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

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Fri Nov 8 03:27:05 CET 2013


On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 03:26:21 -0500, Vigfús Pálsson <vip at centrum.is> wrote:

> Ég skal taka spilin

Right. The hands might reveal something. Here, the hand were ambiguous. If  
I, director, can figure out what the player had in his hand at the time of  
the claim, no problem. But if I can't... Do the nonclaimers get the  
benefit of the doubt?

“...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the  
claimer...” Richard is saying this does not apply here. I don't find this  
reading of the laws to be very straightforward


>
> ----- Upprunaleg skilaboð -----
> Frá: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
> Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Fimmtudagur, 7. Nóvember, 2013 06:16:05
> Efni: Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
>
> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:07:36 -0500, Richard HILLS  
> <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> UNOFFICIAL
>
>> Declarer claims, saying dummy is good (diamonds and clubs). After the
>> hands are put back in the board, but before starting the next hand, the
>> defence contests the claim, noting that clubs are blocked and declarer
>> will end up in his hand.
>>
>> So what happens?
>>
>> It depends now on what declarer has in his hand. The question is, in
>> case of doubt, which is certainly the case tonight, who gets the  
>> benefit of
>> the doubt?
>>
>> The rules seem clear that it is defending side. Even though they kind of
>> created the problem.
>  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  
> challenging the claim.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  (3) A competent Aussie Director would carefully take the time to re-
> construct the doubtful tricks before the claim.
>
>> So, it can be do the defenders’ advantage, if they want to dispute a  
>> claim,
>> to wait until the hands are shuffled and put back in the board?
>  Richard Hills:
>  (4) Giving an unthinking immediate ruling in favour of the non-claimers
> on the doubtful facts of the pre-claim played tricks is a Director’s  
> Error.
>  Lord Melbourne (British Prime Minister 1834, 1835 – 1841):
>  “When in doubt what should be done, do nothing.”
> UNOFFICIAL
>    
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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  
> privileged
> 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:
> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com


More information about the Blml mailing list