[blml] concession

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

Last try.

In defining a concession, Law 68B1, establishes that you can concede
in two ways.

1. Say so -- "....will lose a specific".....,
or,
2. Imply so -- "....claim...." (less than all) leaving a
".....remainder....".

This in no way has to do with a claim of tricks in 68A; it establishes what
a concession is.

When we go to 68B2 we find instruction that when the partner
immediately objects to a concession  NO MATTER HOW ARRIVED AT in 68B1, no 
concession
has occurred.

The claim part of Ton's or any other example does not disappear from the
continuing play. The concession is what is in question, and needs to be 
resolved. The 2001
minute of the WBFLC adding the words "or claim" is superfluous, changes
nothing and simply causes confusion. Law 68A is not cancelled.

Sven has now introduced a qualifying word "(implied)" re a claim. Nice 
segue, but
a TD must determine whether or not a claim has indeed been made before going
on further into the laws.

How to rule/adjudicate?  In my opinion I would not let the claimant depart
from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must
determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI.

More importantly I would pay particular attention to see that the
claimant or objector does not benefit from actions prohibited by 70 D 2.
which is a new and important provision of the laws.

The rest of the postings about non-offenders, irregularities, infractions,
trick-by-trick, etc., are not ad rem and probably stem from a mistaken 
impression
that you always have to have a bad guy to resolve an issue.

Grattan may find that I am not "on the other side of the river" but I am
concerned about the sloppy English which makes argument possible.  Examples
in an Appendix will certainly help. An example shows how a writer(s) would
use the law. To object to Appendices usurping the WBFLC power to interpret
the law is not a "minimalist" position.

Kojak


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ton" <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] concession


> Tim:
>
>
> L68D applies if:
> d) Defender claims a number of tricks thereby conceding the remainder
> (There
> is no provision under either L68b2 or the WBF minute to cancel such a
> claim).
>
> ton:
> Last try;
> This statement under d) is wrong.
>
> Coming back to my example: declarer leads in trick 10 and LHO says: 'this
> is
> your last trick'. RHO objects and play has to be continued. Are you really
> trying to tell me that with: 'I take the last 3 tricks' and partner
> objecting play can't be continued?
>
> If so, you are wrong. And there is nothing in L68 nor in the 2001 minutes
> supporting you.
>
> ton
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>