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

Harald Berre Skjæran harald.skjaran at gmail.com
Tue Nov 12 08:06:17 CET 2013


It's pretty clear, IMO, that agreement to a claim is established only if
the opponents raises no objection to their assent to the claim before their
side meke a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever
occurs first.

The word "it" in "and raises no objection to it..." refers to the word
assents in the first sentence, NOT to agreement.

The whole period starting with "Agreement is established.." and ending with
".. whichever occurs first" defines when agreement to a claim or concession
is established.

You might easily have agreed upon a number of tricks on the board before
and entered this on the score slip/bridgemate/bridgepad and returned your
hand to the board. But if there's been a claim/concession, agreement on
this is not established before the assenting side makes a call on the next
board, unless they just played the last board of the round. And if they
object to their assent, agreement to the claim/concession is not
established yet.


2013/11/12 Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no>

> 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 play.
>
>
>
> 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 withdrawn).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]
>
>
>
> UNOFFICIAL
>
>
>
> Sven Pran:
>
>
>
> >Richard
>
> >
>
> >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:
>
>
>
> Sven
>
>
>
> 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
> general
>
> 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,
>
> >>
>
> >>Richard
>
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>


-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Berre Skjæran
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131112/bdaea132/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list