[blml] Attempted defender's concession (was claim)

[Eric Landau]

On Dec 17, 2007, at 7:47 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

> Eric Landau:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I assume that now, however, the 2001 minute is about to be
>> superseded by the 2008 version of L68, which clearly
>> distinguishes a "concession of the remainder" consequent on
>> a claim from an "attempt to concede", and applies L68B2
>> only to the latter.  Although this isn't explicitly stated,
>> any other reading would require that both "play continues"
>> [L68B2] while, at the same time, "play ceases" [L68D], and
>> I doubt very much that the WBFLC has a secret minute that
>> tells us how to manage that.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Nice quibble from Eric, but the 2007 Law 68D cannot apply
> since the text of the 2007 Law 68B2 commences "Regardless of
> [68B]1 preceding".  As the old joke says, "You can't get
> there (2007 Law 68D) from here (2007 Law 68B2)."
>
> 2007 Law 68B2:
>
> Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede
> one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no
> concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist,
> so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play
> continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in
> these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D
> applies to information arising from its exposure and the
> information may not be used by the partner of the defender
> who has exposed it.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Yes, the 1997 version of Law 68B was dreadfully inadequate,
> hence the need for the 2001 minute interpreting it.  (Eric
> and I agree that that 2001 minute should have been better
> publicised.)
>
> The new 2007 Law 68B2 has several useful statements which
> did not appear in the 1997 Law 68B:
>
> "Play continues"
> "not a penalty card"
> "Law 16D applies"

Richard's analysis seems to assume that Grattan's mysterious half- 
claim-half-concession entity exists not only in the law (a reasonable  
assumption) but also in the mind of the claimer (not).  ISTM that a  
player's statement along the lines of "I will take two more tricks"  
is an attempt to claim two more tricks.  That attempt to claim gives  
direct rise to an (actual) claim per L68A.  That claim, in turn,  
given that there is a "remainder", gives direct rise to a concession  
per L68B1.  So we have (a) an attempt to claim, (b) a claim, and (c)  
a concession.  What we do not find here, at least unless the player  
attempting to claim is knowledgeable and aware of that 2001 leopard- 
loo minute, is an "attempt" to concede anything.

The law says that an attempt to claim may result in a concession, or  
an attempt to concede may result in a claim, but that does not mean  
that an attempt to claim is an attempt to concede or vice versa.  If  
I attempt to win a trick with a card I believe to be high, but my  
opponents play a higher one, my attempt to win the trick has resulted  
in my losing it, not in my having attempted to lose it.

And then there's the simple English.  To "object" to a statement is  
to deny its truth, to disagree with it...

East: I will get my two high trumps.
West (immediately): I object.
TD: You don't think your partner will get his two high trumps?
West: No, I'm not objecting to that.
TD: So what are you objecting to?
West: Partner's concession.
TD: What concession?
West: The implicit concession he made when he claimed.  Law 68B1.   
Look it up.
TD: So you object to his concession, but not to his claim, right?
West: No, there's no difference.  His claim and his concession are  
really only one thing, and I object to it.
TD: So you *do* object to his claim?
West: No, I object to his attempt to concede.
TD: What attempt to concede?  All he did was claim his high trumps.
West:  Well, he may have *thought* he was attempting to claim, but he  
was really attempting to concede.
TD: Huh?
West:  Look, WBFLC Minute #10 from 2001 explains everything.  Look it  
up.

Not.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net