[blml] re claim

[Ed Reppert]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:28 AM, ton wrote:

> What dispute?  You are not telling me that I need to fill the LC  
> agenda with
> all the (non-)issues coming up in this list?

If there's no dispute, then wtf is all this crap in my inbox?

There are two views here, as I understand it. That two of the people  
holding one of these views are the chairman and secretary of the  
WBFLC and one holding the other is a mere member of that body does  
not mean there is no dispute. Particularly given the secretary has  
repeatedly asserted here that views expressed here by an individual  
are that individual's opinion only - the interpretation of the LC  
must come as an official pronouncement of that entire body.

The dispute arises in cases where a defender claims some tricks,  
thereby conceding others, or concedes some tricks (which, they say,  
thereby claims others, although the law doesn't seem to me to say  
so), or concedes all the remaining tricks, *and* his partner  
immediately objects. One view is that the concession, and if it  
exists the accompanying claim, explicit or implicit, is voided, and  
play continues, with the erstwhile claimant being allowed to make any  
play he wishes, regardless whether it is consistent with his now  
voided line of play statement. The other side holds that in such  
situations, the claim, if it exists, still holds, and while play  
continues, the TD must supervise it, and claimant must be held to his  
accompanying line of play statement (assuming he made one).

The second position strikes me as more elegant; the first as more  
practical. Which does not, of course, make any difference to the  
determination of which is correct (and they can't both be correct).

So I would suggest the WBFLC grasp the bull by the horns and issue  
whichever interpretation they want - and next time, word the damn  
laws more clearly.

The alternative is to leave it to TDs to decide which view to take -  
and I will rule one way, and the guy at the game down the street will  
rule the other, and the players will be *very* annoyed.