[blml] concession

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Sven Pran wrote:
> 
> >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> > ................
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> But it isn't a claim according to L68A.
> >
> > If that statement isn't a statement to the effect that the player
> > will take
> > two of the remaining five tricks I do not know the meaning of the
> > words "to
> > the effect that". And I am pretty sure that I do indeed know the
> > meaning of
> > these words.
> 
> ISTM that if a concession were a claim and claim were a concession,
> there would be a law in TFLB governing "any statement to the effect
> that a contestant will win or lose a specific number of tricks".
> Since there are two entirely different laws, one for "win" and one
> for "lose", the authors must have seen some difference between them
> that Sven doesn't.

A claim is not a simultaneous concession and a concession is not a
simultaneous claim if any of them is for all the remaining tricks. So the
lawmakers have decided to treat them individually. That does not prevent
claims and concessions from being treated the same when they in fact are the
same, i.e. simultaneously both a claim and a concession (or vice versa). Can
that be so difficult to understand?

Of course there could have been a single law about "any statement or action
to the effect that play should cease" handling both claims and concessions,
but the lawmakers haven't done it that way, and I am surprised that anybody
can have any problem with this?

I join Ton and "rest my case"

Sven