[blml] concession

[Eric Landau]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

>> 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.

Sorry if this sounds personal, but you guys are getting out of hand.   
Sven, who is wholly in agreement with Ton, makes up absurd arguments  
which he attributes to the other side, and Ton dutifully demolishes  
them.  Could you guys please try to address the arguments being made  
by those who disagree with your conclusions, instead of having an  
entirely one-sided debate with one another?

Ton, nobody who disagrees with you has ever asserted that L68B2  
applies only for a defender who concedes all the remaining tricks.   
We accept that if a defender attempts to concede fewer than all of  
the remaining tricks, L68B2 applies to the concession.  We do dispute  
that L68B2 applies to all of the remaining tricks.  If you cannot see  
the difference, you cannot understand the contrary argument.  Don't  
be distracted by those red herrings; there is a substantive issue here.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net