[blml] claim

[Adam Beneschan]

Peter Newman wrote:
 
> ......
> had always assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, and the reas=
> on why there is no play after the claim, is to prevent declarer gaining an =
> example by claiming, for instance from the reaction of the opponents.</FONT=
> ></P>=0D=0A=0D=0A<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier New">Robin</FONT>=0D=0A<=
> /P>=0D=0A=0D=0A<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier New">As one of the propone=
> nts of being able to face your cards I have two comments:</FONT>=0D=0A</P>=0D=
> =0A=0D=0A<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Courier New">(1) As declarer I see a new=
>  'open' mode of play - it is not a claim. Quite often at some point in a ha=
> nd I am pretty certain I can make it and defender is in the tank. I can't w=
> ord a claim statement clearly enough to cover every eventuality so sit ther=
> ......

Sorry, but this is what a portion of your text looks like to me.  I'm
sure there are others with the same problem.  I had to run it through
a decoder in order to read it.  I'm not an expert on this sort of
thing, but I'm sure there are others with the same problem.

Anyway, for everyone else for whom Peter's message might have been
unreadable, here it is:

[Nigel:]
> > > 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?
 
[Adam:]
> > I think Robin's downside, all by itself, outweighs
> > the downsides of
> > existing claim law.  
> >                                 --
> > Adam
> > _______________________________________________
 
[Robin:]
> I had always
> assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, and the
> reason why
> there is no play after the claim, is to prevent declarer
> gaining an
> example by claiming, for instance from the reaction of
> the
> opponents.
> 
> Robin
 
As one of the proponents of being able to face
your cards I have two
comments:

(1) As declarer I see a new 'open' mode
of play - it is not a claim.
Quite often at some point in a hand I am
pretty certain I can make it
and defender is in the tank. I can't word a
claim statement clearly
enough to cover every eventuality so sit there. I
would like to be able
to say 'playing open' and place my cards on the
table.
The defenders can then choose to (with absolutely no requirement to
do
so) concede.

(2) After a claim some defenders want the right to have
play continue
(particularly LOLs). By law I claim when I should - this is
often well
before the defenders understand the claim. If the defenders
*want* me to
play it out should it be allowed? I can see that that this
isn't so
clear. I have illegally stopped claiming against pairs I judge
are like
this until I can point to either my hand or dummy being high.
Maybe that
is the best solution in this case? 
The 'object to a claim
featur'e in online bridge seems to work pretty
well in practise the few
times I played. Obviously this has the
potential of being bent but perhaps
harder to judge the reason for
rejection online? It still needs to be
considered further I would think.

Cheers,

Peter
PS: Sorry if this
breaks threading - I only get digest mode and don't
get the individual
mail headers....


This is an email from Fujitsu Australia Limited, ABN
19 001 011 427. It is confidential to the ordinary user of the email
address to which it was addressed and may contain copyright and/or legally
privileged information. No one else may read, print, store, copy or forward
all or any of it or its attachments. If you receive this email in error,
please return to sender. Thank you.
 
If you do not wish to receive
commercial email messages from Fujitsu Australia Limited, please email
unsubscribe at au.fujitsu.com