[blml] claim

[Adam Beneschan]

Nigel wrote:
 
> I accept Robin's argument, however: the potential
> for abuse by an unethical declarer is a downside.
> Are there other downsides? Probably! Do all
> possible downsides outweigh the downsides
> (complexity, inconsistency) of existing claim law?
> You know my view. What do others think?

I think Robin's downside, all by itself, outweighs the downsides of
existing claim law.  The inconsistencies and ambiguities in the claim
laws provide fodder for lots of arguments on BLML (which may or may
not be a downside---it's actually an upside for those BLMLers for whom
this sort of argument is a fun hobby).  But from what I've seen, claim
problems aren't a significant fraction of the "real" problems that
tournament players encounter.  I believe the vast majority of cases
that get appealed have to do with UI and MI (all of the small number
of appeals that I've been involved in have dealt with one of those
two).  The "bad claim" cases that I've been involved with at the table
have all been dealt with pretty quickly and easily.  So while those
who tend to see things abstractly may see claim laws as a big problem,
because we have such long and fantastic arguments about how to apply
them, I don't see them as broken enough to warrant an overhaul that
could open the door to a real problem such as the one Robin described.

                                -- Adam