[blml] concession

[Eric Landau]

On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote:

>> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> ............
>> This is where we started.  We know that if there was a claim of all
>> the tricks, play must cease.  We know that if there was a concession
>> of all the tricks (objected to), play must continue.  Initially, we
>> accepted the intuitive-sounding notion that partial claims and
>> partial concessions are the same thing, some hybrid claim/concession
>> entity not actually mentioned in TFLB, and that "of course there
>> could have been a single law".
>
> So far everything seems OK
>
>> So we tried to amalgamate the existing laws into that notional  
>> "single
>> law", and discovered that it would require that play simultaneously
>> cease and continue.
>
> Who are "we"?

BLML collectively.  "We" debate the interpretation of the laws so as  
to better understand and apply them.  So when the laws appear to  
require the fabrication of a conceptual hybrid claim/concession  
thingy we test that construction against the words of the law.  When  
we discover that in the presence of the conceptual hybrid thingy play  
must simultaneously continue and cease, we look for an alternative  
conceptualization that makes sense.  It's not all "It stops" "It  
continues" "Stops" "Continues" "Idiot!" "Moron!" -- although it may  
be for some.  But any number of people on both sides have actually  
had intelligent things to say.

>> Of course there could have been a single law, but it would have had
>> to direct one or the other.  Since there of course could have been,
>> but there isn't, some of us are less than comfortable with assuming
>> that somehow it just got left out by accident.  Rather than
>> pretending to know what it would have said if someone had actually
>> written it, we look to the laws that are actually there.
>
> So what do these laws say?
>
> First of all we must remember that there is a major difference between
> claims or concessions made by declarer and claims or concessions  
> made by a
> defender: Declarer is the only player acting for the declaring side  
> while
> there are two defenders and they share the same rights.
>
> When declarer makes a claim and/or a concession that is final, but  
> when a
> defender makes a concession with or without an implied claim his  
> partner may
> still have something to say about it and Law 68B2 is the one that  
> tells us
> how to proceed in such situations.

Exactly.  It tells us that the concession, along with whatever its  
implications might be, have cease to exist.  No problem.  Some very  
smart people have, however, looked at the case in which a defender  
makes a claim with an implied concession, and suggest that L68B2  
tells us that the concession, along with whatever its implications  
might be, have cease to exist, noting that that can have no effect on  
an explicit claim.  Other very smart people say no, a concession that  
implies a claim and a claim that implies a concession are the same  
thing.  We mere eggs are left to wonder why, if they're the same  
thing, they are defined as exact opposites in TFLB, and covered by  
two different laws.

> The partner can object for two different reasons:
>
> 1: In his opinion the defender has claimed too many or conceded too  
> few
> tricks.
>
> 2: In his opinion the defender has claimed too few or conceded too  
> many
> tricks.
>
> Does reason 1 create any problem? Hardly. I don't think any  
> lawmaker ever
> imagined an objection for such reasons, and in any case the matter  
> should
> easily be sorted out whether play ceases or continues.
>
> So let us go to reason 2: Law 68B2 instructs us that in this  
> situation play
> shall continue (with due regard to UI and all such stuff) because  
> now the
> objection is essentially an objection to the concession (regardless  
> how it
> is made), the other defender disagrees and wants some of the conceded
> tricks.

L68B2 instructs us only about situations in which "a defender  
attempts to concede one or more tricks".  It has been noted that one  
easy way out of the impasse, which would answer all questions, is to  
interpret an "attempt[] to concede one or more tricks" as synonymous  
with "a statement to the effect that [the] contestant will lose a  
specific number of tricks".  Sven's argument here would sound a lot  
weaker if he used the actual words of the law and wrote "objection to  
the attempt to concede" instead of "objection to the concession".

> Law 68B could have said that play should cease also in this case,  
> but it
> doesn't. It could have said that the claim part should be ruled  
> upon by the
> Director and then play should continue for the concession part. Thanks
> heaven it doesn't. I assume anybody who has ever directed and had  
> to rule on
> claims will appreciate that it doesn't. Such a law would in most if  
> not all
> cases have been impossible to apply.

L68B could have said that play should continue regardless of any  
outstanding claim.  It could have said that when a player claims  
fewer than the remaining tricks L68D does not apply.  It could have  
said that "no claim or concession has occurred".  It could have  
incorporated the language of the 2001 WBF minute.  One thing we  
should all be able to agree on is that it could have said whatever it  
does say in clear enough language that we wouldn't be having this  
debate.  Anyone who disagrees with that is effectively calling half  
the members of this forum morons.

> So where do we stand? We have Law 68B2 that tells us (literally  
> without any
> limitation) that when a defender concedes one or more tricks and  
> his partner
> immediately objects then play shall continue, period.

It also tells us, by Sven's reading, that when a defender blows up in  
a fit of anger, throws his cards on the floor and stomps out of the  
room ("A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons  
his hand." [L68B1]) and his partner immediately objects then play  
shall continue, period.  Period?

> I have nothing more to add beyond what has already been said more  
> than once
> from those sho should be authorities on the laws of Bridge.

Those "authorities" are the first to remind us that they express  
their personal opinions as participants in this forum, and do not  
purport to  offer official interpretations of law.  That allows us to  
hold them to the same standards of logic, common sense and English  
comprehension as everyone else despite their exalted status  
elsewhere.  And, lest we forget, beyond the rarefied atmosphere of  
BLML, we are all "authorities".


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