Pict, on Feb 9 2010, 11:31 AM, said:
I would just suggest that the TD - faced with defective claim statement (of however many sentences) may judge that declarer's intention was clear, when certain things follow, or he may judge that declarer's intention was not clear, when issues around finesses come into play.
I agree that it is up to the TD to decide what is rational, but I don't think he should be deciding what declarer's intention might or might not have been. And this is confirmed by both Endicott and Kooijman:
+=+ My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned.
Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned. " It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms.
~ Grattan ~ +=+
And Ton's response was "Amen!" indicating that he concurred.
This suggests that rationality is decided without considering "the player concerned", so that dburn's view that what is rational for Zia might not be rational for Zizi (with apologies for those that do not know the charming lady) is not supported by at least two members of the WBLFC.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
Bidding:
1N - pass - 3N - all pass