[blml] normal lines

[Brian]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:02:00 -0000
"David Burn" <dalburn at btopenworld.com> wrote:

> [SW]
> 
> > From: "David Burn" <dalburn at btopenworld.com>
> > Yes. You see, a declarer might claim in this kind of position:
> > 
> >         None
> >         None
> >         None
> >         432
> > 8                  64
> > None               None
> > None               None
> > AK                 Q
> >         75
> >         3
> >         None
> >         None
> > 
> > South in a heart contract claims saying "there are no more trumps
> > out and both my spades are good". How many tricks does he make?
> 
> Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down."  Can anyone
> offer an example where it works badly?
> 
> [DALB]
> 
> Here, "top down" does work badly - from the claimer's point of view,
> since he would lose two tricks by playing the seven of spades first,
> only one by playing the five of spades first. "If I think both my
> spades are good", he will complain having been ruled against
> according to the de Wael protocol, "why shouldn't I lead either of
> them first?" Why indeed?
> 

I realise you were providing an example as requested, David - but
couldn't the answer to the claimer's question be :-

"Because, Mr. Claimer, the regulations state that you are assumed to
play suits top down in this sort of situation. If you want to play them
bottom up in case you forgot an outstanding high card, you have to say
so when you claim." 

This treatment seems to me to be no more unfair to claimers who forget
a high card than is the way we treat those who don't state a line at
all, or who state a line that's not possible. It certainly ought to stop
any (valid!) complaints along the lines you suggest. Of course, it would
require an administrator or several to stop contemplating their navels
and actually introduce such regulations. 


Brian. 

--