[blml] claim

[Eric Landau]

On Dec 17, 2007, at 6:51 PM, <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>  
<gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
> ...................................................................... 
> ........
>> I assume that now, however, the 2001 minute is about to
> be superseded by the 2008 version of L68, which clearly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.
>>
> +=+ I think that the 'concession of the remainder'
> and the 'claim of some number of tricks' are synchronous
> and inseparable. When the one is taken away so is the
> other. The 2001 minute was a clarification of that and
> I have no reason to believe there is a change. If I am
> right 68D does not apply to something that has ceased
> to be.

That just doesn't fly.  The 2001 minute was a clarification of a 1997  
law.  That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the  
law no longer has any force but its clarifying interpretation still  
does is self-contradictory and absurd.  If the 2001 minute was  
intended to be law in 2008, shouldn't someone have put it in the 2008  
lawbook?  Is Grattan or the WBF really suggesting that the force of a  
law might be affected by clarifying language that was written six  
years before the law was?  That's pure insane-asylum stuff.

So where does that leave us on the subject?  We have laws that tell  
us how to deal with claims.  We have laws that tell us how to deal  
with concessions.  But now we have a third, related, thing, neither a  
claim not a concession, but a "synchronous and inseparable" something  
that has aspects of both.  This entity is not mentioned in the  
lawbook.  The rules governing it are, I imagine, not merely locked in  
the leopard-loo, but already tied up in a burn bag labeled "trash,  
discard with the 1997 lawbook".  If precedent is any guide, we will  
learn these rules about the time the 201x lawbook is published.

We would be a whole lot better off if we could simply assume that  
L68B1 means what is says.  It says we have some tricks that have been  
claimed, to which the laws regarding claims presumably apply, and  
other tricks that have been conceded, to which the laws regarding  
concessions presumably apply.  It makes it clear that the claim and  
the concession are disjoint entities, involving different tricks.   
There is no mention or suggestion of any mysterious "synchronous and  
inseparable" part-claim-part-concession entity governed by secret  
rules from 2001.



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