[barmar]

I thought he was being sarcastic about the EBU Director classes.

[blackshoe]

Again. and again, and again, when you claim, make a clear and complete statement of your intended line of play. No shortcuts. If you don't do that, you have only yourself to blame if the director rules your claim not valid, and thus you are entirely missing the point if you decide you will never claim again. It's not the director who's the bad guy in this scenario, it's you, the claimer.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2016-April-08, 07:10, said:

IMO if that is a correct ruling, it goes a long way to explaining why some players are reluctant to claim.

It is clearly a correct ruling, but I think that a more frequent reason people are reluctant to claim is that until all of the cards left are clearly winners, it can take longer to explain the line of play than to just play it out. Also, of course, in MPs you can try to coax an error out of the opponents. I am not sure whether this is ethical, but am inclined to believe that it is.

barmar, on 2016-April-08, 08:38, said:

I thought he was being sarcastic about the EBU Director classes.

No, Lamford definitely believes that the Club and County director courses are excellent. And I agree with him.

Because they are excellent and also fun, most London (and England?) clubs have loads of spare directors around -- which helps the less experienced director and ensures that no one has to direct too often.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-09, 07:07, said:

It is clearly a correct ruling, but I think that a more frequent reason people are reluctant to claim is that until all of the cards left are clearly winners, it can take longer to explain the line of play than to just play it out. Also, of course, in MPs you can try to coax an error out of the opponents. I am not sure whether this is ethical, but am inclined to believe that it is.



No, Lamford definitely believes that the Club and County director courses are excellent. And I agree with him.

Because they are excellent and also fun, most London (and England?) clubs have loads of spare directors around -- which helps the less experienced director and ensures that no one has to direct too often.

Yes they are are excellent, and they spend their time discussing law rulings, rather than whether people are spectators or players.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-09, 07:07, said:

Also, of course, in MPs you can try to coax an error out of the opponents. I am not sure whether this is ethical, but am inclined to believe that it is.

So am I.

Quote

Law 73E: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).

Seems close enough.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-April-09, 07:14, said:

Yes they are are excellent, and they spend their time discussing law rulings, rather than whether people are spectators or players.

I don't understand the point of this comment. After all, you're the one who brought it up.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-09, 09:16, said:

Seems close enough.

I don't think that law is really necessary in this case. The question is whether playing out in case an opponent makes a mistake counts as trying to "disconcert" them, since the law against delaying says that this is not allowed. But if you're merely "confusing" them ("Hmm, I wonder why he isn't conceding, did I miscount something?"), that's allowed.

I have a partner who rarely gives up hoping for an extra trick, even when it's obviously hopeless. She claims when she has the rest of the tricks, but I almost never see her concede when she's run out of tricks.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-09, 09:17, said:

I don't understand the point of this comment. After all, you're the one who brought it up.

I did not want to deter people from attending because they were worried it would be a linguistics course or they would need a degree in English (or perhaps Mathematics) to understand it.

[StevenG]

How do people rule on an alternate hand where the Rabbit is missing the Queen, not the King? That is, the Rabbit thinks he is missing the Queen only, but is in fact missing Qx, and only the x pops up when he plays the first round of the suit?

[lamford]

StevenG, on 2016-April-10, 06:31, said:

How do people rule on an alternate hand where the Rabbit is missing the Queen, not the King? That is, the Rabbit thinks he is missing the Queen only, but is in fact missing Qx, and only the x pops up when he plays the first round of the suit?

If the Rabbit is missing only two hearts, then he will follow his reliable rule on whether to finesse for the queen (ten ever, eleven never). Of course he is applying the rule for when he is missing the king, but it is quite an achievement for him to remember any rule at all. So he will play for the drop, as failure to do so even for the Rabbit would be worse than careless.

If he is missing Qxx, then he will be deemed to take a losing first-round finesse, as the superior line of winning a top honour and then entering dummy to take a marked finesse will be way beyond him.

Which reminds me of a puzzle from a friend. Holding KJ9xx opposite AT8xx, how do you guarantee no loser if the suit breaks 3-0? There is no opposition bidding, and no inference can be drawn from the opening lead.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-09, 07:07, said:

... but I think that a more frequent reason people are reluctant to claim is that until all of the cards left are clearly winners, it can take longer to explain the line of play than to just play it out.

Definitely agree with this.