[blml] claim

[Harald Skjæran]

On 19/12/2007, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote:
>
> >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> > ...........
> >>> If he (with more than one trick left to play) says just "one
> >>> trick to me" that is also an attempt to claim one trick and to
> >>> concede the rest.
> >>
> >> False.
> >
> > From Law 68B1: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of
> > the
> > remainder, if any."
>
> That in no way implies that an attempt to claim some number of tricks
> is an attempt to concede the remainder.
>
> If I attempt to cross the street and there is a giant puddle in my
> way I will cross the street and get my feet wet.  That does not mean
> that I was attempting to get my feet wet.
>
> As I see it, a player who makes a "statement to the effect that [he]
> will win a specific number of tricks" [L68A] is attempting to claim.
> A player who makes a "statement to the effect that [he] will lose a
> specific number of tricks" [L68B1] is attempting to concede.  A
> player attempting to claim who is not conversant with the details of
> L68 will not even understand that his attempt to claim will, by law,
> result in a concession, so how can we maintain that he is attempting
> to bring about that concession?
>
> >> The difference is that in the first case the concession occurred
> >> because he has made "a statement to the effect that [he] will lose a
> >> specific number of tricks".  In the second case the concession
> >> occurred because he has made "a claim of some number of tricks".  If
> >> the latter language did not appear in TFLB, we would have a
> >> concession in the first case only, but not in the second.
> >
> > The difference is immaterial. We do have a concession in both cases.
>
> There are two issues here, and the difference is material to both of
> them.
>
> (1) It matters, when "his partner immediately objects" [L68B2], what
> the implied object of "objects" is.  If he is presumed to be
> "objecting" to his partner's *attempt to concede* then the second
> case contains nothing for him to object to.  If he is presumed to be
> objecting to his partner's *concession*, then he may object in either
> case, and we go on to (2).  The wording of L68B2 strongly suggests
> the former reading:  If you object to partner's *attempt to concede*
> then "no concession has occurred" -- OK, no problem.  But if you
> object to partner's "concession" and then "no concession has
> occurred", then nothing has occurred for you to object to, so you
> couldn't have objected to it, and the world goes 'round and 'round.
>
> (2) If the concession resulted from an attempt to concede, we have
> (duh!) a concession.  If it resulted from an attempt to claim, we
> have a claim *and* a (consequent) concession.  Under one reading of
> the law (i.e. as written), if partner objects the concession is
> voided in both cases leaving nothing in the first and a claim still
> to be dealt with in the second.  Under the alternative (and,
> according to Grattan, intended) reading of the law (i.e. assuming the
> 2001 minute modifying the 1997 law applies), if partner objects the
> concession is voided in the first case, while in the second case a
> "synchronous and inseparable" claim-and-concession entity is voided,
> leaving nothing to be dealt with in either.
>
> But if the "'synchronous and inseparable' claim-and-concession
> entity" really exists, why would "a claim of some number of tricks
> [be] a concession of the remainder" [L68B1] when there is nothing
> making a concession of some number of tricks is a claim of the
> remainder?
>

Please get real Eric.
That a claim is incorporated in a concession and vice versa (of course
unless one claims or conecede the rest of the tricks) is an obvious
and logical fact. Although the lawmakers have tried to make this extra
clear by adding a sentence (unnecessary) to this effect in the law
defining a concession, there's no reason to try to twist this around
like you do.

-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran

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