[blml] normal lines

[Jerry Fusselman]

[Ed Reppert:]

Well, I would have to do some research to answer that (I'm not in the
EBU). But what I was really speaking to was "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." I can't
believe that *any* NBO would be so foolish.

[Jerry Fusselman:]

Yes, neither can I.  That's my point.  I was thinking of a reductio ad
absurdum.  Please permit me to summarize what is at issue here.

Only a few BLMLers are disputing the notion that assuming top-down
cashing is a worthwhile principle for settling contested claims under
the new laws.  Richard is one dissenter, perhaps the only clear
dissenter, and he backs his position by citing  EBU White Book, clause
70.5.  "However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered careless
rather than irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six."

How Richard uses this to justify his disagreement with the assumption
of top-down cashing for contested claims under the new laws is
currently beyond me, because clause 70.5 refers to a law, no longer in
effect, that uses the term "irrational."  (But maybe he can explain
it.)

[Eric Landau:]

The reference to "class of player" has not, contrary to rumor, been
removed from TFLB.  It appears in the 2008 laws exactly as it did in
the 1997 laws.  Only the words "but not irrational" have been removed.

[Jerry Fusselman]

I asked Richard to clarify whether the EBU clause depends on class of
player or something else.  He has not yet responded.  If it is
something else, I want to know what that is.  If it is class of
player, I, like you, find it absurd.  The phrase of mine that you
quoted is an attempt to show absurd it is.  But neither Richard nor
anyone else has explained whether clause 70.5 (which he he uses to
support his position) was based on class of player.

I hope I have clarified it for you, Ed.  Everything below here is from
the original thread:

Jerry Fusselman




=== context from past posts ===

[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.

[Jerry Fusselman]

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.

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?