[blml] re claim

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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 I have understood the discussion we have one party who asserts that Law
68B2 voids the concession but not any (implied) claim because the words "or
claim" was stricken from L68B2. 

The consequence is that whenever there is a concession by one defender of
some but not all the remaining tricks and the other defender immediately
objects the Director must still rule on the implied claim and play must
therefore cease anyway.

> 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?

Obviously not.
 
> If yes (disagree), on what base?
> 
> RHO now objects.
> Does anybody disagree with the TD telling that play has to be continued?

That is exactly what "the other party" does, they say that the claim is not
void, must be ruled upon like a regular claim, and that therefore play must
cease.

> 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?

They say this as a consequence of L68B2 only refers to "concession" but not
to "claim" as not having occurred.

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

To convince that party that when a concession is void under L68B2 so is any
implied claim that may have occurred in connection with that concession.
 
> 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.

Neither do I.

Regards Sven