[blml] concession

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"We do not want those who are 
illegally in the country in Culpeper.
It's not meant to be mean-spirited, 
it's not against any nationality, any 
race, it's not against any socio -economic 
factors. It's about what is legal and 
what is illegal - and to me it's very 
black and white."
         Steve Jenkins (Culpeper VA.) 
has a problem with Hispanic incomers. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] concession


> 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
> 
+=+ My recollection of the discussion is that we were 
removing superfluous words, not needed for the meaning 
of the law, because the principle enunciated in 2001 applies.
No intention to change the effect of the law was involved.  
       Ton seems to be somewhere on my side of the river in 
this, but not Kojak.  
                                          ~ Grattan ~   +=+