[blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

John R. Mayne a écrit :
>
>
> Boy, I don't see it. "Normal" still has some meaning, and "Careless or inferior for the class of player involved" doesn't mean that we expect Zia to revoke just because he did it a few years back at the Nationals.
>
>   
AG : ISTM that it has been said before on BLML that rationality is only 
considered within legality, so that revoking would never be considered 
rational (think about what L12 would become !).

> There's something past careless or inferior, even if we have evidence of total brainlessness from one hand. The failure of the laws to stick people to their claim statement is the problem

AG : May I remember you that, in my original problem, it's by forcing 
the player to stick to his statement that we awarded him all 13 tricks.
Now why do you consider TFLB doesn't compel players to stic kto their 
statement ? I don't read it that way.
> , and Richard's sophistry on the issue doesn't solve that. Believe me, I'd *like* it to solve it, but I don't buy the argument.
>
> Because when we don't, what if the same guy claims all those spades without a statement? You're going to give the opponents a trick because he's been here before? That just cannot be right; claiming on 6-6 trump suits missing the king seems like something we'd like to encourage. 
>
>   
AG : in this problem, the player has stated that he'll give a trump 
trick, and it might as well be the first one. While, in my example, the 
player said, beyond any doubt, that he would give a trick after he made 
all his tricks in the minors. Except that there is no after.
So, in the 66 case, I'd rule that the loss of one trick is compatible 
with the statement.
In the 8+4+1 case, I didn't know, but after reading the answers, I agree 
that the loss of one trick isn't compatible with the statement, so that 
we'd give all 13.
(one of the reasons why I had no strong line about it is that the 
claimer was my partner)

Best regards

    Alain