[blml] normal lines

[Jerry Fusselman]

Ed Reppert:
>
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> So do I. You have postulated an incomplete case. Given the facts as
> you present them here, I see no reason why this director should issue
> two different rulings.
>

My guess is that it might be because of class of player.  Richard has
not yet said.  Richard has stated that sometimes he agrees that the
stiff 6 should be deemed to win over the 754 that were claimed good.
Richard has not said why he thinks so, other than to quote EBU clause
70.5.

Ed and Sven, I appreciate your attempts to follow my argument and
explain things to me.  I think we are now communicating, and we have
achieved much agreement.

I am beginning to think clause 70.5 is dead anyway, due to its use of
the word "irrational," which has been removed from contested-claims
parts of the 2008 laws.  But I am still curious why anyone would want
to sometimes rule that a 754 loses to a stiff 6.  Richard?  Anyone?

Dave Burn's example does not help, because ruling top-down works perfectly:

[Dave Burn]

> 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?

[Steve Wilner]

Seems a perfect example for "suits played top down."  Can anyone offer
an example where it works badly?

As Eric points out, any other rule will be exceedingly complex or will
result in random rulings.

[Jerry Fusselman]

BLML seems now close to a consensus that top-down (within a suit) is a
fine principle.  The only remaining voices against it I can recall are
three:  (1) EBU White Book, clause 70.5, now probably dead;  (2)
Richard Hills agreement a week ago with the example in clause 70.5, as
I have described above, but he has not clarified why and no one else
has agreed;  (3) Dave Burn's example above, while interesting, does
not show any problem with assuming top-down.  I.e., you get everyone's
preferred answer of 1 trick to South by assuming top-down:  Trump
first, because it is the least-advantageous suit order to do what he
intended to do---cash his "winners."  He might play trump first at the
table to induce an opponent to make a discarding mistake just in case
his assumption that he had all winners in the side suits was
incorrect.  I.e., trumps first is a normal option for this claim
statement.

Steve's paraphrase of Eric's point makes me wonder:  Does someone care
not one bit how random our rulings are?

Possibly Dave Burn can come up with another example, perhaps similar
to his last, where the top-down assumption gives declarer too much.
He might give us something like this:

         3
         None
         None
         32
 K                    2
 None               None
 None               None
 AK                 Q2
         AQJ
         None
         None
         None

With North (dummy) on lead, South claims saying, "AQJ are good."

If this is contested, I would give South the rest, because I would
assume that South with this statement will play his cards top down.  I
don't think the law requires him to take a finesse here.

The top-down assumption means that one area of claims law is taken
care of with one simple assumption.  It seems wise, because it is
easier to remember and leads to fewer random rulings.  I see no
trouble with equity in this approach, because equity does not require
that forgetting an outstanding card always costs at least one trick.

If the four spade honors were changed to 7, 6, 5, and 4, I would hope
everyone would rule the same, even though these cards give South and
West the holding that clause 70.5 says can be random or discretionary.

Jerry Fusselman