[Vampyr]

Well, I will accept this principle since Gordon is the authority in my jurisdiction, but I would like to know how far to take it. If declarer's last three cards are AK2, and he claims without a statement, shall he be deemed to play the cards in any order:

If the suit is trumps?

If it is a plain suit?

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-10, 05:32, said:

Well, I will accept this principle since Gordon is the authority in my jurisdiction, but I would like to know how far to take it. If declarer's last three cards are AK2, and he claims without a statement, shall he be deemed to play the cards in any order:

This is precisely the sort of distinction that is already covered in the White Book, which is also the authority in our jurisdiction. WB 8.70.5:

Quote

A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.
Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2014-February-10, 05:40, said:

This is precisely the sort of distinction that is already covered in the White Book, which is also the authority in our jurisdiction. WB 8.70.5:

LOL I had looked this up in the White Book but had forgotten.

Not that I expect to have to rule on zillions of this sort of claim, but is there a dividing line, ie a combination such that better holdings will play from the top while worse ones might play the cards in any order?

[nige1]

Lanor Fow, on 2014-February-06, 05:38, said:

Not sure about authorities other that the EBU, Campboy, but 'generally' the EBU has specified top down in the white book:

EBU White Book 8.70.5 said:

Top down?
A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the
top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.
Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has
not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be
considered not 'normal' to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it
may be considered 'careless' to lose a trick to a singleton six.
8.70.6 Different suits
If a declarer appears unaware of an outstanding winner, and a trick could be lost by playing or
discarding one suit rather than another then the TD should award that trick to the nonclaimers.
Example Declarer has three winners in dummy and must make three discards. They appear
to have forgotten their J is not a winner. It is 'careless' that they should discard
some other winner to retain the J"

Another clear as mud regulation that, as usual, raises intriguing questions:

• Do "careless" and "normal" depend on the skill level of the claimer (IMO they shouldn't but I'm unsure of the law).
• Where do you draw the line? e.g. AJT with the Q out, 732 with the 6 out? Does this again depend on the whim of the director?
• When a claimer makes no specific statement but would be forced to "cash a suit" in the course of play, do these guide-lines still apply? Vampyr, quite reasonably, thought so. In particular, does this regulation apply in the OP case. e.g if declarer's trumps were A32 might the director uphold his claim?

A simpler law would eliminate these fascinating controversies.

[blackshoe]

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director". And I think your implication that directors rule by whim is rather insulting.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-10, 08:57, said:

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director". And I think your implication that directors rule by whim is rather insulting.

Would it not have been helpful to add the guideline that replaces 'whim' in this situation? Nigel and I would both like to know which holdings are played top-down and which are 'carelessly' potentially played in any order. I would hate to have to rule on such a case before receiving an answer!

[billw55]

nige1, on 2014-February-10, 07:33, said:

A simpler law would eliminate these fascinating controversies.

Agree. I would support the following law:

When a claim is made, the non-claiming side is automatically awarded one trick for each trump they hold which is not specifically mentioned or negated in the claim statement, unless it is impossible to win such tricks by any sequence of legal plays.

Harsh? Yep. Ambiguous? Nope. That's how I roll.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-10, 08:57, said:

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director".

This assertion is dubious.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-10, 08:57, said:

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director".

axman, on 2014-February-10, 10:13, said:

This assertion is dubious.

It depends if you consider "judgement" and "whim" as synonyms. I don't.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2014-February-10, 05:40, said:

This is precisely the sort of distinction that is already covered in the White Book, which is also really the authority in our jurisdiction.

FYP

[axman]

billw55, on 2014-February-10, 10:16, said:

It depends if you consider "judgement" and "whim" as synonyms.

A dubious assertion.



In America there is a nationally rated TD that has a policy of requiring a defender with an exposed card [at a time other than his turn] to deem it not a PC, and return it to hand without penalty. Supposedly he relies upon L50.

Then, there are the curious words ‘the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law’ found in L64C. the curiosity arising from the fact that there is no definition for the standard ‘insufficiently compensated’

[billw55]

Let me try this again.

blackshoe, on 2014-February-10, 08:57, said:

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director".

axman, on 2014-February-10, 10:13, said:

This assertion is dubious.

As you can see, I am talking about the laws, as was blackshoe. While occasionally a director may use his whim, this does not mean that the laws depend on it or encourage it. Some aspects of the law do require the director to use his judgement, which is not the same as whim, at least not to me.

You have had whimsical director rulings? Many of us have. That is unrelated to the laws.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2014-February-10, 11:19, said:

Then, there are the curious words ‘the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law’ found in L64C. the curiosity arising from the fact that there is no definition for the standard ‘insufficiently compensated’

Well, this Law reads "sufficiently compensated ... for the damage caused", which makes it clear that the NOS should have their equity, sans revoke, restored.

But I am still waiting for someone to answer the question of how to differentiate between a holding in a suit that will be played from the top and one which may be played in any order.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2014-February-10, 07:33, said:

Do "careless" and "normal" depend on the skill level of the claimer (IMO they shouldn't but I'm unsure of the law).

A good way to become more sure of the law is to read it. The footnote to Laws 70 and 71 reads:
For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2014-February-10, 12:46, said:

A good way to become more sure of the law is to read it. The footnote to Laws 70 and 71 reads:
For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

Thanks. I feared as much

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-10, 08:57, said:

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director". And I think your implication that directors rule by whim is rather insulting.

I disagree with your contention and find the dismissive tone of your comment "rather insulting"

Vampyr, on 2014-February-10, 12:15, said:

But I am still waiting for someone to answer the question of how to differentiate between a holding in a suit that will be played from the top and one which may be played in any order.

Vampyr might wait a long time. A plausible guess is: to some extent, this depends on how well the director knows the claimer (i.e. his "class"). For the rest, the director must use "judgement" whatever that means in this context. Perhaps he tosses a fair coin. Heaven forfend that he should rule on a whim!

[barmar]

whim n. a sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-10, 12:15, said:

But I am still waiting for someone to answer the question of how to differentiate between a holding in a suit that will be played from the top and one which may be played in any order.

I can't answer this question. Nor, I think, can your RA. It's a fine line, as you can see by looking at the examples, and may well depend on other things that just the cards involved. Bottom line: it's a judgement call; do the best you can. Discuss specific examples with other TDs. Initially you may find others disagreeing with your judgement. Eventually, particularly in a small world like English bridge, I expect you'll all come to a consensus.

nige1, on 2014-February-10, 13:12, said:

I disagree with your contention and find the dismissive tone of your comment "rather insulting"

Okay, Nigel, I'll play. Show me how to word the comment so it has no "dismissive tone". That's one thing. The other is that you're certainly entitled to disagree, but you're still wrong.

barmar, on 2014-February-10, 13:45, said:

whim n. a sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained.

Precisely!

[nige1]

billw55, on 2014-February-10, 11:28, said:

You have had whimsical director rulings? Many of us have. That is unrelated to the laws.

When a law has no agreed meaning or when a regulation fails to discriminate among cases that would result in opposite rulings, then I feel it that directors must rely on "guesswork" or "intuition" rather than "judgement". That is what I meant by "ruling on a whim". Not a criticism of directors, who do a good job in trying circumstances. The fault is in the rules. We can't expect perfection. But surely we can hope for simpler clearer rules.

[blackshoe]

Nigel, you should see if you can get on your NBO's Laws committee, or whichever committee is responsible for Scottish regulations. Get some of your ideas implemented. If that works out, maybe you can convince the WBFLC as well.

(Note: I'm serious here.