[shyams]

Re-written after pran's first reply:

I am referring to a principle used in Law 64 (revokes). It defines a correction period and then requires the TD to restore equity if a revoke is discovered too late as per 64 B.4. So, in a "simple revoke" case, the NOS gets back the trick wrongly won but not a bonus trick.

My suggestion relates to using a similar principle for agreed claims {i.e. when was the objection to the claim raised?}
Law 69 A. states "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 ...".
Law 69 B. then clarifies that a director can rescore the board even if a prior agreement is withdrawn too late.

Law 69 C. Definition of Normal
1. For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.
2. However, for the purposes of Law 69 B., "normal" shall include plays that would be reasonable or rational but not careless or inferior.

The wording may need to be tweaked to clarify that the new definition of normal is only when a previous agreement is too late as per Law 69 A.

Views?

This post has been edited by shyams: 2015-November-20, 05:06

[pran]

shyams, on 2015-November-20, 04:20, said:

In matters of revokes, the Laws are quite clear:
Law 64 B.4. There is no rectification following an established revoke if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the NOS has made a call on the subsequent deal.
But Law 64 C. makes TD responsible to restore equity even if a revoke is discovered too late as per 64 B.4. If I understand this correctly, (in a "simple revoke" case) the NOS gets back the trick wrongly won but not a bonus trick.

My suggestion relates to agreed claims (Law 69).
Law 69 A. states "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 ...".
Law 69 B. then clarifies that a director can rescore the board even if a prior agreement is withdrawn too late.

Law 69 C. Definition of Normal
1. For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.
2. However, for the purposes of Law 69 B., "normal" shall include plays that would be reasonable or rational but not careless or inferior.

The wording may need to be tweaked to clarify that the new definition of normal is only when a previous agreement is too late as per Law 69 A.

Views?

Frankly I don't understand the purpose of this suggestion.

Law 64C overrides all rectifications or lack of rectifications in connection with a revoke. It simply states that the Director shall establish equity (effective for both sides) if he judges that NOS has "suffered" from a revoke.

[shyams]

pran, on 2015-November-20, 04:39, said:

Frankly I don't understand the purpose of this suggestion.

Law 64C overrides all rectifications or lack of rectifications in connection with a revoke. It simply states that the Director shall establish equity (effective for both sides) if he judges that NOS has "suffered" from a revoke.

My apologies for not being clear.

The text in italics was superfluous -- what I wanted to do was to transpose the principle in Law 64 onward to Law 69. i.e. two differing standards if the "problem" is recognised too late.

[RMB1]

shyams, on 2015-November-20, 04:20, said:

Law 69 C. Definition of Normal
1. ...
2. However, for the purposes of Law 69 B., "normal" shall include plays that would be reasonable or rational but not careless or inferior.

I do not understand the purpose of redefining "normal" for the purposes of Law 69B when Law 69B does not include the word "normal" and does not reference the footnote that currently defines "normal". Law 69B uses a different test entirely: "likely". If anything is to be redefined to change Law 69B it is to define "likely".

[shyams]

RMB1, on 2015-November-20, 05:12, said:

I do not understand the purpose of redefining "normal" for the purposes of Law 69B when Law 69B does not include the word "normal" and does not reference the footnote that currently defines "normal". Law 69B uses a different test entirely: "likely". If anything is to be redefined to change Law 69B it is to define "likely".

You are right. In this case, the word "likely" used in 69B can be defined to be less stringent that the way "normal" is defined in 70/71.

What I'm getting at is when declarer makes a quick claim, defenders agree, everyone puts away the cards and start the next board, mid-way in the next board defenders call TD and say that (e.g.) "declarer didn't talk about a need to unblock. Therefore, it is within the ambit of normal for him to play such that it's too late to discover the blockage". If the current laws require the TD to assume such a line (which neither declarer or defenders considered to be likely when the claim was made), then the OP is an idea to discuss whether such a "dual-standard" route is merited.