Re: Claim

That is just silly.
Claim laws explicitely state that only normal lines need to be folloed. 
So we need to define what normal lines are.
Your suggestion is equivalent to saying that all lines are normal. You 
are an example of the director whose task it seems to be to antagonize 
players. That is not what the claim laws are intended for.
There is no gain in having claimers play cards that they would "never" play.

Herman.

Larry wrote:
> I once had a pair (new to my club) that insisted that they played 'random
> leads'.
>
> I stayed at their table as long and often as I could. Each time they were on
> lead I asked them to turn their hand face down, shuffle it and let me pick a
> card to lead.
> They did not return.
>
> Similarly here, if dec thinks his hand is absolutely high, one could imagine
> him shuffling his cards and then playing them in that random order.
> Then consider any doubt to oppos.
>
> Oppos statement of over-ruffing needs to be taken into account though.
>
>
> L
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Frick" <[email protected]>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 5:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim
>
>
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:32:08 -0500, Herman De Wael <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Frick wrote:
>>>> If a player has left a trump and winner(s), if the trump is the ace
>>>> he should play it, and if it is the two he should not. That assumes
>>>> the player thinks through the position, when in fact we are supposed
>>>> to consider lines of play that are careless.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, that leaves 3 through King as ambiguous. To allow the player
>>>> to calculate which trump is likely to be out, even though the player
>>>> does not think a trump is out. That's allowing very careful,
>>>> thoughtful play.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is precisely what we don't want!
>>> A player who "knows" that all trumps are out does not pull one. Ever.
>>> Regardless of its size.
>>> That is a much more simple rule and it caters for all possibilities.
>>> And players won't criticize you for it.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's easy. It's ludicrous to be
>>> ruling claims on the basis of "claimer coould pull any card out of his
>>> hat" That's not what the laws say, and it's not what players accept.
>>> They will accept any logical card, in any order, but not things they
>>> would "never" do.
>>>
>>> And making simple rules as to what constitutes normal play is not that
>>> difficult. Only problem is, you've already done it, and you now believe
>>> that you've done it correctly. I propose alternative simple rules,
>>> which, I believe, are closer to what the laws mean and closer to what
>>> players will accept.
>>>
>>> My simple rule for playing the end of a contract with cards that are all
>>> high is:
>>> "normal play is to play long suits first, high cards after, and trumps
>>> last." With all suits played top-down.
>>>
>>> OK?
>>
>> Halfway.
>>
>> Trying to think back, my impression is that when drawing trumps would have
>> been the correct play, players will often say they were going to draw
>> trumps, but when I say they can't, as angry as they might be, it makes
>> sense to everyone.
>>
>> When withholding a losing trump is the correct play, I can find a way they
>> would lose control of the hand with careless play and lose more tricks
>> than just the high trump. But then I am often finding a line of play that
>> seems odd and the defenders are often not even seeing.
>>
>> So that's a reasonable change in the revoke procedures. I like it. Nice.
>>
>> But it's more important to me to be consistent and right, so I will stick
>> with following the rules for now. To me, if they think every card in their
>> hand is high, they do not care which card they play first.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13534 - Release Date: 12/04/16
>
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml