[blml] concession

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of David Burn
...............
> The trouble is, as I mentioned before, that if (say) seven tricks 
> remain to be played, a player who says that he will win two of
> them does not necessarily intend thereby that he will lose five
> of them - and, of course, vice versa. 

Maybe he doesn't intend it but that is exactly what laws 68A and 68B1 define
his actions to be.

> In the example I gave earlier - West says "I get two tricks
> and you get four" - he has according to the Pran Interpretation:
> 
> [a] claimed two tricks (because that is what he said)
> [b] claimed three tricks (because he conceded four, and 7 - 4 = 3)
> [c] conceded four tricks (because that is what he said)
> [d] conceded five tricks (because he claimed two, and 7 - 2 = 5).

With those exact words West has claimed two tricks and conceded four, thus
he has left one trick unaccounted for. And you have no foundation for
claiming that I have said anything else.

> The difficulty may lie in the interpretation of the English phrase 
> "to the effect that". This is an idiom in which the word "effect" 
> should not be taken too literally (of course, such language has no
> business in the Laws of a game, as Konrad has pointed out).

And why not? "To the effect that" is a perfectly well defined clause meaning
that the exact words used are immaterial, what is important is the meaning
that has been expressed. The effect is the same as if a witness says (e.g.
in a court of justice): I heard him say "can you take me there or words to
that same effect". There is nothing unclear about the meaning of such
statements, nor should there be anything unclear when Law 68A uses the
clause "to the effect that". 

> If a player correctly claims two tricks with seven remaining, then 
> an "effect" is that his opponents get five tricks, but his statement
> is not a statement "to the effect that" he will lose five tricks - 
> he may have thought he was only going to lose four.

Of course it is, have you still not understood that that is exactly what is
embraced in the definition of a concession in Law 68B1?

> Oh, I understand it perfectly. 

Frankly I doubt that you do.

Sven