[blml] normal lines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

> Jerry Fusselman:
>
> >My original question about clause 70.5 is still
> >unanswered.
>
> [snip]
>
> >754 is deemed to lose to the stiff 6.  Is it because
> >of "class of player"?  If not, was it is based on?
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> My best guess is that it is based on the principle that
> it is easier to be "careless" with low pips than it is
> to be "careless" with high honours.
>
> Some years ago David Stevenson, editor of the EBU White
> Book, was a member of blml, and a previous iteration of
> the "top-down is only normal line" was being discussed
> on the list.  I belong to the expert "class of player",
> and I related my own past carelessness with low pips as
> a counter-example.

Thanks so much for attempting to clarify what is behind clause 70.5.

There are no doubt examples of errors of almost every kind.  Even A2
opposite K3 can take zero tricks on lead in no trump if the mistake of
playing the 2 with the 3 occurs on the first round and an opponent's 4
wins the trick.

We are not particularly interested in the grossest of blunders that
have ever occured at the table.  Yes, showing off the way Richard
mentioned earlier will sometimes lead to a pointless loss of tricks,
but I doubt the lawmakers want us to rule contested claims based on
whether or not some huge blunder has *ever* occurred, proving that it
might again.  And even if not yet recorded, the hugest blunders still
have postive probability of occurring in all classes of players.

The claims laws are not designed to guarantee that no declarer will
ever benefit from claiming over playing it out.  They are designed to
help us speed up the game without giving either side too much too
often.  One of the lessons of the Coase Theorem is that there is a
large benefit to having clear laws (property rights in this case) that
are well understood, even if not they are not perfect.  Both sides can
assume the claim laws are part of the game and recognize that
sometimes they are declaring and other times defending.  But it is
important to have those laws be clear and understood and easy to
enforce with low randomness of outcomes.  Top-down can serve admirably
in this way.

>
> It seems that David Stevenson was convinced by my low
> pips counter-example to top-down, as he incorporated
> that into the White Book's clause 70.5.
>

[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.
------------

 But I do not think that

> the principle that
> it is easier to be "careless" with low pips than it is
> to be "careless" with high honours

explains how the director should choose between top-down in one case
and not the other.  What criteria should one use to determine if
top-down is in effect or not?  Here is what 70.5 tells us:  "Each
individual case should be considered."  OK, let us consider one
individual case:  "Declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42,
forgetting the jack has not gone."  The guideline waffles even here,
in its own chosen first example.  It says that the lead of the 5
"might be considered irrational"---just *might* be.  "It would be
normal to give him three tricks," but this use of normal is not about
normal lines of play but about normal rulings, and a normal ruling
still leaves room for the abnormal in some cases.  Clause 70.5 tells
us nothing about what it would take to rule other than top-down.  In
both examples, clause 70.5 gives, the director is free to rule either
way.

Therefore, I don't see any principles or guidelines on when to rule
top-down in clause 70.5.  It is just nutty.  Top-down seems so much
better to me.

Jerry Fusselman