[blml] concession

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
................
> 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.

Going back on this thread you will find numerous statements to the effect
that (sorry here we go again!) unless the concession objected to was for all
the remaining tricks then there was a claim which could not be nullified
under Law 68B2, and as a consequence of this we shall end up in Law 68D and
play must cease.

Only recently has the suggestion been made that play can cease under Law 68D
only for the claimed tricks and that Law 68B2 be applied for the conceded
tricks. But nobody seems to have given any thought to how this can be
practiced? The real fact is that once play have ceased there is no way it
can be resumed again because as part of the routine prescribed in Law 70B
all four hands may eventually, and will more often than not be faced. 

If this doesn't imply an assertion that Law 68B2 should only apply for a
concession of all remaining tricks I don't know what does.

And BTW. I did not attempt to make any one-sided debate with Ton. I tried to
sum up the arguments that appeared to having confused him since nobody else
seemed fit to do just that.

Sven