[barmar]

Law 70E2 gives the RA the option to specify the order in which cards are deemed to be played if this isn't stated explicitly in the claim statement.

I can't imagine any RA implementing that option and NOT specifying it as from the top. IMHO, it's unduly wishy-washy for the Laws to delegate this to the RA. It seems silly to make players play cards in a suit in any other order if they're intending to take the maximum number of tricks. Do we really want to force them to play from the bottom, just to punish them in silly cases like this one?

[Trinidad]

Grazy69, on Oct 24 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

Rik
The above TD instructions are excellent and remove ambiguity in rulings of this type.
Out of interest do you have a link to "instructions to TD's" in your country ?
It would make a good read and compare with the UK's "White Book"
Thx

There is no such thing as a (one) book with TD instructions in The Netherlands (like a white book). There are, of course, the TD course books which come with instructions. But the one thing that works very well is that the Dutch bridge league (NBB) sends a magazine ('WEKOwijzer') out to all TDs four times per year.

The magazine is typically filled with:
Appeals write ups
Law News (New laws or regulations)
Questions and Answers
Specific articles that can focus on particular aspects of directing

The NBB uses this magazine to insure uniformity in director's decisions. Since everything is written in a 'loose' and down to earth style, this magazine is pretty well read which means that it serves its purpose. So when one of the big shots in the NBB writes a column about how to deal with claims, a major part of the TDs will read that and will act accordingly. So this serves as a TD instruction. When the same big shot writes a regulation, it is written as legal stuff, and no one will read it.

Unfortunately, these magazines aren't indexed. This means that a new TD who has to deal with a claim cannot do a quick lookup. But there are thoughts to get something in that direction.

The issues from 1999 can be found on the NBB webpages: link to WEKOwijzers.

Of course, they are written in Dutch, but click on an issue and you might get a feeling of what the WEKOwijzer does, why this approach works and what the drawbacks are.

Rik

[VixTD]

The relevant part of the White Book says:

Quote

70.5 Top down?
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.

So it is not an inviolable rule that all suits are played from the top down, and in this case it seems the White Book would support a ruling that declarer is deemed to play the jack first.

[bluejak]

mr1303, on Oct 24 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

TD at our table ruled 3 tricks to the defence, deciding that since declarer had thought dummy was high, he could play the jack of diamonds off the dummy.

It does appear that some proper guidance is needed on claims of this type, since opinion seems to differ depending on who you ask.

This is a judgement ruling.

When giving judgement rulings there will always be disparity dependent on whom you ask.

barmar, on Oct 25 2009, 07:06 AM, said:

Law 70E2 gives the RA the option to specify the order in which cards are deemed to be played if this isn't stated explicitly in the claim statement.

I can't imagine any RA implementing that option and NOT specifying it as from the top. IMHO, it's unduly wishy-washy for the Laws to delegate this to the RA. It seems silly to make players play cards in a suit in any other order if they're intending to take the maximum number of tricks. Do we really want to force them to play from the bottom, just to punish them in silly cases like this one? 

No, the aim is to give fair rulings. When it is obvious what would have happened, you rule claims that way. When there are a load of winners, we always get differences of opinion, and we always get people who think their way is the only possible way and anything else is ridiculous.

Personally, I think AJ is close. I was interested in the 99% stated earlier: I think as the White book suggests that it depends on what the cards are. I can assure you from playing competitive bridge for over forty years that players do not play the 2 first from AK2 even if they are all winners, but they do play the 4 first sometimes from 754 if they are all winners.

I do not mind the various opinions on this case. But at the end of the day, I do not think these hands are completely obvious, so they are worth discussing, and I get tired with people who say that the authorities should <whatever> because we are discussing things where the authorities have not done so. It is far better to discuss them.

Yes, there are jurisdictions who say always top down. Personally, I think they are wrong, but would rule that way if I were directing for them.

[barmar]

I just think that this is an area where a simple rule, like the rules for revokes, would avoid unnecessary problems. The TD is only likely to be called in these "close" cases, and then the players are at the mercy of a particular TD's judgement. I don't see what's so unfair about a law that says that when a player claims all the cards in a suit are good that they're presumed to be played from the top. Claims, by their very nature, avoid the possibility of some silly actions like revokes and playing out of turn; would it be so bad that they also remove the possibility of playing a suit from the bottom and getting surprised by a misremembered spot card?

In close cases like this, some TDs will rule one way, other TDs will rule another way. Is THAT fair?

There are a number of places in the Laws where judgement calls are unavoidable. Why does this have to be one of them?

[jdonn]

I agree with the group who would not make him play the jack, I don't think it's something people actually do. But also I think it's important to see how the play has gone to this point in these scenarios.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Oct 23 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

You know, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone play the Jack before the Ace in this scenario. Natheless, the laws tell us to give the benefit of the doubt to claimer's opponents, so that's what I'd do.

This is where I get lost. If you've never seen anyone play the jack before the ace, then what "doubt" are you giving the claimer's opponents the benefit of?

[bluejak]

barmar, on Oct 26 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

I just think that this is an area where a simple rule, like the rules for revokes, would avoid unnecessary problems.  The TD is only likely to be called in these "close" cases, and then the players are at the mercy of a particular TD's judgement.  I don't see what's so unfair about a law that says that when a player claims all the cards in a suit are good that they're presumed to be played from the top.  Claims, by their very nature, avoid the possibility of some silly actions like revokes and playing out of turn; would it be so bad that they also remove the possibility of playing a suit from the bottom and getting surprised by a misremembered spot card?

So, which are you going to do: completely re-write the rule for claims, including changing the basics, or write regulations that you know are wrong?

barmar, on Oct 26 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

In close cases like this, some TDs will rule one way, other TDs will rule another way.  Is THAT fair?

No, but since you are going to get them to rule against the current Laws, that is considerably less fair.

barmar, on Oct 26 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

There are a number of places in the Laws where judgement calls are unavoidable.  Why does this have to be one of them?

Because claims are a matter of judgement. Making rules that are illegal under the current Laws to simplify life and produced unfair rulings seems a less suitable solution.