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

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Tue Nov 12 01:40:15 CET 2013

Law 69A says:

Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent’s claim or
concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a
subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board
is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in


Note the comma preceding the words “and raises no objection”


To the extent that Law 69A defines the term agreement this comma delimits
the definition from the following sentence which specifies the time during
which the claim can be legally objected to (not to be confused with the time
during which a concession may be cancelled or an agreement be withdrawn).


Law 69A is not a more specific law than Law 79 in the way that it redefines
the term agreement when used for claims and concessions rather than for the
number of tricks won as a whole. If it were to do that a precise definition
on exactly how an agreement must be made would have been required in order
to establish whether or not an agreement had been reached in a particular
case. Such definition could for instance be that no agreement has been
reached unless the words “I agree to the claim” (or words to similar effect)
has been spoken. As we all know Law 69 contains no such specification.


Law 79A1 clearly takes for granted that agreement on the number of tricks
won has been reached at the time when players restore their hands to the
board, and Law 79B prescribes the exact procedure to be followed when a
subsequent disagreement arises. Law 79B1 then instructs the Director to
apply Law 69 if he finds that there has been a claim or a concession in
cases of such disagreement. And Law 69 resolves doubtful points about the
claim or concession in favour of the claiming side, obviously based on the
principle that the claim had originally been agreed to. 


Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av
Richard HILLS
Sendt: 11. november 2013 23:33
Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Emne: Re: [BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]




Sven Pran:




>Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) Law 79A1

>which says:


>The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have

>been returned to the board.


>Where does this law put your argument? I consider Bob to be correct. 



Richard Hills:




Have you by any chance completely overlooked (or forgotten) the WBF

minutes of 8th September 2009, item 3, which says:


“ ..... Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a

law, ..... ”


An agreement defined by Law 69A, which specifically applies to an

agreement (or non-agreement) to a claim, overrides the general Law 79A1.


Where does this minute put your argument? I consider Sven to be incorrect.


The key issue is that the word “agreement” as defined by Law 69A is very

incongruous with the word “agreement” as defined in a standard dictionary.


Richard Hills, 1st November 2011:


>>My belief, which every sane blmler would call wrong, is that the

>>Lawbook’s non-dictionary technical terms should be written in Klingon.

>>Translations from Klingon to English would be found in the Definitions.

>>That way grass-roots Directors would be forced to eschew their current

>>habit of ignoring the Definitions.


>>Or alternatively the Drafting Committee could write as much as possible

>>of the Lawbook in plain English, using technical terms as little as

>>possible, thus assisting grass-roots Directors.


>>What's the problem? paghmo’ tIn mIS (which translated from Klingon is

>>Much Ado About Nothing).


>>Kind regards,






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/20131112/c25f875b/attachment.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list