[blml] concession

[Eric Landau]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Sven Pran wrote:

>> 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.

TFLB says explicitly that "a claim of some number of tricks is a  
concession of the remainder".  Sven's argument is based on "assuming  
the converse" (a well-known logical fallacy), which would be that "a  
concession of some number of tricks is a claim of the remainder".  I  
don't find that anywhere in TFLB.

Sven and others seem to be taking both statements as self-evident  
truths, using them as axioms from which to develop their  
conclusions.  I would remind them that a claim of some number of  
tricks *was not* a concession of the remainder until the 1975 laws  
made it so.

> 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 continues to misunderstand Tim's logic.  Right or wrong, L68B2  
apples whenever a player makes "any statement to the effect that [he]  
will lose a specific number of tricks" [L68B1] and "his partner  
immediately objects" [L68B2] -- *unless* he has also made a  
"statement to the effect that [he] will win a specific number of  
tricks" [L68A], because then we would have followed L68A and never  
gotten to L68B.

Perhaps we can illustrate the argument by playing a little game...

Match the lettered items on the left (from Sven's post of 1/6) with  
the corresponding numbered items on the right (from TFLB):

A. "OK, you get three."   1. "Any statement to the effect that a  
contestant
                                             will win a specific  
number of tricks"
B. "I get two."                  2. "Any statement to the effect that  
a contestant
                                             will lose a specific  
number of tricks"

Tim's logic is based on the assumption that the correct answer to the  
above is A2/B1.  Sven's logic is based on the assumption that there  
is no wrong answer.


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