[blml] claim

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> 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?

Yes, if your understanding was the intention I do not understand why they
did not write in Law 68B2 something like: "Play continues unless there also
was a claim in which case C and D following apply to the claim".

The fact that play shall continue effectively nullifies whatever claim
(express or implied) might have occurred together with the concession that
is objected to.

My best guess is that they deleted the words "or claim" again because they
considered these words superfluous, and maybe also because they did not want
to create any impression that the reality in how the situation shall be
handled is changed with this law revision.

Sven