[billw55]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-04, 14:05, said:

You don't think the people reading and posting here are real?

What? People posting on internet forums are real !?!?

What I mean is, people playing in an event and getting a real ruling, as opposed to people discussing the situation on a forum. The former would be more invested in the situation, and therefore probably more sensitive to a remark such as "I don't care".

[aguahombre]

Especially since on some planets everyone would know you meant "regardless", and not that you really didn't care.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-04, 14:03, said:

"Inferior" isn't the only possibility. There is also "careless". And it would certainly be careless to play the ten.

It is more than careless, it is also irrational. Such a play is the very definition of an irrational action in game-theory terms.

[jnichols]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-January-05, 05:28, said:

It is more than careless, it is also irrational. Such a play is the very definition of an irrational action in game-theory terms.

But most of us are just Bridge players, not game-theorists. People often take actions that would qualify as "irational" in game-theory terms.

[VixTD]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-04, 11:51, said:

This seems completely illogical and absurd. The play of the 10 is not just inferior, it's completely no win, nohow never.

That may be true, but it still takes some thought and therefore a little care for some people to work this out, and therefore I think that ruffing with the ten could be considered careless. And to someone who thinks there are no trumps out, ruffing with the ten is a "no-lose" play.

Iviehoff is not correct to say there is no official guidance available on how to adjudicate claims, in England at least. There may not be much, but p93 of the EBU White Book has:

Quote

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.

Is not leading the five or the four from 754 an even clearer example of a "no-win" play? Yet the guidance allows the TD (without going as far as insisting) to award tricks against the claimer.

I think in such cases TDs tend to be divided into those who rule on the basis of what would likely have happened if the hand had been played out (declarer ruffs low), and those who (correctly in my view) consider what might conceivably have happened if the hand were played out (declarer ruffs low or high), resolving doubtful points against the claimer.

[PeterAlan]

Thank you to everyone for the replies - it's interesting that there doesn't seem to be any real sort of unanimity on what the ruling should be. I make it iviehoff, blackshoe and jnichols in favour of 1 trick each (billw55 as well, but he doesn't count since his starting point isn't the laws as written) and, on the balance of what they've said, ahydra, gwnn, Cyberyeti, Vampyr and Zelandakh in favour of both to the declarer.

 billw55, on 2012-January-03, 13:19, said:

I have a firm opinion on this that I always post in threads like these: if declarer makes a claim that does not mention an outstanding trump, he should be deemed to be unaware of it.

In this case, if declarer thinks no trumps remain in defenders' hands, he might well play the ten, since he thinks it does not matter. I rule one trick to the defense.

Whether the laws actually support this is another matter. I am not a director and this is only a forum so I can say stuff like that

Thanks, but I was primarily concerned with the appropriate action within the laws, which fortunately do explicitly say what the TD should do if the the claimer does not mention an outstanding trump - my problem has only been with appropriate interpretation of "normal" within that section of the laws.

 Vampyr, on 2012-January-03, 19:27, said:

Your wording was not "loose"; the meaning of "plain card" is, er, plain to native English speakers, and is used in bridge literature. Perhaps it is potentially confusing for non-natives, but it is difficult to predict that.

Kind of you, but I'll try nevertheless to be more careful in future postings not to use such terms. Mind you, the pre-edit OP did explictly mention ♦Q in the last paragraph, so I don't think it should have confused anyone who had read that far.

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-03, 18:35, said:

The footnote quoted above was changed in the 2007 laws. In the 1997 version, it read "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." I honestly don't know why it was changed.

This raises all sorts of interesting secondary questions. Did this result from an intention to allow irrational plays possibly to be considered "normal"? And are people (such as you) who are aware that the change took place more ready to consider irrational plays as "normal" than those who are not aware that there was a change? Incidentally, whilst I attended an EBU TD course about the law changes at the time, I don't remember that majoring on alterations to the claim law footnote, but I don't have the course materials to hand right now and it may well be that it was covered and I've forgotten.

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-04, 14:03, said:

There is nothing in the law about "self-evident".

"Inferior" isn't the only possibility. There is also "careless". And it would certainly be careless to play the ten.

BTW, the claimer isn't doing anything. Play ended when he claimed. It's now up to the TD to judge how the play might have gone, giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimer's opponents.

But also (as I said in the final paragraph of the OP) judging "as equitably as possible to both sides". It's interesting that you are the only person to have picked up on either of these parts of the OP's last paragraph.

I was about to post this when I saw VixTD's response arrive:

 VixTD, on 2012-January-05, 08:45, said:

That may be true, but it still takes some thought and therefore a little care for some people to work this out, and therefore I think that ruffing with the ten could be considered careless. And to someone who thinks there are no trumps out, ruffing with the ten is a "no-lose" play.

... p93 of the EBU White Book has:

White Book said:

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.

I think in such cases TDs tend to be divided into those who rule on the basis of what would likely have happened if the hand had been played out (declarer ruffs low), and those who (correctly in my view) consider what might conceivably have happened if the hand were played out (declarer ruffs low or high), resolving doubtful points against the claimer.

The White Book example cited is in the context of a declarer who states that he is cashing a suit, and the question being of whether he is assumed to do so from the top down. Whilst that's not really the context here, the underlying issue's essentially the same: what's "normal"? There are some other White Book sections that touch on the issue, but I note that, for example, 70.2 appears to depend on what's "irrational" and is possibly in need of review since the change to the laws footnote. More pertinent, perhaps, is 70.1, which says:

White Book said:

70.1 Interpretation of Law 70A

The TD is required to simply use his bridge judgement after consultation to decide the outcome of the deal, any doubt going against the claimer, with no opportunity for split or weighted scores. A suitable definition of 'doubtful' is 'within the margins of reasonable doubt'.

The implication of all this, it seems to me, is that White Book is accepting that at one end of a spectrum (eg playing AK5 opposite 42 when cashing out) there is really only one "normal" play, but much further along (754 opposite void) there is genuine doubt. Once one is in the "doubtful" area of the spectrum in any particular case, then I agree that one should rule against the claimer, but the problem remains as to where that starts.

There also remains the overall requirement to adjudicate "as equitably as possible to both sides". There is obviously some tension between these two provisions of Law 70A. Those who would rule one trick to the defence in all such circumstances are not, it seems to me, recognising that the "doubtful" provision qualifies the "equitable" provision without completely over-riding it, and that some such distinction is necessary for the two provisions to co-exist satisfactorily and for the tension to be resolved. The interpretation of White Book in this context that I've just given seems consistent with that.

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-04, 11:51, said:

This seems completely illogical and absurd. The play of the 10 is not just inferior, it's completely no win, nohow never.

 Zelandakh, on 2012-January-05, 05:28, said:

It is more than careless, it is also irrational.

I agree (and said so in the bullet points of the OP). But it's only irrational if the claimer actually can be assumed to think about her play (as jnichols remarks).

This arose in the last club game before Christmas; I wasn't expecting to direct, but did so because the scheduled TD didn't appear. Of course, by the time I got to the table everyone by then had their positions well prepared, which is one reason why I didn't want to explore here whether or declarer was aware of the missing trump - she certainly was when I arrived!

FWIW, after some thought I decided in accordance with those who thought that it would be irrational for her to have played the ♠10 on ♦Q and gave her both tricks. In doing so, I was conscious that the position was a very simple one - had it been a bit more complex, I might have made more allowance for declarer error. I should perhaps have made more effort to identify suitable people to have consulted on the ruling, but in the circumstances I didn't. E/W took the ruling with good grace.

[bluejak]

 billw55, on 2012-January-04, 07:36, said:

And stop claiming without a valid statement.

There's no point in this. We are here to consider rulings, not to change the world. Like it or not, there will be a million claims today without a claim statement of which well over 99% will be so obvious no-one will worry. That's the way life is, and we must tolerate it.

In the very rare case where a claim is contested then the claimer is somewhat worse off if he has made no statement: that's his affair.

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-04, 09:50, said:

"I don't care" is a poor attitude for a TD to take, and a worse thing for him to actually say at the table.

I did this just to test MultiQuote but this is Chrome. I must try testing it in IE.

[iviehoff]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-January-05, 10:05, said:

But it's only irrational if the claimer actually can be assumed to think about her play (as jnichols remarks).

That was also precisely the point I tried to make in my last post, but which I seem to have failed to get across the way I said it.

I concede VixTD's point that a small amount of guidance is available, though I believe I was correct in saying there has been a conscious decision not to provide detailed guidance on what is "normal". Some additional material is in this commentary on the laws on the worldbridge.org website, http://www.worldbrid...sCommentary.pdf, though the guidance there provides nothing that might assist the present example.

[PeterAlan]

 iviehoff, on 2012-January-05, 10:59, said:

 PeterAlan, on 2012-January-05, 10:05, said:

But it's only irrational if the claimer actually can be assumed to think about her play (as jnichols remarks).

That was also precisely the point I tried to make in my last post, but which I seem to have failed to get across the way I said it.

I concede VixTD's point that a small amount of guidance is available, though I believe I was correct in saying there has been a conscious decision not to provide detailed guidance on what is "normal". Some additional material is in this commentary on the laws on the worldbridge.org website, http://www.worldbrid...sCommentary.pdf, though the guidance there provides nothing that might assist the present example.

No, you made your point very clearly - my fault for failing to cite you properly. Sorry. I was conscious of it at the time, and had tried to reflect it in the " ... if declarer were to think about the trumps at all ... But declarer isn't thinking about the trumps" part of the OP, but I hadn't flagged it up as a specific issue to consider.

And thank you for all your efforts on guidance.

[blackshoe]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-January-05, 10:05, said:

This raises all sorts of interesting secondary questions. Did this result from an intention to allow irrational plays possibly to be considered "normal"? And are people (such as you) who are aware that the change took place more ready to consider irrational plays as "normal" than those who are not aware that there was a change? Incidentally, whilst I attended an EBU TD course about the law changes at the time, I don't remember that majoring on alterations to the claim law footnote, but I don't have the course materials to hand right now and it may well be that it was covered and I've forgotten.

I think the point is that "but not irrational" is no longer part of the laws, so arguments about whether an action would be irrational are irrelevant, except perhaps insofar as they might remove any doubt about what a player might do. OTOH, many directors will tell you they have seen players do some pretty strange things.

 PeterAlan, on 2012-January-05, 10:05, said:

But also (as I said in the final paragraph of the OP) judging "as equitably as possible to both sides". It's interesting that you are the only person to have picked up on either of these parts of the OP's last paragraph.

The implication of all this, it seems to me, is that White Book is accepting that at one end of a spectrum (eg playing AK5 opposite 42 when cashing out) there is really only one "normal" play, but much further along (754 opposite void) there is genuine doubt. Once one is in the "doubtful" area of the spectrum in any particular case, then I agree that one should rule against the claimer, but the problem remains as to where that starts.

There also remains the overall requirement to adjudicate "as equitably as possible to both sides". There is obviously some tension between these two provisions of Law 70A. Those who would rule one trick to the defence in all such circumstances are not, it seems to me, recognising that the "doubtful" provision qualifies the "equitable" provision without completely over-riding it, and that some such distinction is necessary for the two provisions to co-exist satisfactorily and for the tension to be resolved. The interpretation of White Book in this context that I've just given seems consistent with that.

This is one of those areas where it is up to the TD, based on his experience and his judgement, to decide where the line is drawn. Of course, an inexperienced TD doesn't have much experience to draw on. That's one reason we consult on judgement rulings.

 PeterAlan, on 2012-January-05, 10:05, said:

This arose in the last club game before Christmas; I wasn't expecting to direct, but did so because the scheduled TD didn't appear. Of course, by the time I got to the table everyone by then had their positions well prepared, which is one reason why I didn't want to explore here whether or declarer was aware of the missing trump - she certainly was when I arrived!

FWIW, after some thought I decided in accordance with those who thought that it would be irrational for her to have played the ♠10 on ♦Q and gave her both tricks. In doing so, I was conscious that the position was a very simple one - had it been a bit more complex, I might have made more allowance for declarer error. I should perhaps have made more effort to identify suitable people to have consulted on the ruling, but in the circumstances I didn't. E/W took the ruling with good grace.

A reasonable ruling, although as you recognize you might have consulted, and perhaps you should have avoided using "irrational", substituting "not normal" instead.

[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, many thanks for your further comments. It's very helpful for one who doesn't direct much (this may be changing).

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-05, 11:49, said:

I think the point is that "but not irrational" is no longer part of the laws, so arguments about whether an action would be irrational are irrelevant, except perhaps insofar as they might remove any doubt about what a player might do. OTOH, many directors will tell you they have seen players do some pretty strange things.

Point taken.

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-05, 11:49, said:

This is one of those areas where it is up to the TD, based on his experience and his judgement, to decide where the line is drawn. Of course, an inexperienced TD doesn't have much experience to draw on. That's one reason we consult on judgement rulings.

 PeterAlan, on 2012-January-05, 10:05, said:

FWIW, after some thought I decided in accordance with those who thought that it would be irrational for her to have played the ♠10 on ♦Q and gave her both tricks.

A reasonable ruling, although as you recognize you might have consulted, and perhaps you should have avoided using "irrational", substituting "not normal" instead.

I don't think I used the term "irrational" on my own account; I was citing those who did just as a way of saying how I came down. I hope I've been consistent in recognising what the relevant test is (as in the thread's title).

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-05, 11:49, said:

I think the point is that "but not irrational" is no longer part of the laws, so arguments about whether an action would be irrational are irrelevant, except perhaps insofar as they might remove any doubt about what a player might do. OTOH, many directors will tell you they have seen players do some pretty strange things.

I do not agree. I think the meaning of this has not changed, just that too many lawyer types tried to argue about the use of the word irrational. As with a lot of things about the Laws, using the word irrational in this context is both reasonable and helpful so long as you allow commonsense.

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 16:18, said:

I do not agree. I think the meaning of this has not changed, just that too many lawyer types tried to argue about the use of the word irrational. As with a lot of things about the Laws, using the word irrational in this context is both reasonable and helpful so long as you allow commonsense.

Does anyone get a chuckle out of applying common sense to the irrational?

[FM75]

 aguahombre, on 2012-January-05, 16:24, said:

Does anyone get a chuckle out of applying common sense to the irrational?

"Common sense" is so often wrong, that equating it to irrational seems natural. No chuckle, except maybe in pointing this out.

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 16:18, said:

I do not agree. I think the meaning of this has not changed, just that too many lawyer types tried to argue about the use of the word irrational. As with a lot of things about the Laws, using the word irrational in this context is both reasonable and helpful so long as you allow commonsense.

I was not trying to suggest that the meaning had changed, more that, as you say, leaving out "irrational" may reduce the number of people arguing about it. I would add that most people who want to argue with the director about whether a particular action is "irrational" may not have much in the way of common sense.

[bluejak]

Maybe. But I think people who argue about the meaning of irrational are in a small minority, and for the vast majority use of the word irrational is helpful.

[AlexJonson]

In my experience people ruffing 'unnecessarily' high when they 'know' that :

1. All other trumps are gone

2. They can draw trumps after ruffing high almost always (but even more often could have ruffed low without an over-ruff).

is very common. It may be psychological certainty on the trick in question, or maybe bravado.

Gwynn may think about Chess, where the opposite - mating with a minimal piece, or pointlessly promoting to a minimal piece, is a bit ostentatious, but not illegal or all that uncommon.

However, I've never entirely understood why a common action may not still be irrational: it has been explained in this post and many others why the commonplace action is demonstrably irrational. I don't notice that the Laws say the TD should 'guess' what this player or some other players might do, and thereby reclassify the irrational as rational. There is a prejudice, without evidence it seems, that irrationality is uncommon.

[bluejak]

As the Laws were originally written there was an unstated method of dividing plays into four types:

• Best: the correct play in the circumstances
  
• Inferior: not the best play as others see it, but may be the best play as the player making the play sees it
  
• Careless: a play normally perfectly adequate but not actually best and allowing unforeseen problems to occur
  
• Irrational: a play which cannot really be justified

Best play is fairly obvious.

An example of an inferior play can be given from a hand that I kibitzed over 40 years ago: declarer, a lady in her thirties played Jx opposite AKT9x in no-trumps, needing five tricks, by leading the jack, then putting the ace on it and then the king, dropping my friend's doubleton queen offside. He had no sense of humour, and nearly burst when declarer explained to her partner that she could not finesse because she would go off if the finesse lost.

An example of a careless play from a hand I played over 40 years ago, which I did not do: LHO led a card, RHO won and returned one, I ruffed high because I could afford to. However it was not necessary unless RHO had an unbid nine-card suit. I think I had to be revived when LHO showed out! Ruffing low would be perfectly normal but careless.

Irrational plays happen all the time, for example revokes happen, and people do plays that careful analysis show cannot gain.

Now when a player claims, and a part of the claim is unstated, then the TD will consider Best, Careless and Inferior plays as possible, but not Irrational ones.

[billw55]

 bluejak, on 2012-January-06, 05:13, said:

An example of an inferior play can be given from a hand that I kibitzed over 40 years ago: declarer, a lady in her thirties played Jx opposite AKT9x in no-trumps, needing five tricks, by leading the jack, then putting the ace on it and then the king, dropping my friend's doubleton queen offside. He had no sense of humour, and nearly burst when declarer explained to her partner that she could not finesse because she would go off if the finesse lost.

I assume Jx was in hand? If it was in dummy, this is just a case of "if he doesn't cover he doesn't have it."