Are Laws regarding concessions contradictory?

[nrford100]

Law 68 on claims and concessions says in B2:

"if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects; NEITHER A CONCESSION NOR A CLAIM HAS OCCURRED. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. PLAY CONTINUES." [Emphasis mine.]

Section D2b says:

"upon the request of the non-claiming or non-conceding side, play MAY continue
subject to the following:
(i) ALL FOUR PLAYERS MUST CONCUR; otherwise the Director is summoned..."

In addition, section C says:

"The player making the claim or concession faces his hand."

This does not fit well with B2's statements regarding unauthorized information and that play continues.

Finally, Law 69, section B2 says:

"if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won HAD THE PLAY CONTINUED... the board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side."

Again, this does not fit will with 68.B2 which states matter of factly that play continues and that, in fact, a concession has not even occurred.

This situation came up in a recent event and cost the declarer a trick when play was not allowed to continue.

Am I missing something in the way these rules are written?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

[I use claim as example, but it covers concession as well]

Someone claims by a statement or by showing his hand. Play stops.
The following may then happen:

1. Nobody objects. The claimer displays his hand if he hasn't
done so already. If a dispute arises, TD is called.

2. The partner to the claimer objects. There is no claim. TD must
be called because there is UI either from the statement or from
the display of the hand. TD notes the facts and instructs the
players to finish the board and call him again if someone sees a
problem.

3. Someone else objects. The TD is called. He ascertains the
facts and makes a ruling.

4. A player from the non-claiming side is not quite capable of
determining what the outcome will be, and says so.

4a. The four players agree that they will play the board instead
of handling the claim. TD must be called because there is UI
either from the statement or from the display of the hand. TD
notes the facts and instructs the players to finish the board and
call him again if someone sees a problem.

4b. At least one of the players insists that the claim must be
accepted and that play must indeed stop. If the players cannot
agree among themselves what the outcome will be, TD must be
called and ...

In 2. and 4a play is continued and there is no claim.

In the cases 1., 3. and 4b there has been a claim. If someone has
wrongly conceded a trick (and it is discovered), the concession
for this trick is cancelled.

wrongly = conceded a trick that his side won, or one that they
couldn't possibly lose.

[nrford100]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
[I use claim as example, but it covers concession as well]
Someone claims by a statement or by showing his hand. Play stops.
1. Nobody objects. The claimer displays his hand if he hasn't
done so already. If a dispute arises, TD is called.
2. The partner to the claimer objects. There is no claim. TD must
be called because there is UI either from the statement or from
the display of the hand. TD notes the facts and instructs the
players to finish the board and call him again if someone sees a
problem.
3. Someone else objects. The TD is called. He ascertains the
facts and makes a ruling.
4. A player from the non-claiming side is not quite capable of
determining what the outcome will be, and says so.
4a. The four players agree that they will play the board instead
of handling the claim. TD must be called because there is UI
either from the statement or from the display of the hand. TD
notes the facts and instructs the players to finish the board and
call him again if someone sees a problem.
4b. At least one of the players insists that the claim must be
accepted and that play must indeed stop. If the players cannot
agree among themselves what the outcome will be, TD must be
called and ...
In 2. and 4a play is continued and there is no claim.
In the cases 1., 3. and 4b there has been a claim. If someone has
wrongly conceded a trick (and it is discovered), the concession
for this trick is cancelled.
wrongly = conceded a trick that his side won, or one that they
couldn't possibly lose.
--
/Bertel

Thanks, but my question was if the wording of the laws are contradictory. To repeat from my post: 68.B2 says:
"if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects; NEITHER A CONCESSION NOR A CLAIM HAS OCCURRED. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. PLAY CONTINUES."

For the specific situation given, this is the end of subject, the way I read it. A defender conceded, his partner objected, thus "neither a concession nor a claim has occurred" therefore no other laws after this statement can apply to this situation and "play continues."

If a concession is deemed not to have occurred, then none of the remaining sections or laws apply. It's just that the way it is all presented is confusing. For example...

Your statement that 68.B2 applies to both claims and concessions doesn't seem to be correct since 68.B2 starts by saying "if a defender attempts to concede..." and does NOT include "...or if a player attempts to claim...". Their adding "neither a concession NOR A CLAIM has occurred" only muddies the waters since the first part of the sentence limits B2 to concessions.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by nrford100
Thanks, but my question was if the wording of the laws are
contradictory. To repeat from my post: 68.B2 says: "if a
defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his
partner immediately objects; NEITHER A CONCESSION NOR A CLAIM
HAS OCCURRED. Unauthorized information may exist, so the
Director should be summoned immediately. PLAY CONTINUES."
For the specific situation given, this is the end of subject,
the way I read it.

Correct. Play continues as if there had been no attempt to
claim/concede (except for the handling of UI).

Post by nrford100
A defender conceded, his partner objected, thus "neither a
concession nor a claim has occurred" therefore no other laws
after this statement can apply to this situation and "play
continues."

Precisely.

Post by nrford100
If a concession is deemed not to have occurred, then none of
the remaining sections or laws apply. It's just that the way
it is all presented is confusing.

Imagine a line added to § 68B2 that says "EXIT". We're done
reading the laws in this case. Section C does not apply.

Post by nrford100
Your statement that 68.B2 applies to both claims and
concessions doesn't seem to be correct [...]

I went too far in my simplification. You are right.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by nrford100
Your statement that 68.B2 applies to both claims and
concessions doesn't seem to be correct [...]

I went too far in my simplification. You are right.

It seems really weird that the Laws treat claims and concessions
differently. Most of the places say "claim or concession", but not
always.

It says that a claim of some of the remaining tricks is a concession of
the others, but there's no vice versa definition, even though that's
obviously the conceder's intent. Many simple claims are something like
"You get your high trump", and declarer is obviously implying that they
get the remainder.

Claims should be accompanied by a clarification statement, but
concessions apparently don't have to be.

Do we really think all this is intentional, or just sloppy writing?

[Peter Smulders]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by nrford100
Your statement that 68.B2 applies to both claims and
concessions doesn't seem to be correct [...]

I went too far in my simplification. You are right.

It seems really weird that the Laws treat claims and concessions
differently. Most of the places say "claim or concession", but not
always.
It says that a claim of some of the remaining tricks is a concession of
the others, but there's no vice versa definition, even though that's
obviously the conceder's intent. Many simple claims are something like
"You get your high trump", and declarer is obviously implying that they
get the remainder.
Claims should be accompanied by a clarification statement, but
concessions apparently don't have to be.
Do we really think all this is intentional, or just sloppy writing?

I don't think there is a need for such a vice versa definition. If the
concession of some of the remaining tricks implies a claim of the other
tricks, it is a claim as defined in Law 68A.

Why would a concession have to be accompanied by a clarification? If a
player concedes a trick that could not possibly be lost Law 71B has
mercy on him, isn't that enough?

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Peter Smulders

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by nrford100
Your statement that 68.B2 applies to both claims and
concessions doesn't seem to be correct [...]

I went too far in my simplification. You are right.

It seems really weird that the Laws treat claims and concessions
differently. Most of the places say "claim or concession", but not
always.
It says that a claim of some of the remaining tricks is a concession of
the others, but there's no vice versa definition, even though that's
obviously the conceder's intent. Many simple claims are something like
"You get your high trump", and declarer is obviously implying that they
get the remainder.
Claims should be accompanied by a clarification statement, but
concessions apparently don't have to be.
Do we really think all this is intentional, or just sloppy writing?

I don't think there is a need for such a vice versa definition. If the
concession of some of the remaining tricks implies a claim of the other
tricks, it is a claim as defined in Law 68A.

So why do we need separate definitions for claims and concessions at
all? They're just two sides of the same coin -- I'm going to win X
tricks and lose Y tricks (where X+Y is the number of remaining tricks).

Post by Peter Smulders
Why would a concession have to be accompanied by a clarification? If a
player concedes a trick that could not possibly be lost Law 71B has
mercy on him, isn't that enough?

But what if he doesn't concede enough tricks? He should explain how
he'll lose only the specified number, not more. Just as when he's
claiming he has to explain how he'll win those tricks.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Peter Smulders

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by nrford100
Your statement that 68.B2 applies to both claims and
concessions doesn't seem to be correct [...]

I went too far in my simplification. You are right.

It seems really weird that the Laws treat claims and concessions
differently. Most of the places say "claim or concession", but not
always.
It says that a claim of some of the remaining tricks is a concession of
the others, but there's no vice versa definition, even though that's
obviously the conceder's intent. Many simple claims are something like
"You get your high trump", and declarer is obviously implying that they
get the remainder.
Claims should be accompanied by a clarification statement, but
concessions apparently don't have to be.
Do we really think all this is intentional, or just sloppy writing?

I don't think there is a need for such a vice versa definition. If the
concession of some of the remaining tricks implies a claim of the other
tricks, it is a claim as defined in Law 68A.

So why do we need separate definitions for claims and concessions at
all? They're just two sides of the same coin -- I'm going to win X
tricks and lose Y tricks (where X+Y is the number of remaining tricks).

Post by Peter Smulders
Why would a concession have to be accompanied by a clarification? If a
player concedes a trick that could not possibly be lost Law 71B has
mercy on him, isn't that enough?

But what if he doesn't concede enough tricks? He should explain how
he'll lose only the specified number, not more. Just as when he's
claiming he has to explain how he'll win those tricks.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

the laws used to define concession as the statement that your side will lose *all* remaining tricks.

anything less than all was defined as a claim.

not so any more?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by ***@verizon.net
the laws used to define concession as the statement that your
side will lose *all* remaining tricks.
anything less than all was defined as a claim.
not so any more?

No. Law 68B1 defines a concession.

[KWSchneider]

Can dummy object to declarer’s concession? I think not but...

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by KWSchneider
Can dummy object to declarer’s concession? I think not but...

Law 69B

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn
within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:

and law 71

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the
Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall
cancel a concession:

give any player the opportunity to object to a concession.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by KWSchneider
Can dummy object to declarer’s concession? I think not but...

I might add:

Once a claim/concession is made, play stops, and then dummy
ceases to be dummy (by definition).

[nrford100]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Once a claim/concession is made, play stops, and then dummy
ceases to be dummy (by definition).

Play does not stop for concessions when conceder's partner objects.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
"if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects; NEITHER A CONCESSION NOR A CLAIM HAS OCCURRED. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. PLAY CONTINUES."

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by nrford100
Play does not stop for concessions when conceder's partner objects.

Correct - if conceder is a defender (law 68B2).

[nrford100]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by nrford100
Play does not stop for concessions when conceder's partner objects.

Correct - if conceder is a defender (law 68B2).
--
/Bertel

68.D says "After any claim or concession, play is suspended... If it is doubted by any player (dummy included)... play may continue...".

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by nrford100
68.D says "After any claim or concession, play is suspended...
If it is doubted by any player (dummy included)... play may
continue...".

You're right. I forgot that one.