[blml] claim

[Guthrie]

[Adam Beneschan]
> 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).

[nige1]
BLMLers do exploit the woolly nature of a lot of
existing law for their enjoyment :)

[Adam]
> 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).
[nige1]
MI and UI are more difficult to police -- although
BLML has come up with promising suggestions.

[Adam]
> 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.

[nige1]
Players often complain about claims rulings. In
similar contexts, different directors rule
differently. On BLML, such discrepancies are
worrying. At the table, anomalies engender
discontent. BTW, current claims law is not just
complex and hard to apply consistently. If the
current law is applied by a strict director,
declarers are reluctant to claim - slowing down
the game. If the director is friendly and relaxed
then it may pay to make faulty claims. Some
defenders accede to such claims. If the director
is a good player, he may be able to spot a
recovery that you would have missed.

IMO the nice aspect of claims law is that it is
relatively easy to improve it.