[barmar]

People say things for a reason, they don't just blurt out irrelevant facts.

What do you think the point of his statement was, if not equivalent to one of those other ways that people usually suggest that play be curtailed?

I suppose he could mean "I was thinking of claiming, but I changed my mind." But why would a declarer tell the opponents that while the play is in progress? This interpretation generally only makes sense during the post mortem.

[Trinidad]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2010, 01:43 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 4 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

Josh's rationale of "I was thinking of claiming" should not be interpreted identically to "I claim" is irrelevant.  The real question is can the statement "I was thinking of claiming" be reasonably interpreted as "I suggest play be curtailed".

My rationale is perfectly relevant. If "I claim" means "I suggest play be curtailed" then "I was thinking of claiming" means "I was thinking of suggesting play be curtailed" which does not mean "I suggest play be curtailed".

That is not entirely true. Claiming can mean more things, the obvious one being "making a statement about the amount of tricks you win and how you do that".

That means that "I was thinking of claiming" could mean "I was thinking of making a statement about the amount of tricks I win and how I do that". That last meaning is certainly a suggestion that play should be curtailed and hence the statement would be a claim.

That's at least how I think Escher would reason.

Rik

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 4 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

It's clearly not a claim, however it is coffee housing which declarer knows could adversely affect the opponents, hence I'd adjust.

I think that is a sensible approach. Dunno if I would go so far as to adjust, though. Depends maybe on the likelihood that declarer would make the contract anyway without the defender showing his hand. But at least I would have a talk with declarer about it, trying to prevent this from happening again.

[qwery_hi]

This incident happened when I was relatively new to bridge -

One time I landed in 3NT, doubled by LHO and before leading, she remarked to her partner "He's going down (just) like before". I remember being annoyed by this, and after the tournament asked one of the directors at my club what I should have done. She said that she would treat that statement as a claim, and ask LHO to describe her line of play.

Edit : Background was I had played the previous hand in a silly 3NT contract that went down quite a few.

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on Oct 4 2010, 06:13 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 5 2010, 09:56 AM, said:

On what basis would you adjust?

If we aren't treating it as a claim, it's very obviously a Law 73F situation:

Quote

73F. Violation of Proprieties
When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

It certainly was the easy way out, for the actual director to rule it a claim. With play curtailed, no Ace of clubs was played and the defenders got their two tricks.

If he went the 73F route, he would have to determine effect of the coffee housing before making the same adjustment. The wording in 73F seems to require a determination that the defender has drawn a false inference ---not that the defender's play might have been influenced by.....

A tougher standard, I think.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't think it's a claim, either and would adjust under 73F as other people have done.

I think the following are not claims:

"It doesn't matter what you do" (this one is dubious, it might be)

(when dummy hits)"We've missed a cold grand"

As a defender, showing declarer a subset of your cards e.g. an AQ over dummy's KJ

"It's not worth thinking about this trick" (if untrue, that can lead to a different adjustment, but if true it's not a claim as other tricks may still require thought)

The following are claims:
"I've got the rest"
"You are two off"
"My hand is high"

[Cyberyeti]

You are 2 off need not be a claim, I had a situation where I pulled the wrong card out the bidding box (6H instead of 6N) and didn't notice until dummy put the trumps on the right and I was in a 2-1 fit. RHO said "down 5" (quickly agreed) as a suggestion to agree a score rather than play the stupid contract at pairs when we were a board behind anyway. It was neither intended nor interpreted as a claim.

We've missed a cold grand is clearly not a claim, it might not be in the denomination they're playing in.

[RMB1]

On vugraph today, Helness was declarer in 4M.

Operator "Helness: There is no way you can give it [the contract] to me".

This sounded like a claim/concession to me.

Sure enough, the next report from the operator was "and claimed 9".

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 9 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

RHO said "down 5" (quickly agreed) as a suggestion to agree a score rather than play the stupid contract at pairs when we were a board behind anyway. It was neither intended nor interpreted as a claim.

Maybe I'm dense, but it sure sounds like a claim to me. RHO has claimed 6 tricks for his side. You agreed with his claim, so that's how it was scored (Law 69A). Seems like it was both intended and interpreted as a (valid) claim.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on Oct 10 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 9 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

RHO said "down 5" (quickly agreed) as a suggestion to agree a score rather than play the stupid contract at pairs when we were a board behind anyway. It was neither intended nor interpreted as a claim.

Maybe I'm dense, but it sure sounds like a claim to me. RHO has claimed 6 tricks for his side. You agreed with his claim, so that's how it was scored (Law 69A). Seems like it was both intended and interpreted as a (valid) claim.

The tone of voice made it clear that it was a ballpark suggestion rather than a claim and that if I'd said 4 down he'd probably have taken it.

[blackshoe]

<best "Yes, Minister" British accent, with raised eyebrow>Highly irregular.</best...?

Whatever works, I suppose.