[duschek]

bluejak, on Oct 16 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

The trouble, Mbodell, is that while logic suggests that the ace cannot be right, that is not relevant: a player who has lost track of a hand often makes a play without working the logic out.

Vampyr, on Oct 16 2009, 07:42 AM, said:

I think that the plays you mention are odd-looking and rarely done; however, I do not think that it can ever be "irrational" to choose between equal cards.

I know that directors like to rule that certain irrational plays are within the concept of normal plays. I have yet to understand what is achieved by such rulings; in my opinion, they do not count as "necessary in order to rule by Law".

In this case, even if declarer has lost track, he knows instinctively that the ace of trumps is high. Regardless what goes on in his mind, it would never occur that declarer would not routinely use the low trump for trick 12. Even allowing for the very wide range of "normal" commonly applied to Law 70 rulings, a play which could never happen can hardly be described as "normal".

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on Oct 16 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

I would suggest there exists the possibility that E was not actually committing himself to leading a heart, but rather "thinking aloud" about what possibilities might exist in view of a claim having been made.

Having thought some more, I agree with this. So I would deem that club is led.

[jdonn]

Vampyr, on Oct 16 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

iviehoff, on Oct 16 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

I would suggest there exists the possibility that E was not actually committing himself to leading a heart, but rather "thinking aloud" about what possibilities might exist in view of a claim having been made.

Having thought some more, I agree with this. So I would deem that club is led.

Hmm? Thinking aloud about what possibilities might exist? The direct quote given to us was "I'm leading a heart." I would have thought that only among lawyers could such a statement be interpreted to mean anything othen than east is leading a heart. It's not like east said "but what if I lead a heart?", that might be different.

[Vampyr]

jdonn, on Oct 17 2009, 12:31 AM, said:

The direct quote given to us was "I'm leading a heart." I would have thought that only among lawyers could such a statement be interpreted to mean anything othen than east is leading a heart. It's not like east said "but what if I lead a heart?", that might be different.

OK, but he is not leading a heart, because play has ceased. Now doubtful points are resolved against the claimer.

[jdonn]

Vampyr, on Oct 16 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 17 2009, 12:31 AM, said:

The direct quote given to us was "I'm leading a heart." I would have thought that only among lawyers could such a statement be interpreted to mean anything othen than east is leading a heart. It's not like east said "but what if I lead a heart?", that might be different.

OK, but he is not leading a heart, because play has ceased. Now doubtful points are resolved against the claimer.

I agree. I just can't imagine what is doubtful about such a definitive statement as "I'm leading a heart." Where is the doubt?

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

RMB1, on Oct 15 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

If East leads a heart then ruffing with the ace is a normal line for a player who thinks there is no trumps out.  Ruling: 1 trick.

I've been on a mission regarding this and I'll stay on it. No one EVER does that in real life when they think the trumps are out. Not one time in a thousand. When trumps are out and are all in one hand, every bridge player in the universe plays the remaining ones from the bottom up, always (maybe slight exception for experts trying to hide a card, but certainly for any player less than that). So if ruffing low would cost and ruffing high is right then he can be made to lose the trick, but you can't force a ruff with the ace that no one would ever make imo.

Lol are you serious? No one ever does that? I see this all the time. Also I assume you mean they play a low one when ruffing only? Obviously when playing out trumps most players just play them from the top.

[bluejak]

If you forget the legalities for a moment, and ignore whether "I am leading a heart" is a play within the meaning of the Law, the TD is required to make a decision as to an equitable ruling. This bit, Law 70A, is often ignored by people considering claims. One effect of this is that a TD who feels confident that he knows what would have happened if it had been played out can rule that is what will happen and Law 70A supports him.

This Law book, unlike its predecessor, indicates that in determining what might or would happen, the TD uses information from illegal play as part of the evidence. Now it is merely over-pedantry to suggest it is any different if someone says "I am leading a heart". It does not mean the TD has to follow this unreservedly any more than he has to if there was play, but it is obviously some evidence he should use in his determination.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Oct 16 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

The trouble, Mbodell, is that while logic suggests that the ace cannot be right, that is not relevant: a player who has lost track of a hand often makes a play without working the logic out.

I agree with you, David, that "logic" shouldn't play a role.

However, the logical reasoning that Mbodell is describing is so elementary that players follow the result of this logic instinctively, without going through the math. We all ruff automatically with small cards, unless we have a reason to ruff high. Therefore, ruffing small is not a "doubtful point" in the view of many TDs.

Rik