[blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Marvin L French]

> Richard Hills:
>
> So if partner has several normal losing defensive
> plays, but only one winning defensive play, Marvin
> should not claim more often as defender.
>
> Unless, of course, Marv's partner habitually makes
> _abnormally_ bad defensive plays, such as revokes.
>
> ;-)
>
The workable approach is to claim (playing with someone 
who makes irrational plays, perhaps rarely) when you can
see that the trick or tricks claimed could not be lost except
by an irrational play, not when partner has "several normal 
defensive plays." There is no risk, and once in a while
claiming will prevent a blunder by partner.

To be clear, this does not involve preventing such blunders
as discarding incorrectly when declarer's hand is known 
(e.g., he has ruffed a suit), but more extreme idiocies (yes,
including revoking) such as unguarding a suit held by dummy
when declarer is locked in dummy on the previous trick and
can't play anything else. "I can't discard an ace, can I?"

Danny Kleinman has related to me a number of hilarious
stories involving clients of his who have done such things
near the end of play.

That is why I hoped to see a ban against claiming on the
basis of a trick or tricks to be won by partner, with the
"rectification" power given declarer to play partner's hand
in any way he wishes, rational or not. Like we did in the 
old days.

Question: Is making such a claim unethical? I wouldn't do
it, nor would Danny, even though it is evidently legal.

Marv
Marvin L French
San Diego, CA
www.marvinfrench.com