[BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Wed Mar 14 17:11:30 CET 2012


On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:01:11 -0400, Ed Reppert <blackshoe at mac.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>
>> Which is bullshit, right? We treat the faulty claimer as the offending
>> side.
>
> We do? Sez who? Which law has been breached? What is the offense?


Thank you for asking. The point is fairly complicated. Suppose a player  
claims with a trump out. If the conditions are right for L70C, we apply  
that law. Perhaps "equity" is built into that law, but the director does  
not consider "equity" in making the ruling. The director just follows the  
law.

That in general seems to be how claim laws are applied. There is a  
procedure, worked out over time (and probably varying by region). Except  
for a WBFLC minute, the sentence about equity seems to be ignored. I would  
be very interested if you could find one (other) ruling that you would  
rule differently depending on whether or that sentence was in the laws.

Interestingly, there seems to be no definition of "equity" in the laws. I  
suspect people use it differently. I would be very happy to hear anyone's  
definition, though I suspect the term needs WBFLC clarification.

Now to answer your question. If the goal is equity, then -- I assume --  
director should be attempting to determine what would have happened had  
the claim not occurred. Basically, directors do not do this. Right?

For most points, but not all, judgment goes against the claimer. In other  
words, the claimer is treated almost as if he was the offending side. (And  
of course if there is no clear clarification statement, the claimer is at  
fault.)

You apparently draw the line in a different place from Mike Flader -- he  
allowed an extra trick for the defense the players could find only with  
the claim. You are not as sympathetic to defenders. (For all I know, you  
do not allow them to see each other's hand or talk -- if you did, you are  
facilitating a double dummy defense.) So perhaps you are considering  
equity, but you are still biasing things against the claimer. Right? I can  
see no guidance in the laws for you (or him), so IMO you are on solid  
ground to say he is out of his mind.

Bob




More information about the Blml mailing list