[blml] concession

[ton]

> On Behalf Of ton
> As you may expect I try to understand this topic, so read some more mails.
> 
> Do I have to believe that somebody is trying to tell us that L68B2 
> only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks?

Yes
 
> May I ask David to find the word describing the quality of that opinion?
> 
> How is it possible to read 'if a defender attempts to concede one or 
> more tricks...' in such a way?

It is indeed impossible. 

But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or claim" from
L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has indeed occurred
and must be handled in the regular way even when the other defender has
objected to the concession which therefore "has not occurred".

Regards Sven

ton:

We did not delete 'or claim' in L 68B2. There was no 'or claim' in 68B2. 
We have 68B2 as it was in the '97 version with a completely redundant
interpretation in LC minutes in 2001 or whatever. 

Is anybody seriously suggesting that we were not able to say: 'if a defender
concedes all remaining tricks....' in law 68B? We did not say so - why would
anybody want to make a distinction based on the number of tricks conceded? -
therefore 68B2 applies in all situations where a defender concedes at least
one trick. L 68B2 clearly states that if partner then objects play
continues. 

With my remark towards David about using the word 'nonsense' in a previous
e-mail I made it impossible to use that word myself, which appears to be
utterly stupid. 


ton