[blml] re claim. CORRECTION.

[Ed Reppert]

On Dec 31, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Sven Pran wrote:

> In claim/concession situations I consider the side making a claim or a
> concession an offending side as they caused a deviation from the  
> regular
> progress of play: trick by trick. Their opponents are of course a
> non-offending side.

So a claim or concession is an offense under the laws? I don't think so.

> Law 70A even says so much with the words: "any doubtful point as to  
> a claim
> shall be resolved against the claimer."

So what? That doesn't make him an offender.

>> 2. Would you allow the defender who made the claim deviate from  
>> his claim
>> statement?
>
> That depends entirely upon the nature of the claim statement (and  
> of course
> what UI might be present).

In principle, as I understand the laws, a claim is adjudicated by  
checking to see if there is a normal line of play, consistent with  
the claim statement, that will result in claimer getting fewer tricks  
than he claimed. In doing so, claimer is not himself allowed to  
suggest a new line of play - iow to deviate from his original  
statement. If we are going to allow play to continue in the presence  
of a claim, I do not see how we can justify deviating from that  
principle.