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

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Tue Nov 12 10:05:34 CET 2013


Sven Pran schreef:
>
> False.
>
> The non-claiming side did NOT agree to the claim and then withdraw that
> agreement (in which case Law 69B would apply). Rather agreement with
> the claim was never consummated in the first place (Law 69A applies).
>
> 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.
>

Yes, but this cannot happen.
According to the claim law, the number of tricks is agreed upon when the 
next board is begun.
How can you begin a next board without returning the hands to the 
previous board?
So I fear that the claim law supersedes this one, because otherwise it 
would be dead letter.

The problem, as originally stated, is correct.
There should be an additional rule which states that when cards are 
returned to the board, the side doing so loses the benefit of the doubt 
with regards to the order in which they were played.
Of course that would mean that both sides would wait for the other, and 
shuffling the cards should be discouraged, while at the same time 
compulsary.
This one is a problem, not solved at all by the current law.
OTOH, I've never known this one to be a problem.

Herman.

> Where does this law put your argument? I consider Bob to be correct.
>
> If you maintain your position here I shall feel very comfortable imposing a
> PP on you for returning hands to the board before the number of tricks won
> has been agreed upon.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>


More information about the Blml mailing list