Re: Concede of carry on?
Herman De Wael <hermandw <at> hdw.be>
2004-12-01 08:59:30 GMT
>>[Herman de Wael]
>>But what happened above is even worse than those two.
>>Not only did your father not concede, he played on and
>>waited for his opponent to claim. Then when the opponent
>>did so, your father called the director and had him find
>>an obscure line so as to make two more tricks. But this
>>is a fictitious story probably, so let's not linger on it
> I'm hazy about details but the example is based on fact.
> Naturally, Charles is scrupulously legal and ethical.
> I resent Herman's implications to the contrary.
I would like to apologize for any implications not intended.
> My father played on, rather than conceding, because he hoped
> for a defensive mistake or a lucky end position.
Which is not forbidden, but not really acceptable either. Anyway, I
don't really see this can take a long while. Surely he had not been
playing on for a number of tricks? So what was he doing then? In my
experience, opponents usually claim when they believe it takes a long
time. Was your father waiting to play a trick for an inordinate length
of time? I would not accept it if he were.
> He and I still believe that this is both legal and ethical.
> In our view, bridge is mainly a game of mistakes.