[blml] Who's afraid of the ...

[Steve Willner]

> [Richard Hills]
> This follows the Maastricht precedent where it
> was ruled irrelevant to the claim on a double
> squeeze, the inconvenient fact that declarer had
> actually mistimed his double squeeze.

Richard was being facetious, but in case anyone missed the point, in the 
Maastricht case the error was _after_ the claim, when declarer illegally 
tried to "play it out."  Claimers, both expert and otherwise, are 
protected from irrational errors, even though declarers do occasionally 
crash honors, pitch winners, revoke, or make other irrational plays. 
However, nothing protects claimers from irrational errors made _prior_ 
to the claim.