[blml] re claim

[Eric Landau]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Ed Reppert wrote:

> On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:43 PM, David Burn wrote:
>
>> I had thought that the question (or one of the questions) was
>> whether or not
>> play should continue at all. If West says "I get two clubs and you
>> get the
>> rest", and East objects, then West's concession is cancelled, but
>> there
>> seems to me to have been some debate about whether his claim is also
>> cancelled. If it isn't, then play cannot continue, because play
>> ceases after
>> a claim.
>
> Fair enough. Do we have three views, then?

Yup.  In my earlier post in response to Ton, I tried to break them down:

(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?"

So we might have a claim with a consequent concession (L68B2 does not  
apply), a claim without a consequent confession (L68B2 cancels the  
concession but not the original claim), or nothing at all (L68B2  
cancels West's statement in its entirety).  I haven't done it, but I  
imagine that we could come up with a scenario where the three  
interpretations produced three different rulings.

Personally, I am undecided between the merits of the first two, but  
convinced that as a practical matter, the third leads to complexities  
that can only cause problems, with nothing to gain.


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