[blml] claim

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> 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  That law has been superceded in the 2008 code; to say that the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.

Frankly I have a strong feeling that it is your logic which is flawed:

Law 68A defines the term "claim".
Law 68B defines the term "concession" and adds a tie between these two terms
to the effect that they together concern exactly all the remaining tricks to
be played.

When either a claim or a concession has been made every single remaining
trick is either claimed or conceded but not both.

Law 68B2 further establishes the rule that if a concession by a defender is
immediately objected to by his partner then no concession has occurred, and
from the above then neither has any claim occurred. This means that both the
attempted concession and the associated claim are nullified and that play
continues (with certain specified restrictions).

Effectively this has been the incorporation of the related WBF minute from
2001 into the laws, a result with which I for one have absolutely no
problem.

Do you really have? 

Regards Sven