[blml] re claim. CORRECTION.

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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.
, 
I didn't say that it is; I said that the player making a claim or a
concession causes a deviation from the regular progress of play: trick by
trick.
 
> > 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.

And I didn't say that it does.

But the laws instruct us to rule against him whenever there is a question of
doubt. The easy way to remember this is to treat him as the offending side,
and the reason for doing so is that he interrupts the normal progress of
play.
 
> >> 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.

So how will you rule when a defender says to declarer: You get three of the
remaining four tricks and the other defender immediately objects?

Remember that this defender has by definition (L68B1) claimed (attempted a
claim?) one trick, but he has not yet given any statement with that claim.

Sven