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

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Thu Mar 15 18:45:21 CET 2012


> Thomas Dehn
> Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > The essential question is how to handle _disputed_ (or questioned)
claims.
> > There are four options:
> >
> > - Both sides are non-offending.
> > - Both sides are offending.
> > - The claiming side is offending and the disputing side is
non-offending.
> > - The claiming side is non-offending and the disputing side is
offending.
> >
> > I fully agree that a problem-free claim is part of normal procedure,
> > but we are (as far as I have noticed) discussing the handling of
> > claims that are not free from problems? The problem is then usually
> > that the situation is not obvious to the opponents of the claiming
> > side. Are such claims irregularities or not? And if they are
> > irregularities then which side (if
> > any) is offending?
> >
> > I still have a strong opinion that once a claim is disputed, or even
> > just questioned, we have an irregularity with the claiming side as the
> > offending side.
> 
> Example: the claiming side makes a perfectly fine claim.
> The non-claiming side says "please play out the hand, we paid the session
> entry fee to play cards."
> 
> In this example, I cannot see any reason to consider the claiming side
> offending.

[Sven Pran] 
Of course not. It is illegal to request a playout when a claim has been
made. (Requesting a playout is not legally disputing a claim)



More information about the Blml mailing list