[blml] concession

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:

> > > Example with five tricks left to play:
> > >
> > > 1: OK, you get three (also a claim of two as defined in Law 68A)
> > >
> > > 2: I get two (also a concession of three as defined in Law 68B1)
> > >
> > > 3: You get three and I get two
> > >
> > > 4: I get two and you get three
> > 
> > If partner immediately objects, play continues. They're all the 
> > same.
> > John
> 
> That is exactly my opinion as well, but Tim apparently thinks 
> otherwise? 
> 
> He seems to say that when a player begins his statement with the 
> word "I get" (or words to that effect) then it is primarily a claim

It doesn't matter how the statement begins - it matters only what the
statement contains.

Only in 1) above has the player conceded resulting in a concession.
In the other 3 there has been an explicit claim as per L68A and
regardless of L68b1/2 we must apply L68D.

That's exactly the same law we would apply in case 1) were the objection
slower than "immediate".

Had the lawmakers wished to group all concessions together they should
have written L68b2:

"Regardless of L68A or 1 preceding..." and left in the words "or claim"
(they didn't thus there is no provision to cancel a claim as defined in
L68A).

The 2001 footnote might have read:
It was agreed that when a both a concession and claim have occurred, if
the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law
68B  both the concession and claim are cancelled.

As I pointed out in an earlier message I am perfectly aware of the
alternative (and more archaic) meaning of thereby but the construction of
the sentence simply does not justify that interpretation.

Tim