[blml] normal lines

[Jerry Fusselman]

Richard Hills:
> Jerry Fusselman:
>
>    >Assuming top-down cashing seems correct to me.   Does
>    >anyone dispute this principle?
>
>    Richard Hills:
>
>    The EBU (and myself) partially dispute this principle.
>
>    EBU White Book, clause 70.5:
>
>    A declarer who states that he is 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 him three tricks since it might be
>    considered irrational to play the 5 first.  However, with
>    754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than
>    irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six.
>

"Might be considered careless rather than irrational"  are classic
waffle words when used to discuss what is supposed to be a specific
example.  If neither the EBU nor anyone else cannot come up with even
one cold, hard case where it is fine for the director to make declarer
lose a trick he could only lose by failing to cash the highest card in
the suit first, then it seems clear to me far wiser to make a simple
decision to uphold the principle that for contested claims, director
always assumes cashing from the top down.  Such a weak statement as
the EBU's makes me more confident that my view was right.  There are
still issues remaining, but for Pete's sake, have some principles with
teeth in them.  "Each individual case should be considered" is a
necessary evil in some situations, not a wise principle to cover
everything.

Yes some players do crazy things sometimes.  I have a seen a declarer
finesse towards AQ and play the queen after the king pops out.  She
was planning to finesse.  Nevertheless, when a statement includes
taking a finesse, no director should assume that declarer might play
the queen under the king.  In settling disputed claims,  have some
principles so that two directors tend to get the same result.  The
fact that occasionally a player does something really stupid or
needlessly flashy is irrelevant.  Top-down is one excellent principle
(sorry EBU), and correct execution of an in-the-statement finesse is
another.


>    Richard Hills:
>
>    I myself have often "successfully" executed a squeeze, only
>    to fail to realise that the squeeze card - an indeterminate
>    pip - was high.  So, thinking it did not matter, I then
>    played a lower losing pip instead.
>

Your case was needlessly flashy play.  It matters not to my point.  No
one has listed all of the *possible* mistakes in play.  Big deal.
Make some simple rules on claims and follow them.  Use discretion only
when necessary, and then only when the advantages of discretion
outweigh the costs.  Here, the costs of letting directors sometimes
require bottom-up attempted cashing is much larger than any benefit
from that discretion.

It is also possible that now that "class of player" is gone from the
laws, the EBU might reconsider their old recommendation of director
discretion for the assumed order of attempting to cash cards in a
suit.  I hope so.

Jerry Fusselman