Claim ruling

[ralph23]

Secondly, Law 42B3 specifically allows dummy to call attention to an irregularity after play ceases - and play has ceased IAW Law 68D.

 

The Law certainly applies, agreed. It states:

 

42B3. Draw Attention to Irregularity

He [dummy] may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded

 

So the legal questions in issue are:

 

1. What is an "irregularity"?

 

2. Was there an "irregularity"?

 

3. If there was no "irregularity" was dummy (or whatever in the world you want to call the partner of the ex-declarer) nevertheless entitled to draw attention to it?

 

 

I believe the Laws answer question 1 in the definitions section. An irregularity is a deviation from the correct procedures as those are set forth in the Laws.

 

So, to deem there is an irregularity, you must imo point to a section of the Laws that declarer violated in making his claim. IOW, what was the correct procedure that declarer should have followed, and how did he deviate from it?

 

Question 3 is interesting but it's only relevant if there is no irregularity. So you need to answer question 2 first. Was there an irregularity in declarer's claiming or in his claiming procedure? (Granted, there was a big "mistake" or a huge "ooops" or a big snafu. Did any of those constitute a Law "irregularity"?)

 

nb - your idea that "dummy is no longer dummy" effectively guts law 42B3. Since the North player is "no longer dummy" iyo after play concludes, then the result is, that he can call attention to anything, and 42B3 is rendered pointless. Why say that he's entitled to call attention to an irregularity after play concludes, and give him this "right" when he's not limited in calling attention to anything?

 

Any interpretation that has an effect of rendering a Law pointless is ..... er .... lacking, in a legal sense.

Edited September 10, 2007 by ralph23

[jtfanclub]

Any interpretation that has an effect of rendering a Law pointless is ..... er .... lacking, in a legal sense.

Ralph,

 

Law 68D says dummy may contest a claim.

 

It's not really open to interpretation.

 

I have no idea why you're trying to make some kind of really twisted whatever to argue against dummy rights that the Laws very specifically allow.

 

I hope this isn't another quasi-religious argument.

[ralph23]

Any interpretation that has an effect of rendering a Law pointless is ..... er .... lacking, in a legal sense.

Ralph,

 

Law 68D says dummy may contest a claim.

 

It's not really open to interpretation.

 

I have no idea why you're trying to make some kind of really twisted whatever to argue against dummy rights that the Laws very specifically allow.

 

I hope this isn't another quasi-religious argument.

So.... was there an irregularity in declarer's claim? You didn't address that.

 

Why don't we get a simple yes/no answer to that one, before proceeding.....

 

(I'm assuming you agree that the meaning of the word "irregularity" as used in the Law 42 is the one given in the definitional section....but say so indeed, if you don't agree...)

Edited September 10, 2007 by ralph23

[pclayton]

Any interpretation that has an effect of rendering a Law pointless is ..... er .... lacking, in a legal sense.

Ralph,

 

Law 68D says dummy may contest a claim.

 

It's not really open to interpretation.

 

I have no idea why you're trying to make some kind of really twisted whatever to argue against dummy rights that the Laws very specifically allow.

 

I hope this isn't another quasi-religious argument.

So.... was there an irregularity in declarer's claim? You didn't address that.

 

Why don't we get a simple yes/no answer to that one, before proceeding.....

 

(I'm assuming you agree that the meaning of the word "irregularity" as used in the Law 42 is the one given in the definitional section....but say so indeed, if you don't agree...)

I'm not the rules pro here, but an irregularity to me is something like a revoke, or someone playing two cards at T10.

 

What irregularity would be in declarer's claim? He claimed 12 tricks, and he didn't state a line of play, only that he would make 12 tricks if clubs broke.

[pclayton]

This is the biggest no brainer 12 tricks ever.

This is what the director ruled.

 

NS are friends of ours and one is on the National Appeals Committee, but I think they felt they got jobbed. The dummy has about 14,000 points and is a GLM.

 

I was West.

[Finch]

Ralph, I also don't understand what you are trying to get at.

 

Laws 42 and 43 are irrelevant here. It doesn't matter whether there was an irregularity or not.

 

Law 68D is quite clear: dummy may dispute a claim or concession, following which the TD is called and Laws 70 and 71 apply.

 

The legal basis for this ruling is not difficult: is making only 12 tricks a 'normal' play of the remaining cards, or not? (where includes play that would be careless or

inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational).

 

Some posters here (including me) think it would be careless or inferior but not irrational to make only 12 tricks, others think it's irrational not to make 13.

 

There is no other interest in the ruling.

[ralph23]

Ralph, I also don't understand what you are trying to get at.

 

Laws 42 and 43 are irrelevant here.  It doesn't matter whether there was an irregularity or not.

OK, so you think it doesn't matter whether there was, or wasn't, an "irregularity". That's fine. That was basically my question #3, if you'll read those.

 

That doesn't answer the question of whether there WAS an "irregularity" or not, though, does it?

 

That seems a very easy question to answer, at least for me. Maybe it's not so easy though.... no one's answered it.

 

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

Edited September 10, 2007 by ralph23

[jtfanclub]

So.... was there an irregularity in declarer's claim? You didn't address that.

Nope, there wasn't.

 

Law 68D says any player, including dummy, may contest a claim. Not that a claim may be contested if there is an irregularity.

 

Law 68D clearly says that play is over after a claim is made. Any restrictions on dummy during play are irrelevant. Law 42 simply doesn't apply.

 

How could Law 68D have been written more clearly for you?

[Finch]

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.

[bid_em_up]

Ralph:

 

1) Law 68.D clearly states dummy is allowed to contest a claim/concession.

 

2) You seem to be insisting that dummy cannot say anything until play has concuded. Play concluded (ceased) when the claim was made. So dummy is fully entitled to speak up at this point in time.

 

3) You seem to be insisting that an "irregularity" must have occured for dummy to actually say anything. The "irregularity" is that the claim is not valid.

 

I do not consider it to be careless/thoughtless play for a player of this "supposed" caliber to only make 12 tricks. It would be totally irrational for any player at this level to not discard a heart at the point where he cashes the last club. The position would look like this:

 

[hv=n=sxhxxdxc&s=sxhaxdcx]133|200|[/hv]

 

And it should be totally impossible/irrational for declarer not to recognize that he can ruff a heart in dummy at this point if he discards a heart from dummy. Therefore, I choose 13 tricks for declarer, but can understand a ruling for 12 also.

 

Put the heart K in dummy originally. Have declarer claim only 12 tricks for whatever reason. Have the opps accept. You appear to be saying that dummy isn't allowed to speak up, and say, "You have all 13 tricks" when there is no plausible line of play for declarer to only make 12, short of doing something stupid like pitching the heart K from dummy or playing a small heart from both hands. This is a case of clear cut irrational play being required for declarer only to make 12 tricks. According to your argument, dummy isn't allowed to say anything.

[ralph23]

According to your argument, dummy isn't allowed to say anything.

I never said any such thing. All I did was ask three questions. I don't know where you got this idea. Not from me.

 

If you'll bother to read the 3 questions I posed, you'll see that question 3 was basically, what if there's no irregularity: then is dummy barred from saying anything? Or may he still say something? If so, what?

 

But now at least that I think we've got agreement that there was in fact no irregularity committed by declarer:

 

1. Law 68B, first sentence. Declarer made a claim of a total of 12 tricks and a concession of one trick.

 

If South had been a defender and had attempted to make a claim of a total of X tricks and a concomitant concession of (13-X) tricks, and North had “immediately objected,” no concession would have occurred. Law 68B, final sentence before the semicolon. However, South was not a defender. So a concession of one trick did occur.

 

I hope this is non-controversial.

 

2. Following the text of Law 68, the next issue that arises in the text is, whether acquiescence in this concession of one trick in fact occurred.

 

Neither “acquiescence” nor “dispute” is defined within the definitional section of the Laws. However, 'acquiescence" is defined within Law 69.

 

Law 69A states that:

 

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. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play.

 

From the facts as stated, it appears that both East and West assented to South’s claim of 12 tricks and concession of one trick. There’s no evidence that either East or West raised any objection to the claim/concession of South.

 

Therefore it appears from the facts that acquiescence did occur.

 

I would hope this would be non-controversial, but I doubt that very much.

 

3. While it is not stated in the Laws, it does appear to me that “acquiescence” and “dispute” are intended to be both mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. I.e. all “incidents” (or whatever you choose to call them) must be exactly one of either an acquiescence or a dispute. There is no third category, and no option of an “incident” being neither one of these. It must be one, or the other.

 

Maybe this is controversial. If anyone thinks the terms are not mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, though, I would like to understand why.

 

4. Since it appears that an acquiescence did in fact occur, I do not understand how it can be said that “this is a dispute raised by dummy” (or ex-dummy if you prefer). If it is an acquiescence, then there is simply no room for it to be a dispute.

 

It can't be both an acquiescence and a dispute, can it?

 

5. Also, the Laws addressed this situation above in Law 68B, final sentence before the semicolon. That Law states in effect that when defender X makes (or attempts to make, rather) a concession, his partner defender Y has the power to “object immediately” and cancel defender’s X attempted concession. The Law solution is rather elegant; in such a case, no concession ever occurs. An attempted defender concession is only effective if his partner (expressly, or implicitly by failing to “immediately object”) concurs.

 

6. The final sentence of Law 68D, following the semicolon, must be given some meaning, which is to allow dummy (or ex-dummy), without committing a foul, to object to a claim of the defenders.

 

In such a case the director is called. To hold that this Law gives dummy the power to object to a concession by declarer, and to create a “dispute” after there has already been “acquiescence” in declarer’s claim/concession, would be very peculiar. Maybe you can reason that “dispute” and “acquiescence” are not mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, but that seems contrary to the intent.

 

Moreover, If the Laws' overall intent is as you suggest, then I (as the Law author) would have written Law 68B more broadly. That would have been pretty easy. As in simply replacing the word "defender" with "contestant":

 

Regardless of the foregoing, if a contestant attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith.

 

That would make the declarer/defender claims/concessions situation symmetrical and would seem a pretty simple method.... but that wasn't done.

[ralph23]

The "irregularity" is that the claim is not valid.

You mean, when I claim X tricks total and concede (13-X) total, I've committed a Law "irregularity" if I'm entitled to take X + 1 by any rational line of play?

 

Did you bother to read the definition of "irregularity" in the Laws?

 

Actually you didn't even need to bother to look at the Laws. I basically quoted the definition in a post.

[ralph23]

How could Law 68D have been written more clearly for you?

Well:

 

A. It could have stated expressly that all claims/concessions must be either (1) acquiesced in or (2) disputed. And do that in such a way, so that it is clear that there is no third option; they're either (1) or (2) and nothing else.

 

I.e. clarify that the terms are both "mutually exclusive" and "collectively exhaustive."

 

I myself thought this was pretty clear from the context, but maybe it would help to state it expressly. A lot of people appear to be having a hard time with the concept.

 

But maybe the terms are not ME/CE. What do you think? Is there a third option? A limbo land maybe?

 

B. It could have provided express rules on making the determination of whether there's a dispute or an acquiescence. Given that there's not an express rule, here's my reasoning in making a determination.

 

Maybe you can help identify the flaw in it.

 

1. There's no definition in the Laws of the term "dispute."

2. However, there is a definition in Law 69A of "acquiescence."

3. Law 68D textually refers first to an "acquiescence" and then to a "dispute."

4. So the way to solve it is, go to the Law 69A definition of "acquiescence" and see if one occurred.

4a. If it did, stop. The terms are ME/CE, so there can't be a dispute. You've applied the Law definition of "acquiescence" and found there is one, so there's nothing further to think about.

4b. If it didn't occur and if you're still curious about it, then it must be a dispute.

 

In the case at hand, there was an acquiescence and we should have stopped at 4a.

Edited September 10, 2007 by ralph23

[jtfanclub]

3.    While it is not stated in the Laws, it does appear to me that “acquiescence” and “dispute” are intended to be both mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. I.e. all “incidents” (or whatever you choose to call them) must be exactly one of either an acquiescence or a dispute. There is no third category, and no option of an “incident” being neither one of these. It must be one, or the other.

How in the world do you figure that? 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.

 

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.

 

Regardless of the foregoing, if a contestant attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith.

 

That would make the declarer/defender claims/concessions situation symmetrical and would seem a pretty simple method.... but that wasn't done.

 

No...I get the feeling that you seem to feel that if a defender does not not immediately object, that he's not allowed to object. This is not so.

 

Let's say I'm a defender, and I get upset by a ruling, and I say "Fine, I concede the remaining tricks". Partner immediately says "No, play it out". The claim is canceled, and play continues.

 

But let's say I'm a defender, and I concede the remaining tricks, and partner agrees. We put the cards away and get out the next board. Then, as we pull out the cards for the next board, partner says "You know, I think we were entitled to another trick".

 

At this point, it becomes a disputed claim. The director is called, and it's resolved. The claim is not canceled, because it wasn't immediate.

 

The situation is not parallel. A defender can prevent his partner from claiming AT ALL, not merely disputing the number of tricks. Dummy CANNOT prevent partner from claiming, the way a defender can his partner. However, once the claim is established, ANY player may dispute the claim.

 

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 absolutely, your partner is able to dispute the board.

 

I do agree that 69A could be clearer.

Edited September 10, 2007 by jtfanclub

[ralph23]

Law 68D is quite clear: dummy may dispute a claim or concession, following which the TD is called and Laws 70 and 71 apply.

It is ... er .... pretty clear. I don't know about "quite" clear.

 

It says basically that it must be determined whether in respect of a claim/concession, there is an "acquiescence" or a "dispute".

 

I hope this is non-controversial, but I doubt it.

 

As previously noted, I think these two terms are intended to be both mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive.

 

If there's an acquiescence, go to Law 69. (By negative inference: Don't go to Laws 70 & 71.)

 

If there's a dispute, go to Laws 70 & 71. (By negative infererenc: Don't go to Law 69.)

 

1. Since I think there's an acquiescence, I'm going to Law 69. That Law leaves the improperly conceding contestant without any remedy. It only gives rights to the repentent acquiescing contestant.

 

Since I think the terms acquiesce/dispute are ME/CE, I must hold that dummy lacks the power to trigger a "dispute" when there has been already an unwithdrawn and unrepentent "acquiescence" by EW. I think this holding is supported by the Law that gives a defender (but not dummy) the right to object to his partner's infelicitous attempted concession; if the defender "immediately objected" then the purported concession is cancelled and there is simply no concession.

 

There is no parallel rule for declarer/dummy although it would have been easy enough to write the Law in a more general manner i.e. use the term "contestant" instead of "defender." When words like "defender" are obviously chosen carefully in such a context, the interpreter of those words should assume the choice had meaning.

 

 

2. Since you think there's a dispute, and want to apply 70 & 71, you must either think that (a) there wasn't an acquiescence, or (:P there was, but there's also a dispute, because the terms aren't necessarily ME/CE.

 

I just don't understand either (a) or (:P. What EW did sure SEEMS like acquiescing.

 

And it seems a makeshift to view the terms as not ME/CE, although maybe they're not. But why not? It would be easier if they were.

[ralph23]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :unsure: .

 

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]

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]

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. :unsure:

 

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]

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

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

 

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]

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" :unsure: or "it's obvious to everyone"..... If you think it's simply the latter, then there's no point in continuing this....