Re: How careless is careless?

Tony Musgrove:

[snip]

E has a club and a spade and
knows what is going on, and was always
going to lead partners set up suit. And
she is a "good" player.

[snip]

Richard Hills:

Law 70D2 does NOT require the Director to assess whether a particular East "knows what is going on". Instead Law 70D2 requires the Director to assess what is "normal" for East's class of player.

Last weekend I played in Canberra's mini-Nationals. I am a "good" player and some of my opponents were "good" players, but all of us perpetrated bone-headed defences. For example, a player who has represented Australia in international competition let me score +850 in 5Hx when an obvious defence would result in -200 instead.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

> On 30 Sep 2017, at 7:41 AM, Steve Willner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/29/2017 5:15 PM, David Grabiner wrote:
>> From your facts, it appears that East knows that West has good spades,
>> and that the club may not be good (because dummy has a higher club, or
>> declarer is likely to have one).
> 
> I agree that the ruling depends on the cards East can see and on the 
> play up to that point.
> 
>> If that is the case, leading a club is
>> irrational (if you use the claim rule) and not a logical alternative (if
>> you use the UI rule), and the defense gets the last two tricks.
> 
> I don't see any UI.  The relevant Law seems to be 70A in general and 
> 70D2 in particular, i.e., is a club from East "normal" or "irrational" 
> based on East's information and state of mind.  The OP said "E ... was 
> always going to lead partner[']s set up suit," which suggests a club 
> would have been irrational in the circumstances.  If that is not a 
> "doubtful point (L70A)," then the claim should be allowed.
> 
> I am thinking about a PP to West, probably a warning, but I'm not sure 
> whether one is appropriate or not.  Claiming is entirely proper, but 
> here West has claimed at a time that makes it impossible for him to 
> follow L68C, so you could argue it's a violation of procedure.  Despite 
> that, West may have thought East had only spades left.  I think I 
> wouldn't give a PP unless West often does this sort of thing, but I'd 
> warn him that the ruling could well have gone against him, and that it's 
> better to let East play before claiming.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml