[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-October-26, 17:59, said:

You don't start with 14 winners as in the original post.

I can only count three clubs, four diamonds, three hearts and two spades. What am I missing?

[manudude03]

A play doesn't have to cost to be considered abnormal. If a stranger was pulled from the street and was told they needed to win all 13 tricks, with the highest card in the suit led winning the trick, you must follow suit if you can and the hand that won the trick leads to the next, would they make 13 tricks with no other bridge knowledge? You could pretty much put your house on the line that they would. At worst, they don't count the clubs at all and would be worried if the club is good at trick 13, but that's it.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-October-27, 07:59, said:

I can only count three clubs, four diamonds, three hearts and two spades. What am I missing?

He tested clubs first, so knew they weren't 4-0. As long as he has communication to the long club suit he has 5 club tricks, and even if he blocks the suit he has 4. The only way to take less than 13 tricks is to intentionally throw away obvious winners. No reasonable person would consider that "normal". If someone played anything like the line SB suggests, many would wonder if they're losing their facilities and maybe they should consider retiring from the game.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2016-October-27, 08:53, said:

A play doesn't have to cost to be considered abnormal. If a stranger was pulled from the street and was told they needed to win all 13 tricks, with the highest card in the suit led winning the trick, you must follow suit if you can and the hand that won the trick leads to the next, would they make 13 tricks with no other bridge knowledge? You could pretty much put your house on the line that they would. At worst, they don't count the clubs at all and would be worried if the club is good at trick 13, but that's it.

I think the claim laws assume that a suit will be led from the top, and I think they should say that it is considered "normal" to play the lowest card in the suit when not winning the trick. However, with those two provisos, any winner can be played unless an order has been specified or unless an order is abnormal. There are some situations, such as Ax opposite KQx where a player is deemed to begin with the ace (according to the EBU director's course). I should have interchanged the jack of diamonds and seven of diamonds in the original layout (which is how I began before getting sidetracked on this seven of diamonds lark). I would then rule one down for sure, and I am interested in how many agree.

[axman]

lamford, on 2016-October-27, 09:40, said:

.... and I think they should say that it is considered "normal" to play the lowest card in the suit when not winning the trick. ...

Perhaps a more appropriate view is "normal" includes** playing the lowest card in the suit when not winning the trick.

** as in: but, not limited to

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-October-27, 09:40, said:

I think the claim laws assume that a suit will be led from the top, and I think they should say that it is considered "normal" to play the lowest card in the suit when not winning the trick. However, with those two provisos, any winner can be played unless an order has been specified or unless an order is abnormal. There are some situations, such as Ax opposite KQx where a player is deemed to begin with the ace (according to the EBU director's course). I should have interchanged the jack of diamonds and seven of diamonds in the original layout (which is how I began before getting sidetracked on this seven of diamonds lark). I would then rule one down for sure, and I am interested in how many agree.

I don't think the claim laws make any such assumptions. I do think some RAs do make such assumptions, in which case the assumptions made should be enshrined in written regulation. If they're not, imposition of such assumption is outside the law.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-October-27, 14:09, said:

I don't think the claim laws make any such assumptions. I do think some RAs do make such assumptions, in which case the assumptions made should be enshrined in written regulation. If they're not, imposition of such assumption is outside the law.

The interpretation of the Laws is up to the RA, however, and this presumably includes what is "normal" and what is not.

[blackshoe]

I would say that the WBFLC and in North America the ACBLLC are the ultimate authorities in interpretation of the laws, but yes, if they have not issued an interpretation of an ambiguous law, that authority falls to the RA and ultimately to the TD. If a law is not ambiguous, then no "interpretation" contrary to the law itself is possible.

Where interpretation of the law falls on the RA, all I'm saying is that such interpretation cannot be handed down by word of mouth. They have to be written down and disseminated to players and TDs at all levels, else how are we to know what are the rules of our game?

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2016-October-27, 09:40, said:

I should have interchanged the jack of diamonds and seven of diamonds in the original layout (which is how I began before getting sidetracked on this seven of diamonds lark). I would then rule one down for sure, and I am interested in how many agree.

I agree that with ♦J and ♦7 interchanged then I would expect to rule one down. You now require 5 ♣ tricks, and will only get them if you unblock the suit in time. Without mentioning this in the claim statement, declarer cannot be expected to be given the benefit of the doubt.