[blml] concession

[Tim West-Meads]

Herman wrote:
 
> Tim West-Meads wrote:
> > 
> > Had the lawmakers wished to group all concessions together they 
> > should
> > have written L68b2:
> > 
> > "Regardless of L68A or 1 preceding..." and left in the words "or 
> > claim"
> > (they didn't thus there is no provision to cancel a claim as 
> > defined in
> > L68A).

> It was added in a draft, and they decided not to put it in, because 
> they deemed it was not needed. Putting it in would have meant they 
> had changed something in this law, which they decided they did not 
> want to do.

Sorry if I was unclear - I meant "Left in the final version as they had
it in the draft".  And yes that *would* have changed the law (as
interpreted by the minute) and I'm sure that many of those on the
committee both realised that and did indeed decide not to make the
change.

And we are doing what is said in the lawbook.  Neither L68A nor L68D are
affected in any way by L68b2.  L68b2 requires that we disregard L68B1 so
it doesn't matter whether there may, or may not, have been a concession
(cancelled or otherwise).  If there WAS a claim under 68A there will
still be claim and play must cease.

Tim