[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-17, 13:08, said:

A line of play statement is, by definition, a statement of the order in which he will play his remaining cards.♠

I think it has long been established that this is not necessarily so.

In the case in question, the player believes all four cards in his hand are good, and might therefore play them in any order. Refusing to play the second trump after the first is only necessary if you think one of your other cards might not be good. That wasn't the case here.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2013-July-18, 01:28, said:

I think it has long been established that this is not necessarily so.

In the case in question, the player believes all four cards in his hand are good, and might therefore play them in any order. Refusing to play the second trump after the first is only necessary if you think one of your other cards might not be good. That wasn't the case here.

It may or may not have been the case. Our OP changed the story in midstream, and there is a difference between the first reported statement and the second (and the third, if you include the assertion that no line of play statement was made). As I said, if the player believes all four of his cards are good, it is not irrational to play both trumps first. However, if he said "two good clubs, two good trumps" the implication is that he would play the four cards in that order. He will be surprised when his opponent wins the first trick, but that doesn't matter, because he will ruff the second, and then his hand is high.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-18, 01:36, said:

if he said "two good clubs, two good trumps" the implication is that he would play the four cards in that order

That's the bit I'm questioning (as has at least one other contributor earlier in the thread), unless he said something like "two good clubs, then two good trumps".

Players often list their tricks, not in the order they need to play them, when making a claim. We don't hold them to playing in that order unless it's clear that's what they meant, and equally we shouldn't give them the benefit of playing them in that order unless it's clear that's what they meant.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-17, 13:08, said:

I think the folks who want to award two tricks are ignoring "as equitable as possible to both sides".

I think folks who want to award only one trick to the defence are ignoring "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". Do you really believe that the claimer was aware that there was a high club out, and made no mention of it, or that the defence would get a trick?

I don't really understand the uses of "irrational" and "careless" when referring to claimer's proposed lines of play. What's careless is forgetting that the club queen has not yet been played. Given that that's been missed, any line of play is normal, careful, sensible, rational.

[ggwhiz]

As a habit I claim by tabling my cards in the order of play and I guess I'm applying the same criteria to a verbal claim.

Given the level of player involved I'm interested in thoughts and duties (or not)on protecting the field, ie. some poor schmucks that come a close second to these defenders.

[WellSpyder]

ggwhiz, on 2013-July-18, 08:08, said:

Given the level of player involved I'm interested in thoughts and duties (or not)on protecting the field, ie. some poor schmucks that come a close second to these defenders.

Bluejak is usually BBO's most persistent mocker of the concept of protecting the field, but he hasn't been posting as much recently as he used to. I'm not sure anyone else really thinks rulings should be influenced by protecting the field, either, though.

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2013-July-18, 08:08, said:

As a habit I claim by tabling my cards in the order of play and I guess I'm applying the same criteria to a verbal claim.

My partner is anal like that, too. But most players (myself included) are not so fastidious. In cases where it doesn't seem to make a difference, and it appears that this will be obvious to the opponents, we'll often just list the winners we have, without intending a specific order. And a common way to abbreviate this is by grouping the tricks by suit, as the player in question seems to have done.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2013-July-18, 04:14, said:

That's the bit I'm questioning (as has at least one other contributor earlier in the thread), unless he said something like "two good clubs, then two good trumps".

Players often list their tricks, not in the order they need to play them, when making a claim. We don't hold them to playing in that order unless it's clear that's what they meant, and equally we shouldn't give them the benefit of playing them in that order unless it's clear that's what they meant.

Quote

Law 68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

The original statement given was "two good clubs, two good diamonds". You say it's not a clear statement. Fair enough. But at the table the TD can and should investigate what the claimer meant.

VixTD, on 2013-July-18, 07:25, said:

I think folks who want to award only one trick to the defence are ignoring "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". Do you really believe that the claimer was aware that there was a high club out, and made no mention of it, or that the defence would get a trick?

I don't really understand the uses of "irrational" and "careless" when referring to claimer's proposed lines of play. What's careless is forgetting that the club queen has not yet been played. Given that that's been missed, any line of play is normal, careful, sensible, rational.

I want to investigate and find out what really happened and what the claimer meant when he stated "two good clubs, two good diamonds". I can't (we don't have access to all the players). I will concede that on the limited information available the statement appears to be ambiguous, and therefore the "any doubtful point" clause comes into play. So as long as this is all the information we have, I'll change my ruling in this case to "losing two tricks". But I'm still not convinced we know what was actually said, or what the claimer intended.

I have partners for whom forgetting that a particular card has or has not been played is not at all careless - it's their usual situation. However, we're told the claimer here is "a decent player" so he probably doesn't fall into that class.

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-18, 09:19, said:

Bluejak is usually BBO's most persistent mocker of the concept of protecting the field, but he hasn't been posting as much recently as he used to. I'm not sure anyone else really thinks rulings should be influenced by protecting the field, either, though.

I certainly don't.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-18, 09:49, said:

have partners for whom forgetting that a particular card has or has not been played is not at all careless - it's their usual situation. However, we're told the claimer here is "a decent player" so he probably doesn't fall into that class.

I was going to say that "careless" is not the same as "unusual". Then I remembered that the law actually says "for the class of player". But does that mean that if a player usually forgets about outstanding high cards, it's not careless for them to forget in any particular situation -- they forgot about it "carefully"? That doesn't seem to make sense. If someone frequently forgets, it means they're usually careless. I think "for the class of player" can only sensibly be applied to the "irrational" qualifier.

[blackshoe]

Only if "irrational" doesn't mean "irrational" but rather, as Grattan Endicott once told me "implausible for the class of player involved". I'm a little peeved about that. Seems to me that if the lawmakers don't mean "irrational" literally, they've had ample opportunity to change the word.

[ggwhiz]

I take the point about protecting the field not being a consideration but in years of playing speedballs online or proper claims made f2f I can't remember a single one that did not involve playing the side suit first.

[RMB1]

ggwhiz, on 2013-July-18, 10:51, said:

I take the point about protecting the field not being a consideration but in years of playing speedballs online or proper claims made f2f I can't remember a single one that did not involve playing the side suit first.

Not even when there were trumps to draw?

[ggwhiz]

RMB1, on 2013-July-18, 11:26, said:

Not even when there were trumps to draw?

Well never after they were drawn or that trick goes in the bin on the same principle of side suits first.