[blml] concession

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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.

I fully agree with you Ton, but some people have noticed that the words "or
claim" were present in the drafts and were removed in the final version of
L68B. They use this removal to argue that only concessions, not claims can
be void under law 68B2.

Regards Sven