[blml] concession

[Herman De Wael]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [following address discontinued:
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> ***********************
> "In nature there are neither 
> rewards nor punishments - 
> there are consequences.
>               [R.G.Ingersoll]
>  +++++++++++++++++++++++
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
> To: <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] concession
> 
> 
>> *From:* "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
>> *To:* "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
>> *Date:* Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:09:34 +0100
>>
> 
> "It was agreed that when a *concession is made by a defender of a 
> number of tricks, THEREBY claiming the complement* of the remaining
> tricks, .."
> 
> "I get two tricks and you get the last three" is not a case of a
> concession THEREBY claiming.  It is explicitly both a claim AND a
> concession.
> 
> "OK, I get my two hearts" is an explicit claim and, if more than two
> tricks remain, it is a "claim THEREBY conceding the remainder.
> 
> +=+ In my opinion that statement and the statement that
> "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the 
> remainder" are reciprocal and "you can't have one without 
> the other". What is clear is that play continues and the only 
> question is whether the claimer is or is not free to play as 
> he wishes. That is a matter for interpretation. Personally 
> I would say that if we had meant the player to be constrained 
> to play in a particular way Law 68B2 would have said so.
>                                   ~ Grattan ~   +=+

I believe some things are obvious:
"Play continues" means play continues.
Play continues means the defender shall put a card on the table. One 
card, not all of them. Any card, not one that has been mentioned.
Play continues.

Isn't that obvious?

Now I gather that some people wish to hold the claiming defender to 
his "claim" statement. More so than the merely conceding defender. I 
think that is a superfluous wish.

After all, the objection must be considered as UI to the original 
claimer. That means that he is no longer allowed to play the suggested 
card, if there is a logical alternative to it.
This is a very strict regulation. Many cards in his hand will be 
dissalowed now.
If, on top of that, the nitpicking TD's from this thread will also 
want to rule on his claim, they will need to find the least successful 
of all his "normal" cards. Do you not think that the UI restrictions 
are just equally severe as the claim ruling?
So why not simply do what the lawbook instructs:

PLAY CONTINUES

The only time this is really important is when there is still a trick 
to be won by partner, but depending on the lead by original claimer.

Say partner has an unexpected trump, and a void. Declarer has the one 
other, higher trump, and high cards in both other suits. If claimer 
picks the voided suit, partner makes another trick, otherwise not.

Of course claimer has cards in both suits, and partner has not yet 
shown out.

If there is now no way the objection points to one suit or the other, 
then should we not allow claimer to pick? Of course if there is any 
way the claimer can reason it out, he should not be allowed to "have a 
rethink". But if there is no way by reason?

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