[blml] claim

[Steve Willner]

> From: <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
> +=+ I think that the 'concession of the remainder'
> and the 'claim of some number of tricks' are synchronous
> and inseparable. 

Synchronous is obvious, but I don't see what makes the two inseparable. 
  It would have been easy to write a different Law, cancelling the 
concession but leaving the claim standing for the TD to rule.  (That's 
what I thought the 1997 text actually required, though the WBFLC took a 
different view.)

The procedure in 2008 seems clear from the new L68B2: "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."  This is straightforward in principle, 
though the UI aspect may in practice be difficult to rule because LAs 
depend on the entire prior play as well as defensive carding agreements.

I would not expect the previous "minute" to be applicable, it being 
superseded by the new Laws text (which happens to have the same effect).