[blml] concession

[Eric Landau]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Sven Pran wrote:

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

*Absolutely nobody* has argued that L68B2 does not apply to any  
explicit concession of any number of tricks.  Several have argued  
that it does not apply to an implicit concession consequent on an  
attempt to claim -- which cannot, of course, be a concession of all  
the tricks.  Sven is failing to make the distinction between an  
implicit claim consequent on an explict concession and an explicit  
claim which results in an implicit concession.  For those who would  
disagree with his interpretation, that distinction is crucial.  So,  
understanding that we are addressing *only* the latter...

There are three interpretations on the table.  From my reply to Jerry  
yesterday (numbers added):

"So we might have [1] a claim with a consequent concession (L68B2  
does not apply), [2] a claim without a consequent confession (L68B2  
cancels the concession but not the original claim), or [3] nothing at  
all (L68B2 cancels West's statement in its entirety)."

Sven's "numerous statements" argue for [2].  Sven is correct that  
under either [1] or [2], play must cease as a consequence of the  
"outstanding" claim.  But they are different.  The rationale for [2]  
comes from interpreting "play continues" to mean "the table action  
resumes normally" -- but the normal action with a claim on the table  
is for play to stop and the claim to be either accepted or  
adjudicated.  Nevertheless, L68B2 applies: if partner objects, the  
concession is withdrawn; the objection is heard and (if not accepted  
by declarer) taken into account in the subsequent adjudication.   
"Play continues" at L68D.  In [1], the concession cannot be not  
withdrawn; if partner objects to it, L68D is triggered directly, in  
turn taking us to L70.

In either case we get an adjudicated outcome, but they may be  
different.  In [1], we adjudicate based on the claimer's original  
statement; in [2] we adjudicate a composite "statement" taking the  
claimer's partner's objection into account, subject to the (UI- 
related) constraints of L68B2.  Only with [3] do we allow the actual  
play of the hand to restart.


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