[blml] concession

[Eric Landau]

On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Ed Reppert wrote:

> 2007 Law 68D: "After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see
> Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69
> applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the
> Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies."
>
> This does not say that dummy can only dispute a claim or concession
> by declarer, or that a defender cannot dispute a claim or concession
> by his partner. So I wonder, firstly, what the difference is between
> this "dispute" and the "objection" in Law 68B. Secondly, if the
> intent was to limit this "disputing" to players of the other side,
> why doesn't the law say so?

"Doubt: To be uncertain or skeptical about"
"Object: To raise an objection"
"Objection: A statement or other expression offered or presented in  
opposition" [all AHD]

This rather subtle distinction is reflected in the laws:  one  
"doubts" a "concession", but one "objects to" an "attempt to concede".

> Law 70D3 strikes me as saying "if there is a claim or concession, you
> better damn sure not allow play to continue, because if it does, and
> you screw up, you lose". I don't have a problem with the law saying
> that, particularly if it's addressed to the claiming or conceding
> side, but the law doesn't preclude the claiming/conceding side from
> getting *more* tricks if their opponents screw the pooch.

Some of us deal routinely with players who are less than expert on  
the law -- in fact, they don't know diddley-squat.  They have,  
however, picked up on a few -- albeit very few -- fundamental  
principles that appear to be simple and straightforward.  But one  
thing they have learned is that *when someone claims play stops*.   
Why would it occur to anyone that the lawmakers, using a law that  
appears to be about concessions rather than having anything to do  
with claims no less, intended to introduce an exception to this  
widely accepted principle?  I suspect this is why this discussion has  
raised the heat level to near-DWS-school levels.

Try this:  Ask a competent local director who is not a BLMLer or  
aware of this discussion, "Under what circumstances can a player make  
a statement that he will win some number of tricks other than the  
current one and, upon being called, you will direct that play  
continue?"  He or she will look at you like you've lost your mind.

> The more I think about it, the more I think the laws on claims need a
> complete overall, not just the touch-up they got. :-(

Certainly if understanding the intent of the law is to require us to  
conceptualize some "synchronous and inseparable" hybrid claim/ 
concession thingy, it would be nice if the law deigned to mention it.


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