To irrationality and beyond

Brighton - Day 3

Not a significant ruling but it does draw attention to variations in wording in the (claim) laws. which we do not know whether it is nuanced wording or inconsistent editing.

	--
	x
	Q 9 x
	Q
?		?
--		--
J x x ?		A 7 x ?
?		2
	--
	x x
	K 10 x
	--

Declarer (shown as South), in 4♥, leads ♣Q from dummy and RHO discards ♦7, then finds ♣2 in her hand. I am called: the ♣2 is played to the trick and ♦7 is a major penalty card (to be played at the first opportunity, etc.). Declarer ruffs and quits the trick but LHO is still thinking what to play to this trick. After a bit, while LHO is still thinking, declarer says it doesn't matter. I ask him if he is claiming (because otherwise I would ask him to let LHO think in peace) and declarer says "yes, I can play a diamond to the nine" (taking advantage of the major penalty card). "What if I play the jack" says LHO, "well then obviously ..." starts declarer.

The position is different from that where declarer plays a small diamond and calls for the nine before seeing LHO's card. In a claim, declarer will not be held to lines of play that are irrational (Law 70E1). So (obviously) declarer is allowed his claim for all but one of the remaining tricks (losing ♦A).

As noted in a previous post, the test in Law 70E is different from the rest of Law 70. Law 70E1 uses the word "irrational", a word that was removed from the footnote referred to by the rest of Law 70 (and by Law 71). What is the difference between not "normal" (including "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved") and "irrational"; or was "irrational" left in Law 70E to avoid unweildy wording: "unless failure to adopt that line of play would be beyond careless-or-inferior"?.