[blml] claim

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"Le congres ne marche pas, il danse"
 (The Congress makes no progress ,
  but it dances.)
                           Prince de Ligne
+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] claim


> 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 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  That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the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.
>
+=+ It is my personal view that the principle has not changed
 in the 2007 Laws. If this is so, then neither has the interpretation.
 If anything has changed it lies in what Richard Hills observed
- viz.
...............................................................................................
"Nice quibble from Eric, but the 2007 Law 68D cannot apply
since the text of the 2007 Law 68B2 commences "Regardless of
[68B]1 preceding".  As the old joke says, "You can't get
there (2007 Law 68D) from here (2007 Law 68B2)."

2007 Law 68B2:

Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede
one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no
concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist,
so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play
continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in
these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D
applies to information arising from its exposure and the
information may not be used by the partner of the defender
who has exposed it."
...........................................................................................
Defender has attempted to concede one or more tricks. His
partner has immediately objected. The Director is summoned.
Play continues under the stated conditions.
                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+