[axman]

 lamford, on 2018-April-20, 08:16, said:

There were two similar threads, both oddly involving clubs not breaking; the one posted here (and on bridgewinners) by Timo:

http://www.bridgebas...allenged-claim/
http://bridgewinners...m-2-m8wxg62i68/

Here on a club lead, declarer needed to play low from dummy. 75% voted to allow this claim, as did I, as I think that to play the queen was worse than careless.

The other:

http://bridgewinners...ing-on-a-claim/

was the other post. This time, 81% agreed with the TD that the stated line "run the clubs" had to be followed, despite the WBFLC minute suggesting that declarer is allowed to notice that they don't break. I don't agree with barmar that the minute applies to the unstated part of the claim. In this example, we had a stated line of play, "run the clubs", and that is interpreted as "play the clubs from the top until they are exhausted even if they do not break". After that, declarer is assumed to follow the least favourable normal line.

In this post, the stated part of the claim was to return to hand with a top spade and play a heart to the ten, specifically on the second round of trumps. You can argue, if you wish, that declarer misspoke and meant to say "to play a heart and cover West's card". But that is amending the stated line of play. The unstated line of play is what to do after you have played a heart to the ten on the second round of trumps, with West having played low. That again would be the least favourable normal line, which could be interpreted as drawing the last trump (if one is still at large and the ten has won). It could be interpreted as not drawing the remaining trump, in line with 70C. On this occasion, declarer gets the diamond away and West ruffs, so the contract still makes. If West had a doubleton club, I think it would be very clear to award 6H-1. In this example, not so clear, which is why I have advised SB to appeal.

The thing about treating the stated line as if it were a contract for specific performance is that there are times when claimer ends up with fewer tricks than were claimed, but more tricks than if he had not claimed.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2018-April-20, 08:50, said:

But the EBU guideline is based on a WBFLC minute, which applies to everyone.

Do old WBFLC minutes still apply, even if they have never been transformed into law?
I assumed that any minutes prior to the 2017 laws were no longer binding and might well not be relevant due to changes in the laws or in the opinions of the management committee.

[lamford]

 axman, on 2018-April-20, 10:42, said:

The thing about treating the stated line as if it were a contract for specific performance is that there are times when claimer ends up with fewer tricks than were claimed, but more tricks than if he had not claimed.

I think it is always better to claim silently if you do not intend or need to do something clever, as you will then get a normal line and you cannot misspeak. If declarer had claimed silently here, however, he would not have been given the contract as he would not have been allowed to repeat the heart finesse. On my TD training, I was told to ask the declarer "exactly what did you say when you claimed," and that this line was to be followed (with any ambiguity resolved in favour of the defending side) even if it was clearly not what declarer was likely to have intended. If declarer had stated that "he would take the spade finesse", he would be bound by that, even though he clearly meant heart finesse. With a stated line of play, one should just follow it. If declarer misspeaks, that is no different to calling for the ten of hearts before looking at West's card. Hard luck and be more careful next time.

[weejonnie]

 lamford, on 2018-April-20, 08:16, said:

There were two similar threads, both oddly involving clubs not breaking; the one posted here (and on bridgewinners) by Timo:

http://www.bridgebas...allenged-claim/
http://bridgewinners...m-2-m8wxg62i68/

Here on a club lead, declarer needed to play low from dummy. 75% voted to allow this claim, as did I, as I think that to play the queen was worse than careless.

The other:

http://bridgewinners...ing-on-a-claim/

was the other post. This time, 81% agreed with the TD that the stated line "run the clubs" had to be followed, despite the WBFLC minute suggesting that declarer is allowed to notice that they don't break. I don't agree with barmar that the minute applies to the unstated part of the claim. In this example, we had a stated line of play, "run the clubs", and that is interpreted as "play the clubs from the top until they are exhausted even if they do not break". After that, declarer is assumed to follow the least favourable normal line.

In this post, the stated part of the claim was to return to hand with a top spade and play a heart to the ten, specifically on the second round of trumps. You can argue, if you wish, that declarer misspoke and meant to say "to play a heart and cover West's card". But that is amending the stated line of play. The unstated line of play is what to do after you have played a heart to the ten on the second round of trumps, with West having played low. That again would be the least favourable normal line, which could be interpreted as drawing the last trump (if one is still at large and the ten has won). It could be interpreted as not drawing the remaining trump, in line with 70C. On this occasion, declarer gets the diamond away and West ruffs, so the contract still makes. If West had a doubleton club, I think it would be very clear to award 6H-1. In this example, not so clear, which is why I have advised SB to appeal.

I voted against running the club to the 9 since it is logical to unblock clubs (a habit engrained in us from the first few play lessons) and failure to do so is catering for a 4% chance. I would regard taking an action that is only 4% worse than another action is merely careless or inferior, not 'not normal'.

[pescetom]

 lamford, on 2018-April-20, 12:59, said:

I think it is always better to claim silently if you do not intend or need to do something clever, as you will then get a normal line and you cannot misspeak.

But is it ethical or even admissable to claim silently?
The law says that a claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played.
Perhaps I am missing something here.

[blackshoe]

What you're missing, Tom, is the principle "I'm a bridge player; I'll do whatever the hell I want. Screw the rules."

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2018-April-21, 20:28, said:

What you're missing, Tom, is the principle "I'm a bridge player; I'll do whatever the hell I want. Screw the rules."

No, the normal approach I have experienced is "I'm too good or too important to make a proper claim statement." SB is doing us all a service by disputing inaccurate claims.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2018-April-21, 20:28, said:

What you're missing, Tom, is the principle "I'm a bridge player; I'll do whatever the hell I want. Screw the rules."

It's certainly not a principle I endorse or accept, but I'm not blind to it's existence either.
I would settle for practical laws that pay more consideration to the mentality you describe and less to absent minded errors by gentlemen

[weejonnie]

Personally I think that it is often a case or laziness or ignorance of the laws. Declarer sees a winning line e.g. cashing a top honour from 2 when missing JXXX and personally thinks it is 'blindingly obvious' that that is the correct way to proceed. Unfortunately for him the bar ("any doubtful point") is very high and directors (maybe in trying to show off their knowledge of the laws) are often only too eager to disallow.