[blml] re claim

[ton]

Sven:
> Ton has given a perfectly plausible reason for what happened. That 
> reason was to improve the language rather than to alter the reality in 
> law 68B2.

Eric:
"Improve the language"??  Is anyone seriously suggesting that striking the
specific reference to claims not only left the law's applicability to claims
intact, but actually made it *clearer*?


ton:
Can anybody tell me what the problem is we are discussing here? 
As you know I am of course willing to help solving such problem but I need
to know/understand it to be able to do so.

Were are we?
Declarer leads to trick 10 and LHO ceases play with the statement: 'this is
your last trick' 

Does anybody disagree with the fact that he implicitly has claimed the other
3 tricks? 

If yes (disagree), on what base?

RHO now objects. 
Does anybody disagree with the TD telling that play has to be continued? And
that he doesn't need to say anymore more, since the only relevant objection
can be that RHO thinks to win trick 10? 

If yes (disagree), on what base? 

If both answers are 'no' (agree) with what problem are we left? 

If there isn't one, you may continue to tell that the drafting committee did
a lousy job I accept that opinion (for which I do not need to agree with it)
but will not join that discussion. 

ton