[blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Steve Willner:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> True, I was being facetious, but only because the
> Maastricht precedent is laughable, a classic case
> of the law being an ass.
> 

No, not the Law.

> For most people it is normal, not irrational, to
> mistime a double squeeze.  To determine whether
> the Maastricht declarer was part of the "most
> people" majority, I would argue that the mistimed
> play which occurred after the claim provided
> exquisitely sufficient evidence of declarer's
> "most people" status.
> 

YOU consider it normal to mistime a double squeeze.
The Maastricht AC considered it irrational for the player involved to 
mistime a double squeeze.

That makes either YOU, or the MAC, asses. Not the Law.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html