[blml] claim

[Eric Landau]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:19 PM, <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>  
<gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
>
>> I'd have awarded the remaining four tricks to E-W.
>> The table action after the claim is irrelevant.  E claimed
>> two club tricks and gets them.  It would not be "normal"
>> (i.e. it would be "irrational", per the 1997 footnote) for
>> W to throw the HA to keep more than one diamond,
>> and he will thus take the last two tricks perforce.
>>
>> It would be a different story had E claimed three tricks
>> holding -/ x/-/KQ10, as it would probably not be "irrational"
>> for W to pitch the HA from -/A/10/- at trick 12.
>>
> +=+ Eric, are you saying that the second part of
> (1997) Law 68B does not apply?  (According
> to Koen Grauwels West immediately protested.)
>
>    WBFLC minute 10 of 28 October 2001:
>     "............ if the defender's partner immediately
> objects to the concession, under Law 68B no
> concession has occurred and by the same token
> neither has any claim been made. After the Director
> has been summoned play continues and Law 16
> may apply".

No, Grattan, I am not saying that the second part of L68B does not  
apply.  Where I have gone wrong, apparently, is in attempting to  
apply the second part of L68B, incorrectly, *according to its actual  
words*, rather than, correctly, according to some WBFLC leopard-loo  
minute number 10 of October 2001 of which I -- along with just about  
every other soul outside the WBFLC's inner circle -- was previously  
unaware.

*My* L68B says that "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession  
of the remainder" and that "if... partner immediately objects, no  
concession has occurred".  That says that what "doesn't occur" is the  
"concession of the remainder" previously referred to.  It says  
nothing  about any potential non-occurrence of the "claim of some  
number of tricks" that gave rise to the "concession of the  
remainder"; that is presumably still hanging around "undisoccurred"  
to be ruled upon by the TD.  Or would be, if some locked-away secret  
minute from the WBFLC didn't say otherwise.  Now, of course, we have  
been graced by the revealed truth: "no concession" doesn't really  
mean "no concession"; it actually means "neither any concession nor  
any claim which may have resulted in such concession".  How could we  
possibly have been fooled by the actual language of the law into not  
knowing that?

The WBFLC with its minutes reminds me of the Soviet President in "Dr.  
Strangelove" with his doomsday machine.  Both overlook the patently  
obvious fact that there is no point in having it unless you tell  
people about it.

I assume that now, however, the 2001 minute is about to be superceded  
by the 2008 version of L68, which clearly distinguishes a "concession  
of the remainder" consequent on a claim from an "attempt to concede",  
and applies L68B2 only to the latter.  Although this isn't explicitly  
stated, any other reading would require that both "play  
continues" [L68B2] while, at the same time, "play ceases" [L68D], and  
I doubt very much that the WBFLC has a secret minute that tells us  
how to manage that.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net