Bad claim question

[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]

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]

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?

 

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.

 

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.