L68:

Quote

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

My emphasis above.
In the OP situation the final pass has been made, but explanations are still in order and no lead has been made: it would seem to me that no trick is yet "in progress".

The complete preamble to Law 68 is

Quote

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. 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 Laws 16 and 57A may apply.

So, does a claim refer to previous tricks? Obviously no since those tricks have been completed. Does a claim refer to the current trick? Law 68 clearly says no. So a claim refers to future tricks only. And before the opening lead, every trick is a future trick.

Anyways, it seems ridiculous to claim before the opening lead. Maybe you and partner weren't on the same page and even though both of you think the auction was perfect, that may not be the case, and you won't know until Dummy is laid down.

[blackshoe]

It's a claim with an unstated line of play. Thus, when the dummy comes down and declarer sees he has to play certain tricks a certain way he's out of luck -- it's not possible to "correct" a line of play that never existed.

[mycroft]

"Partner is 6=2=4=1 with the AK of spades and the KQ of diamonds. I have 4 spades to the Q, the DA and A,AK in the rounds. That's 13, with transportation."

[axman]

mycroft, on 2024-May-29, 11:18, said:

"Partner is 6=2=4=1 with the AK of spades and the KQ of diamonds. I have 4 spades to the Q, the DA and A,AK in the rounds. That's 13, with transportation."

" That's 13 16, with transportation."

And neither can you.