[blml] re claim

[David Burn]

[DALB]

It might be an idea to put the words "or claim" after the word "concession"
in L68B2. Then, everyone will know what is meant.

[EL]

Now I'm lost.  Isn't that exactly what Kojak has reported the WBFLC to have
considered and rejected? And wouldn't such a rejection definitively indicate
that that was not what was meant?

[DALB]

I believe I did read some account of the words "or claim" being deleted from
L68B2. But what I understand certain people to be saying is that if West
says to South "I get two tricks and the rest are yours", and East then
objects, the concession ("the rest are yours") is cancelled but the claim
("I get two tricks") is not. Thus, play does not continue (as L68B2 says it
does) because there is an outstanding claim to be dealt with and L68D comes
into force.

What I understand certain other people (Grattan among them) to be saying is
that in such a case both the concession and the claim are cancelled, so that
play can continue under L68B2 without having to cease under L68D. If that's
what they meant, that's what they ought to have said when they wrote the new
Laws.

[EL]

But even if it were true that "a claim is a concession" it would not follow
that "an attempt to claim is an attempt to concede"

[DALB]

Actually it would, if the word "is" in this context meant "is exactly the
same thing as". But since a claim isn't exactly the same thing as a
concession, despite what Herman says, there isn't much of a problem.

Mind you, they ought to rewrite the whole thing. Obviously, all they really
wanted to do was allow play to continue when one player throws his hand in
while his partner still has (or thinks he has) some interest in proceedings.
Fair enough, but what they actually did was create a quagmire.

David Burn
London, England