RE: Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi

> Jürgen Rennenkampff
> 
> A claim statement can be represented by a decision tree. The branches
of
> the
> tree correspond to the opponents' alternative actions. The claimer's
> actions
> must be unambigously determined by the opponents' play. If this tree
has
> any
> complexity at all, say 4 or more branches, the formulation of a clear
> claim
> statement becomes difficult and it is usually easier to play on than
to
> claim.
> 
> Suppose we distinguish several different kinds of declarer's claims.
The
> type of claim allowed should be specified in the Conditions of Contest
and
> never ad hoc by a director. For example:
> 
> 1. A simple claim is described by a trivial decision tree with no
branch
> points.
> To make such a claim a player states 'I have a simple claim for N
tricks'
> and then unambiguously indicates the order in which he intends to play
his
> cards; for example, he may table his cards one by one in the order of
> proposed play, indicating a card played from dummy for each trick when
> this
> matters. A simple claim thus may include the concession of a number of
> tricks, provided the conceded tricks are played last.
> 
> 2. A complex claim is described by a decision tree with no more than
one
> branch point. The claim procedure is identical to (1) except that at
one
> point play may depend upon the action of an opponent. Thus a complex
claim
> may include a losing
> finesse, a simple squeeze etc, but not, for example, a progressive
> squeeze.
> 
> 3. An expert claim is described by a decision tree of arbitrary
> complexity.
> An expert claim implies merely that there is a  line of play leading
to
> the
> stated number of tricks, consistent with prior play, and apparent to
any
> competent card player; the opponents agree to accept these claims
provided
> such a line demonstrably exists. The claim statement can be quite
cursory
> but should include a reference to any  subtleties that might not be
> immediately apparent.
> 
> If the indicated line in case (1) and (2) leads to the loss of a trick
> that
> was not accounted for in the claim statement then all subsequent
tricks
> are
> lost.
> If the implied line of play in case (3) leads to fewer than the number
of
> tricks claimed, and if the players cannot immediately agree on how
many
> tricks should have been claimed, then the director is called upon to
make
> a
> decision.
> 
> The point is that, at different levels of play, the rules must satisfy
> very
> different requirements. Playing in a club game, even when the coveted
> ochre
> points are at stake, is an activity that differs greatly from
competing in
> a
> national championship. The reason for much of the disagreement seems
to be
> that different correspondents emphasize different conditions of play.
> 
> Jürgen

A very interesting proposal indeed and it really has some merits.
However, the purpose of claiming is to save time, not to demonstrate the
ability to look ahead. So any claim where it may take more time to
understand and accept the claim than it would have taken simply to play
it out (rapidly) should, and in fact is discouraged by the laws.
(Negative inference from L74B4)
This is one of the reasons why we still in Norway do not attempt to find
any "excuse" for awarding the claimer a trick he could lose because of
some silly but still possible error on his part. Apparently we are among
the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70.
Regards Sven

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml