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

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Thu Mar 15 20:14:04 CET 2012


Just keep on going. You are doing fine twisting.

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av
> Thomas Dehn
> Sendt: 15. mars 2012 19:21
> Til: blml at rtflb.org
> Emne: Re: [BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim
> [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
> 
> Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> 
> > > 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)
> 
> I can easily bring more examples.
> 
> Declarer has S AKQxx opposite xxx.
> He cashes the SAK, on the second round, both opponents follow. Declarer
> now claims.
> LHO still has the SJx, "director".
> The director investigates and finds out
> that LHO started with Jxxx, and RHO started with a spade singleton. RHO
> revoked by playing a C on the first S.
> 
> I am confident you do not think that you now have an irregularity with the
> claiming side as the only offending side.
> 
> RHO opens 2D, altered as weak two in hearts or a strong two in S, D, or C.
> Much later, declarer claims on a double squeeze, with H being covered only
> by RHO.
> The line stated in the claim statement breaks down because RHO actually
> holds a strong 4441 hand, a hand type also contained in their multi.
> Misinformation.
> 
> Again, I am confident you do not think that you now have an irregularity
with
> the claiming side as the only offending side.
> 
> The director needs to first gather all the facts, and then decide who is
> offending. Not the other way round.
> 
> 
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml




More information about the Blml mailing list