[blml] normal lines

[Jerry Fusselman]

Sven Pran:
> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert
> .................
> > The laws do not say "we tell the player we're ruling against him
> > because he can't play bridge", they say "we tell the player we're
> > ruling against him because while it would be *careless* to play this
> > way, it's certainly *possible*, and we are required to give the
> > benefit of the doubt to his opponent."
>
> Bravo!
>

My original question about clause 70.5 is still unanswered.  Maybe I
need to rephrase the question more concretely:

On lead with 3 cards remaining in a no-trump contract, Mr. A claims
with 754 of spades saying they are good, but an opponent has the last
remaining spade, the 6, and he contests the claim because he read EBU
White Book clause 70.5.  Assume Director X here rules all three tricks
to declarer.

Mr. B claims with the same layout and the same statement and the same
play of the cards and it is again contested, but this time Director X
rules zero tricks to declarer based on clause 70.5.  Why did he rule
differently for Mr. B?  The words that sound so sweet to Ed and Sven
are meaningless to Mr. B if he knows what Director X gave to Mr. A.
Mr. B wants the director to explain why he got less than Mr. A.

My question from the start was whether the EBU's example allowing 754
to sometimes capture the lone outstanding 6 and sometimes not is based
on the class of player.

My primary interest was not how lovely a clause-70.5-following
director's language is when he tells a declarer that this time,
top-down is not assumed.  Assume the style is as lovely as you like.
I am more interested in the substance of why he might adjudicate, this
time, that 754 is deemed to lose to the stiff 6.  Is it because of
"class of player"?  If not, was it is based on?

Jerry Fusselman