[BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Thu Nov 7 22:38:55 CET 2013

Not so fast please.


The non-claimers have accepted (conceded) the claim by restoring their cards
to the board. The may, however, challenge the claim at a later time in which
case Law 71 applies:


A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period
established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:


1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or


2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal*
play of the remaining cards.


The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.


* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be
careless or inferior for the class of player involved.


What this essentially says is that If later, but within the correction
period the non-claimers discover that (in their opinion) the claim was false
they may withdraw their acceptance, but in that case any doubts shall be
resolved in favour of the clainers. 


Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av
Richard HILLS
Sendt: 7. november 2013 22:20
Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Emne: Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]




Inscription upon the gravestone of Spike Milligan:


Duirt me leat go raibh me breoite.

[I told you I was ill.]


Richard Hills:


>>(1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non-

>>claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A.


>>(2) Law 70A’s prescription on “Doubt” merely states that “...any doubtful

>>point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...”. If
there is

>>doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the relevant

>>Laws are Law 65D and Law 85.



>I don't see how L65D is relevant. Can you explain? To recap, the players

>have put their cards back in the board and the defenders are now

>the claim.


Law 65D, Agreement on Results of Play:


“A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement

has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply

with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership of

doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.”


Richard Hills:


All four players have disturbed the order of their played cards by shuffling

them (Law 7C) and putting them back in the board. Therefore neither side

gains the benefit of the doubt as to the sequence and composition of the

claim tricks. Ergo, to determine the nature of the pre-claim tricks the

++must++ apply à


Law 85A1, Rulings on Disputed Facts, Director’s Assessment:


“When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in

which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of

probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence

he is able to collect.”




Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131107/0d391b48/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list