[blml] claim

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

No, that's exactly what happened.

Kojak   


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] claim


> Sven wrote:
> > > 
> > > There's no provision in law for a claim to be cancelled by an 
> > > objection and the WBF minute is truly bizarre.
> > > 
> > > Tim
> > 
> > Haven't you read (and understood) 2007 Law 68B2?
> 
> The version I am reading (marked up) says "2. Regardless of 1 preceding,
> if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner
> immediately objects, no concession *or claim* has occurred.
> 
> Please note the *or claim* is strikethrough not bold.  To me that clearly
> says that the WBF considered that an objection to a concession should
> cancel a partial claim and decided that it should not.  The TD would rule
> on the claim taking into account the objection to the concession.
> 
> Thus the second part of that law (about play continuing) applies only to
> cases where there was a concession but no claim.  (Ie the same as a
> normal reading of the '97 laws).
> 
> Do you understand things differently?
> 
> Tim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>