[blml] concession

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:
> 
> 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

Insofar as I am aware nobody has argued that case.  *Implied* claims (ie
those arising where a number of tricks have been conceded THEREBY
claiming the complement) are cancelled following the guidance from the
previous WBF minute.  The logic for cancelling the claim is that because
it arises solely from the concession it ceases to exist when the
concession is cancelled.

Explicit claims are a different matter.  The WBF minute never applied to
explicit claims (even those where the claim was for a specific number of
tricks THEREBY conceding the remainder).

If there is an explicit claim under L68A play then ceases under L68D
regardless of whether there was a subsequent, simultaneous, or implied
concession.  It doesn't matter that an accompanying concession is
cancelled since there is still a claim.  "I get my two hearts and you get
the rest" is a claim even if partner immediately objects to the
concession of the rest.  We can delete "and you get the rest" under L68b2
and deem the *concession* not to have occurred but we cannot (because
L68b1 does not encompass disregarding L68A) delete the "I get my two
hearts".

This is exactly the same as under the 2001 footnote which did not include
cancelling claims (even those for a number of tricks THEREBY conceding
the remainder).

The use of "THEREBY" absolutely *requires* causality.  *Explicit* claims
do NOT arise from concessions. This is just basic English - not complex
law.

Tim