[blml] claim

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> > Exactly what "evidence" makes you convinced declarer is aware that
> > the ST has not been discarded and is still out?
> 
> Perhaps the fact that I started my example with: Ok, consider for a
> moment that claimer said "OK, the ST will drop now".

That is introducing a hypothesis not in evidence. The original post
(including later clarifications) stated that the claimer said (in French)
words to the effect either that "the spades run" or that she had "four
tricks in spade" (there were at the time of the claim four remaining spades
in Dummy). The claimer made no reference to the ten of spades.

> As to what evidence *would* convince me, I don't know exactly.  I will
> merely here the words and tone of voice used by all the players
> describing what happened - both prior to and after the claim, I will
> hear the different version of what claimer thought he said and what opps
> thought he said.  Having heard that evidence I may still have doubts, or
> I may not have.  But actually hearing the evidence is important.
> 
> > IMO you give too much allowance to the claimer.
> 
> My legal obligation is to find equity.  Until I hear the evidence I
> don't know whether I'm dealing with a careless claimer trying to recover
> a trick he might not have deserved or with a skanky cheat who has picked
> up on a slightly mispoken word in the claim and is trying to con the TD
> into giving him a trick he would never have made in a million years
> (usually it's something in between).   And here's the funny thing -
> unless *you* hear the evidence *you* won't know either.

And from what _is_ in evidence (above) I tend to believe that the claimer
had overlooked the missing ten of spades and must not be allowed to suddenly
become aware of this mistake as a result of the claim being contested.

Sven