[blml] L79B Is "subsequent" needed?

[Harald Skjæran]

On 02/02/2008, Robert Geller <geller at nifty.com> wrote:
> Peter Eidt writes:
>
> >Although I'm not a member of the DSC ...
> >
> >Subsequent here means "After an agreement upon the
> >number of tricks won and after all four hands have been
> >returned to the board".
> >It does not mean "If no agreement can be reached
> >upon the number of tricks won".
> >
> >The problem "If there is no agreement upon the number
> >of tricks won" is a matter of Law 79A solely in combination
> >with Law 65D.
> >
> >Therefore I think "subsequent" is needed in Law 79B.

That is correct. This is what this las means. I've got trouble
understanding how this can be misinterpreted.


>
> ->
> Actually I initially thought the same as you say above
> = that "subsequent" in 79B meant
>  "After an agreement upon the
> >number of tricks won and after all four hands have been
> >returned to the board" =
> but one of my colleagues from the JCBL convinced me this is not the case.
>
> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct in what you say
> above.   If so, then it seems that L79 is incomplete as it now stands.
> The major headings in L79 are now
>
> LAW 79 - TRICKS WON
> A. Agreement on Tricks Won
> B. Disagreement on Tricks Won
> C. Error in Score
>
> but it seems very strange to me that L79B would contains a detailed
> discussion of what to do iin the case of a disagreement AFTER agreement
> had once been reach, but that there would be no mention anywhere in L79
> of what to do in the presumably much more common case where there is
> no agreement reached in the first place.
>
> Anyway, I'm confused......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>


-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran