[blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

Richard Hills:
> Jerry Fusselman:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I thought that the "class of player" is no longer a part
> >of the text of the laws for contested claims.   We are
> >talking about the new laws, right?
>
> 2007 footnote to Laws 70 and 71:
>
> * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes
> play that would be careless or inferior for the class of
> player involved.
>

I was wrong the language in the new law here, but is "the class of
player involved" missing from some other place that it used to be?  I
thought early in the BLML discussions of the new laws, there was some
discussion of less language about the class of player.  No?

Is the EBU's position based on "the class of player involved?"  I
guess I am asking for speculation in this question, for they may not
have said one way or another.

That class-of-player stuff is ugly to me.  What are directors told in
directing school that teaches them how to divine the class of player?
Do they go by who they know?  Who they like?  Frequent visitors to the
club?  Those who speak the local language well?  National master
points?  How loud and intimidating they sound when conversing with the
director?  Some of the above are fine to use?  Seriously, I want to
know.

So the EBU recommends telling a claimant something to the effect that
because you did not specifically mention top-down you lose some easy
tricks in your single-suit claim:  That is, we tell them (Oh, nicely,
of course) that we are assuming that you play low cards before high
here, because we find that you're a poor bridge player.  Do I have it
essentially right?

Jerry Fusselman