[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

For one thing, the rules are clear that a claim that was acquiesced may later be in dispute- it even gives a time frame for people to change their minds.

What rule makes this clear? Thanks.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Note that Acquiescence cannot occur before the a call to the next board or the round ends. Just because both opponents have acquiesced does not put the board into a state of Aqcquiescence. It's that whole little 'AND' thing in 69A.

69A states:

Acquiescence occurs when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board, or before the round ends.

So, didn't EW acquiesce in the claim/concession of South? They assented and didn't attempt to withdraw their assent, either immediately or later.

Suppose they were asked by the director and they said "Oh, we waive any right to repudiate, revoke or otherwise withdraw or object to our acquiescence. We really did mean to acquiesce."

Are you saying that dummy can prevent them from acquiescing, by raising a dispute of his partner's concession?

That just seems very peculiar. A pair ought to be able to acquiesce if it wants to, shouldn't it?

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 10 2007, 12:36 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

For one thing, the rules are clear that a claim that was acquiesced may later be in dispute- it even gives a time frame for people to change their minds.

What rule makes this clear? Thanks.

Sorry, edited it in too late.

Law 69A.
Acquiescence occures when a contestent assents to an opponent's claim or concession, AND RAISES NO OBJECTION TO IT BEFORE HIS SIDE MAKES A CALL ON A SUBSEQUENT BOARD, OR BEFORE THE ROUND ENDS.

So prior to a call on a subsequent board (or before the round ends), either...

1. The board is not and cannot be acquiescence, or
2. the board is in acquiescence but may be put in dispute prior to the the next call.

Either way, it should be clear that the board may be disputed prior to a call in the next board.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

In fact, I can dispute my own acquiesced claim.

For example, in 4♥, the remaining cards in my and partner's hands are:

♥ AK
♣ Txx

across
♣ AK432

I claim "I take two hearts and the AK of clubs and concede the last trick".
Everybody agrees.

While we're scoring it, I say "Hey, did somebody have the QJ doubleton of clubs?"
Sure enough, somebody did.
Then I call the director, saying that since the QJ of clubs happened to drop, there is no reasonable way for me to lose the last trick. And the director should adjust the board.

So, can you track this situation through the Laws and justify your conclusion?

There was an acquiescence, n'est ce pas? I think that was part of the hypo.

So Law 68D says "Go to Law 69."

OK, you can take it from there. Unless you don't think you are supposed to go to Law 69, and if you don't think so, then yes I am confused. Why don't you go there?

68D says expressly to go to 69 whenever there is an acquiescence. Are you just going to make the defenders wait until the time period expires and they don't withdraw their acquiescence? That seems pointless to me. They could always waive their right to withdraw it, couldn't they?

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

Either way, it should be clear that the board may be disputed prior to a call in the next board.

Oh. Well, maybe it's clear to you .

So, you mean that even though the Laws don't say so expressly, the conceding side has the right to abrogate and nullify the (tentative, or nascent, or not-yet-matured, I suppose) acquiescence made by the other side, by saying "Hey I object to, revoke and withdraw my own prior concession."

What if the acquiescing side then says "We stand by our acquiescence. We're just going to wait for the time period (TP) to expire. You've got no right to prevent us from doing this. Whether we acquiesce or not is solely up to us."

I think your interpretation misperceives -- if that's the word -- the purpose of the TP.

After there's an (purported, putative, nascent, tentative, first-step-in-the-two-steps-of) acquiescence, there's an allowance - the TP - built in to Law 69B to allow the acquiescing party to change his mind. But it's clearly designed to only allow for HIM to change HIS mind. By its terms, it doesn't allow the claiming/conceding party to change HIS mind. It's a one way street.

It sure would have been easy to write 69B to make it so that anyone could change his mind. But it wasn't written that way. Compare 69 to 70 & 71, for example.

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 10 2007, 12:44 PM, said:

That just seems very peculiar. A pair ought to be able to acquiesce if it wants to, shouldn't it?

Um, there are three states...

1. Disputed. We all agree on what disputed means, yes? Disputed could mean partner, or even the claimer.

2. Acqiescence. This cannot occur unless it is undisputed at the time of the bidding of the next hand or end of the round.

3. Undisputed. Both opponents have acquiesced, but law 69A doesn't go into effect yet, because of that little AND portion. An undisputed claim can become disputed, or go into Acquiescence, but not both.

Here is a parallel example, paraphrasing:
You might think a card play would be either illegal or legal, right? It can't be both, or neither. But in fact, there are three states....

1. Legal Play: A play following suit if able, or any unplayed card in the hand if unable to follow suit (pursuant to certain rules about penalty cards etc.).

2. Established Revoke: A card that was not a legal play after the offending side has played to the next trick.

3. Unestablished Revoke: A card that was not a legal play prior to the offending side playing to the next trick or calling to the next board. At this point, the play could be made Legal (turning the card played into a Penalty card and substituting in a legal card), or could become an Established Revoke, but not both.

How about making a bid? You either made a bid or you didn't, right? And yet, it's actually tri-state. There is a period after making a call, you can say that a mechanical error has occurred and fix it. At which point, the original bid was never made.

Most things you'd think of as dual-state in the Laws are actually tri-state. Yes, No, and "Unestablished", if you will. The rules are quite clear as to when the claim Established.

[jtfanclub]

Regardless of the 'reasons', do you agree that Acquiescence cannot occur until the end of the round or until the first call of the next board?

And do you agree with my example where a claimer may end up disputing his own claim due to an unexpectedly favorable lie of the cards?

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 10 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 10 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

PS  Some posters do think Laws 42/43 are relevant, other than myself. At least they cited those Laws.

I've just had another look at the thread.

The only posters, other than you, who have cited Laws 42/43 have been doing so in response to your original post and there is {unanimity-1} in saying that they are not relevant.

I'm not sure who the -1 is. Might be me, since I don't think I said that Laws 42 and 43 are irrelevant. I do, however, agree that they are.

According to Chapter I (Definitions) of the Laws, an irregularity is "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." The correct procedure for making a claim is set forth in Law 68. Declarer followed that procedure. Declarer's partner is permitted by Law 68D to dispute the concession of a trick, which he did. So no, there has been no irregularity.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

The rules are quite clear as to when the claim Established.

Well, clarity is in the mind of the beholder, isn't it? .

Let's assume the 3-state idea is true. It surely couldn't hurt to do so, and it seems a useful analytical tool....

So on the 3-state-view, an "acquiescence" isn't a simple event; it's either a process, or a two-step-event, or something of that sort.

It requires (1) assent (which could be instantaneous or nearly so), plus (2) time expiration.

Now: You want to read into that two-step-process a third (implied) requirement for an acquiescence to take place: namely, this:

(3) and the non-acquiescing side (i.e. the claiming/conceding side) fails to object (and to withdraw its concession), and thereby fails to cancel the (slowly but inevitably maturing) acquiescence.

1. I guess I don't see either the textual or the implied-textual support for including this additional tacit condition. Is there some? In other words, what wording in the Laws implies that a claimer/conceder has this power?

Just naturally thinking about the meaning of the word "acquiesce" in English, it seems to me that it's solely up to the person acquiescing, and the other side can't stop him from doing it if he wants to. "Yes, I know you're trying to acquiesce, but I'm hereby foreclosing you from doing that..." ..... seems peculiar.

2. Also, is there somewhere in the Laws that makes it explicit that a player can dispute withdraw revoke countermand whatever HIS OWN claim or concession?

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

Regardless of the 'reasons', do you agree that Acquiescence cannot occur until the end of the round or until the first call of the next board?

And do you agree with my example where a claimer may end up disputing his own claim due to an unexpectedly favorable lie of the cards?

1. I agree that it's a process or a 2-step (not 3-step ) procedure or 2-step-event-if-you-will that takes time to mature or be finished with. It's not completed or matured until the time has expired.

I would not use the word "occur" because that to me pertains more to a single event, but that's a nit.

2. Well, that depends on whether we're going to impose, in an explicit (as you noted) two-step process, a tacit third-condition of acquiescence: not just (1) assent plus (2) time-passage, but also (3) the non-objection of the claiming/conceding party.

I addressed that in my immediately preceding post. IS there some express or implied textual support for allowing the conceder to nullify the acquiescence? Or is it just "common sense" or "it's obvious to everyone"..... If you think it's simply the latter, then there's no point in continuing this....

[skjaeran]

ralph23, on Sep 10 2007, 07:36 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

For one thing, the rules are clear that a claim that was acquiesced may later be in dispute- it even gives a time frame for people to change their minds.

What rule makes this clear? Thanks.

Law 69B: Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn.

Quote

Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent’s claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director’s judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side.

[ralph23]

skaeran, on Sep 10 2007, 02:47 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 10 2007, 07:36 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

For one thing, the rules are clear that a claim that was acquiesced may later be in dispute- it even gives a time frame for people to change their minds.

What rule makes this clear? Thanks.

Law 69B: Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn.

Quote

Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent’s claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director’s judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side.

Yes, this Law makes it clear that the ACQUIESCING party may change his mind. It is written to only allow for HIM to do that.

It is expressly written so as to EXCLUDE the claiming/conceding party from doing that.

It doesn't say e.g. that the claimer/conceder may cancel or revoke the other side's acquiescence -- either completed or tentative or in-process-- in the claim/concession.

I think the writing of this Law in this narrow way was done for a purpose.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-10, 12:56

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 10 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

I addressed that in my immediately preceding post. IS there some express or implied textual support for allowing the conceder to nullify the acquiescence?

Back to 68D.

if it is disputed by ANY PLAYER (dummy included), the director must be summoned etc. etc.

Any player is very clear to me. If they'd meant either opponent, they'd have said either opponent. Any player may dispute the claim.

You may believe there is some timeframe different for the claimant and his partner, but there is no such other timeframe expressed in the laws.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 10 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

I addressed that in my immediately preceding post. IS there some express or implied textual support for allowing the conceder to nullify the acquiescence?

Back to 68D.

if it is disputed by ANY PLAYER (dummy included), the director must be summoned etc. etc.

Any player is very clear to me. If they'd meant either opponent, they'd have said either opponent. Any player may dispute the claim.

Law 68D. After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director.

(1) If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies;
(2) if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival.

(Numbers and emphasis added)

You only get to that leg of the "fork" in 68D after you have decided, under the immediately preceding language, that there's not been an acquiescence.

If there has been one, go to 69.
If not, go to 70 & 71.

You want to say that an acquiescence takes time to mature; OK, I'll ride along with that for the purpose of the argument. Although I'm now not so sure that it's true in this context; but let's say so for now.

You also want to say, that during the time it takes to mature, the claiming/conceding side can nullify the ability of the acquiescence to mature. Stunt its growth in effect. ... maybe "terminate it" is a better expression, because it can never mature under your reading, without the (express or implicit) consent of the non-acquiescing side.

You want to say, in effect, that

1. side X can concede; then

2. side Y can acquiesce (or at least make step-one in the acquiescence-process and "assent" anyway) in that concession; then,

3. before the time expires, side X can "dispute" its own concession (which seems an odd use of the word "dispute" to me .... I can I think "withdraw" or "revoke" or "cancel" my own concession, but how in the world do I "dispute" it? Just an odd use of the word "dispute" imho); and

4. as a result, even though side Y still wants to acquiesce and even has waived any right to withdraw (err.... or should I say dispute? ) its acquiescence (imagine that they, being bridge lawyers, make this express waiver at the moment that they acquiesce), they can't do so. They don't have the power to do so. They are barred from acquiescing any more. Instead, declarer is allowed to "dispute" his own claim or concession and the "dispute" rules (70 & 71) apply, instead of the "acquiescence" rule, Law 69.

The textual structure of Law 68D doesn't seem very helpful to me.

Is there some other textual support?

And isn't it a strange way to speak, when you say "I'm hereby disputing my own claim and concession". I mean, you'd never say that in ordinary English unless you were "catering to" the Laws; you'd just say "I'm withdrawing/ cancelling/ revoking/taking back my prior concession."

I mean, I can "dispute" what you say, if I disagree with it.

If I come to disagree with what I have said myself, I don't "dispute" it. I withdraw my previous statement and then make a new and revised one. If I've made a move in a game, I can perhaps "cancel" it or "revoke" it, depending on the rules. But how do I "dispute" what I myself have previously said, even if I now disagree with it and think that I was wrong earlier?

Seems a peculiar usage of "dispute". Which would make many people suspicious, at a minimum.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-10, 14:27

[ralph23]

And: Is there somewhere in the Laws -- other than 68 -- that makes it explicit that a player can "dispute" (or if you prefer, withdraw, revoke or countermand) HIS OWN concession?

It's a funny kind of a "dispute" though. Who are the parties to it? Me and my former (mistaken) self?

It's also funny as to how the "dispute" is resolved. My former (mistaken) self is always wrong, and always loses.

[TimG]

You guys might want to take this private...

[jtfanclub]

This is a list, not an if-than-else statement.

Quote

If there has been one, go to 69.
If not, go to 70 & 71.

Patent nonsense. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in 68D that states or implies such. This is a list of conditions, there is no 'otherwise' or 'else' or anything similar in there.

Are you saying that if we switched the two phrases, suddenly you'd agree that absolutely they have the right to call the director? If so, this is a rather simple English problem.

Quote

You want to say, in effect, that

1.    side X can concede; then

2.  side Y can acquiesce (or at least make step-one in the acquiescence-process and "assent" anyway) in that concession; then,

3.   before the time expires, side X can "dispute" its own concession (which seems an odd use of the word "dispute" to me .... I can I think "withdraw" or "revoke" or "cancel" my own concession, but how in the world do I "dispute" it? Just an odd use of the word "dispute" imho); and

The possibilities are:
1. Dummy can never dispute declarer's claim, which I think is clearly contradicted by the rules.
2. The dummy has to scream "stop" before the opponents say "ok", in the event of a tie, the first one to put his finger on his nose wins, or
3. The partner has the same time period as the opponents.

2 is ridiculous. Somehow, because 2 doesn't make any sense, you've decided that therefore the rules don't apply.

Quote

And isn't it a strange way to speak, when you say "I'm hereby disputing my own claim and concession".

Um, if you say so. Dispute means the question the validity. I could, for example dispute my ability to become President, or buy beer. You dispute an assertion, not another person.

Quote

I mean, you'd never say that in ordinary English unless you were "catering to" the Laws; you'd just say "I'm withdrawing/ cancelling/ revoking/taking back my prior concession."

Of course not. Those don't mean the same things at all. To 'take back' a concession would mean to play the hand out, which is disallowed for declarer. You are disputing the *results*.

Quote

But how do I "dispute" what I myself have previously said, even if I now disagree with it and think that I was wrong earlier?

You turn in a Golf score of 72. Later, you realize that you should have taken a two stroke penalty for using too many clubs.

One cannot withdraw, cancel, revoke, or take back a golf score. You dispute it. If you're right, and you did have a 2 stroke penalty, you don't get a 74. You get a Disqualified. If your dispute is overturned, then you keep your 72.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Sep 10 2007, 03:44 PM, said:

You guys might want to take this private...

Yeah, because nobody else would want to discuss rules.

We're not attacking each other, nor are we making patently insulting remarks like there are no good non life masters. We're discussing bridge, in a bridge forum.

But I appreciate your concern.

[blackshoe]

Ralph's position vis-à-vis Law 68D rests on the assumption that the actual wording "If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately..." is equivalent to "If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies. If the claim is not acquiesced in, then if it is disputed..." I do not think this assumption is valid. The lawmakers, had they intended this meaning, could certainly have made it clear. Besides, as I was taught English (well, okay, American English) grammar, a semi-colon is used to connect independent clauses. IOW, the second clause does not depend on the first, but stands alone. So IMO what the law says is that (a) If a claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies, and also, independently, (b) if any player (including dummy) disputes the claim or concession, the director must ... apply Law 70 or 71" as appropriate.

So. IMO the law is clear about one thing, at least. The director must be called, and the decision as to the fate of the 13th trick is his, and no one else's (although, as in all rulings where judgement is involved, he should consult others - in this case declarer's peers). The applicable law to that decision is Law 71C.

Ralph, or anyone, as one of the defenders in this case, can certainly ask for a ruling on the question whether dummy's comment violates Law 43A1©. My ruling would be no, it does not, for reasons I've stated upthread. Even if it did, that does not affect the ruling made under Law 71C. Cf. Law 81C6:

Quote

The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.

[Free]

Easiest 12 tricks to declarer ever! Declarer made his line of play VERY clear: cash all the trumps and all the ♣s, lose a ♥ in the end. It's a correct claim, it's accepted, and nothing that is said now will change the number of tricks he made.