[blml] concession

[Herman De Wael]

Sven Pran wrote:
>> 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.
> 

If he claims two tricks we shall only offer a third to him if there is 
no normal play that produces less than three tricks.

If he concedes four tricks, he claims three, but we don't give him 
that third unless all normal lines lead to three tricks.

In both cases, the ruling is the same. Three tricks if all normal 
lines lead to three, two otherwise (unless of course there is a normal 
line leading to only one trick).

There really is no problem if he says both. Even if it does not add up.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html