From the bottom up

[ahydra]

Having followed lamford's "Careless Claim?" thread, I was reading the laws on claims and found this:

 

The Director does not accept any part of a defenders claim that depends on his partners selecting a particular play from among alternative normal plays.

 

I found this interesting, especially as I could have made more than one defensive claim before now (but generally don't to avoid problems). So...

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sh3dct9&w=s8hd96c&n=shdt74c&e=shdcq43]399|300|4H, South (on lead) needs the rest[/hv]

 

East-West were not regular players at Ahydra's Imaginary BC, and indeed had only been playing the game a short while. South liked his ♣AKJ109 and drove to an ambitious 4H. During the play he finessed clubs and East made an encouraging signal (he had 6 of them, after all). South found himself on lead in the diagrammed position needing the remainder of the tricks. He led the H3 and West claimed, saying "One trick to us - partner has the club queen". Declarer, very familiar with the Laws, immediately seized his chance. He summoned the Director and tried to persuade her to rule the contract made, quoting Law 70D2 and this accompanying footnote:

 

For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

 

His contention was that to throw the CQ on the trump is an inferior play that a beginner might make, and is hence "normal" under Law 70D2. East promptly exclaimed "You can't be serious... I may be a beginner, but even beginners know to throw away low cards before high ones". The TD stepped in to prevent a fracas of lamford-story-proportions, and ruled... how?

 

ahydra

[the_clown]

Anything other than letting the score stand would be unthinkable. While I can see that the claim is pretty pointless and doesnt save much time trowing the ♣Q is not something even a beginner would consider.

[bluejak]

Beginners never throw high cards even when they should. So this effort by declarer is pointless.

[ahydra]

Then I have to wonder, why was the "...but not irrational" removed from the Laws :(

 

ahydra

[mycroft]

1) because everyone said that whatever they "would never do" without the UI/unknown information was always "irrational". They still do, even though the words no longer have their Lawful magic.

2) because nobody actually knew if that was a global, or whether the qualifier "for the class of player involved" applied to irrational as well (gotta love the imprecise nature of the English language).

3) "beyond careless" and/or "beyond inferior" are equally easy-to-determine metrics (and by easy, I mean "not really all that easy") to "irrational"; and when delivering the ruling, the opponents will understand "beyond careless, for this player" just as well as "irrational", if not better.

4) Also, the same rules, as they wuz applied, apply - things that are not even careless or inferior, but actually up to a novice's standard or higher, could very easily be careless to a higher player, or beyond careless to an expert - including the losing case, as blakjak is saying here. The beginner couldn't even think of a reason to play a high club; the experts might be able to (but would have the count, so in this case would be okay, as well).