[blml] concession

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
........................
> Tim notes that "any statement to the effect
> that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim"
> per L68A, and therefore any statement with the words "I get two" is
> governed by L68A and must be dealt with as a claim.  

A statement that a player concedes some but not all the remaining tricks is
also a statement to the effect that he "will win a specific number of
tricks", namely the tricks that he does not concede.

Therefore also my sample statement "You get three tricks" when there are
five more to play is a claim (of the two other tricks) as good as any.

So the only way Tim's logic can survive is if he argues that Law 68B2 only
applies when a defender concedes all the remaining tricks and his partner
immediately objects. 

But this is incompatible with the words "concede one or more tricks" as used
in Law 68B2, instead we would have seen the words "concede all the remaining
tricks" if that had been the intention. 

Sven