[blml] re claim

[Eric Landau]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:10 AM, ton wrote:

> 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?

The problem is the application of L68B2.  The first sentence, which  
allows "his partner [to] immediately object[]" applies when "a  
defender attempts  to concede one or more tricks".  When a defender  
explicitly attempts to claim (i.e. makes "any statement to the effect  
that [he] will win a specific number of tricks" [L68A]) but has not  
explicitly conceded (i.e. made "any statement to the effect that [he]  
will lose a specific number of tricks" [L68B1]), he is deemed to have  
"conce[ded] the remainder".  (a) Does his attempt to claim constitute  
a presumptive "attempt to concede"?  Does the first sentence of L68B2  
apply?  If his partner objects, has "no concession [] occurred"?  If  
so, then (b) We have "a claim of some number of tricks" and a  
consequent "concession of the remainder" [L68B1].  After applying law  
L68B2, "no concession has occurred", i.e. the "concession of the  
remainder" is voided.  Does this also void the "claim of some number  
of tricks", or do the laws that normally govern "a statement to the  
effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks"  
continue to apply?

> 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?

He hasn't explicitly conceded any "tricks other than one [sic]  
currently in progress" [L68], so there is no consequent implicit  
claim.  If we rule that his statement did not "refer to subsequent  
tricks" [L68] it is a random remark, possibly conveying UI, but  
neither claiming nor conceding anything.  If we rule that it did (as  
I would), then he has *explicitly* claimed.

But that is a semantic side-issue.  To avoid getting distracted from  
the problem at hand, let us assume that what he actually said was "I  
get the last three".

> 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?

There was no concession for L68B to apply to.

Since RHO "doubted" LHO's claim, "Law 70 applies" [L68D].  If RHO can  
indeed win trick 10 (fourth in hand!), we can easily rule that his  
"failure to [do so] would be irrational" [L70E1], and (assuming LHO's  
claim of the last three is correct) award the rest of the tricks to  
the defense.

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

It's not exactly a "problem", but...  Director is called.  He checks  
for potential UI.  Play continues.  Perhaps (albeit not in this  
particular scenario) it takes a while, as declarer or LHO works out  
the implications of RHO's having objected -- which could have further  
UI implications.  Director monitors the subsequent play for potential  
use of the UI.  If an irregularity occurs during the continuing play,  
he deals with it.  If the hand goes off the rails because someone  
does something "irrational" he rules accordingly.  The clock keeps  
ticking...

Whereas in my scenario, director is called, makes an obvious no- 
brainer ruling, scores it up, and all go on to the next hand.

> 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.

I would much prefer to accept Kojak's account, which suggests that  
the drafting committee did an excellent job: realized that the 2001   
minute altered the meaning of the 1997 law, drafted alternate  
versions of the new law which did and did not incorporate that  
alteration, decided which meaning they wanted for the 2008 law, and  
chose the appropriately worded version.

If, as Ton suggests, they believed that the 2001 minute merely  
clarified the 1997 law, drafted a version of the new law which  
incorporated that clarification, then decided to revert to the  
unclear and ambiguous wording that had previously required  
clarification out of some notion that "has to do with  
language" [Ton's post of 12/31] apart from clarity of meaning, then  
"lousy job" doesn't begin to do justice.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net