[smerriman]

Not even use play, but is he allowed to ask the players any clarifying questions at all? After all, playing on is 100% equivalent to repeated questions of the form "what did you intend to play". So outlawing the former also outlaws the latter.

[mycroft]

Axman has had (valid, IMO) issues with Law 70, as most if it is, as people here are stating, simply a bunch of guidelines and suggestions to the Director for how to implement 70A. Which doesn't really feel like "Law".

But I have never heard anyone suggest that "I don't feel like judging, just play the cards instead" was a recommended, or even valid, option for the Director to aid in adjudication; despite the fact that 70B ff. clearly does not delineate 100% of Director's options or work.

[sanst]

The declarer should have stated what he would have done on a hearts lead AND that he in that case would have played the diamond queen under the ace. Without that, the direcfor should decide upon a play that's "careless or inferior for the player involved". I think that winning a trick with the Q and discovering that you can't reach the ace is careless, but not idiotic for an 'intermediate' player.
I won't give the opportunity to play on unless all four agree. After the break and the director the situation has changed fundamentally and the declarer will certainly give far more attention to his play then when he thinks that he just can pick up all the remaining tricks.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2025-March-02, 04:15, said:

The declarer should have stated what he would have done on a hearts lead AND that he in that case would have played the diamond queen under the ace. Without that, the direcfor should decide upon a play that's "careless or inferior for the player involved". I think that winning a trick with the Q and discovering that you can't reach the ace is careless, but not idiotic for an 'intermediate' player.

As a Taliban I have more sympathy for your thinking than my national guidance would prefer and will certainly decide upon a play that's "careless or inferior for the player involved" when it is no more than that and not excluded by his statement. But I agree with others here that his statement "all diamonds are good" implies "♦T is good" and so not letting the Q drop under the A if it blocks is worse than careless for a player of this level.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-March-01, 17:40, said:

Axman has had (valid, IMO) issues with Law 70, as most if it is, as people here are stating, simply a bunch of guidelines and suggestions to the Director for how to implement 70A. Which doesn't really feel like "Law".

But I have never heard anyone suggest that "I don't feel like judging, just play the cards instead" was a recommended, or even valid, option for the Director to aid in adjudication; despite the fact that 70B ff. clearly does not delineate 100% of Director's options or work.

Fair enough, and I agree.
But how close can he go to using play as adjudication?
At the other extreme, what would you reply to smerriman about use of questions at all?

[blackshoe]

"Worse than careless"? I'm not sure that's a valid criterion. Yes, the law used to say "but not irrational". It no longer says that. We don't know why it was removed. Perhaps we should.