Incorrect claim

[relpar]

An interesting situation was reported to me recently about an incident from an ACBL club game. South is the Declarer in a 3NT game.He has 5♦s to the AKxxx in Dummy and Qx in his hand. He has no other entry to Dummy, and the remaining cards in Dummy are 3 small ♥s. He plays the Q and then the x, overtaking it in Dummy, with both Defenders following. Before he can call a card from Dummy, East says "I will take the AK ♥s and will give you the rest of the tricks." As he makes that statement he detaches 2 cards from his hand (presumably the 2 top ♥s) and places them face-down on the table. At this juncture West says "Just a minute, I have a ♦ trick". The TD was called and ascertained the facts and then gave the obviously incorrect instruction to "continue play". South goes down in his contract! Clearly the TD has to allocate an "adjusted" score. Everybody at the table knows that the two additional cards East has laid down on the table are the AK ♥s - even though they are turned facedown! If the winning ♦ was played from Dummy and East was required to play one of his unexposed, but announced, ♥ cards on the table, South would make his contract. It calculating an adjusted score can the TD, consider those two cards as exposed cards and take that action?

[blackshoe]

No.

 

"Play on" is director error, so the TD must apply Law 82C, considering both sides as "non-offending" in adjusting the score.

 

As to what the adjustment(s) should be, that depends on all the remaining cards, and you haven't told us what those are. Also, with what card in dummy did declarer overtake the ♦x from his hand?

[relpar]

With all due respect the 'other' cards are of little concern in relation to the question asked. If Declarer did not play either the♦ Ace or King from Dummy on the second lead of that suit, he was never going to take more than one ♦ trick. Declarer can only take 8 tricks in a NT contract, UNLESS East is required to discard one of his top ♥ cards on the third ♦.

[barmar]

It's normal (required, in fact) to show one's cards when claiming. They don't become penalty cards as a result, so East isn't forced to play them irrationally.

[blackshoe]

With all due respect the 'other' cards are of little concern in relation to the question asked. If Declarer did not play either the♦ Ace or King from Dummy on the second lead of that suit, he was never going to take more than one ♦ trick. Declarer can only take 8 tricks in a NT contract, UNLESS East is required to discard one of his top ♥ cards on the third ♦.

With all due respect, that information was not contained in your original post.

 

If the basis of "requiring East to discard" a top heart (I presume you mean one of the top two, since you haven't mentioned the Queen) then I refer back to my original response: no.

[duschek]

With everybody else agreeing that the TD made an error, I may have misread something, but it seems to me that, according to Law 68B2:

• Play shall continue.
  
• The ♥AK shall not become penalty cards, even if exposed.
  
• The fact that East holds the ♥AK is UI to West.
  
• The fact that West wants more than two tricks for the defence is UI to East.
  
• The fact that West has a diamond trick is UI to East.
  

Concession Defined

1. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific

number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of

tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the

remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more

tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred.

Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned

immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender

in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to

information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used

by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

[pran]

With everybody else agreeing that the TD made an error, I may have misread something, but it seems to me that, according to Law 68B2:

• Play shall continue.
  
• The ♥AK shall not become penalty cards, even if exposed.
  
• The fact that East holds the ♥AK is UI to West.
  
• The fact that West wants more than two tricks for the defence is UI to East.
  
• The fact that West has a diamond trick is UI to East.
  

Concession Defined

1. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific

number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of

tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the

remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more

tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred.

Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned

immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender

in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to

information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used

by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

You beat me to it. I was writing essentially the same comment when I discovered yours, posted after I began writing mine. :lol: :)

 

(The Director made no error)

 

regards Sven

[Jlall]

Wow had no idea about law 68B!

[jdonn]

Wow had no idea about law 68B!

Me neither. But I would hope we live in a world where someone concedes a trick but the opponents know he would have actually won it, they still give it to him. That happened to me last week when someone didn't know my king was singleton on an unshown 6-1 break.

[blackshoe]

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

[jdonn]

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Hmmm. But

 

"Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred."

 

His partner objected, so no concession has occured, so there has not been a claim and a concession. No?

[kenrexford]

How does one "abandon" one's hand? Get up and leave the table, heading for the bar, muttering "Oh screw it" or something?

 

This sounds funny. His partner objects to the concession by abandonment. Now what happens? The laws seem to recognize the ability to abandon your cards, by heading to the bar or whatever, as a concession. If partner objects, play continues. However, the abandoning player is gone. So, who plays his cards? Is this a second dummy?

[blackshoe]

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Hmmm. But

 

"Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred."

 

His partner objected, so no concession has occured, so there has not been a claim and a concession. No?

Perhaps not, but there is still a claim, and after a claim (with or without a concession) play ceases.

[blackshoe]

How does one "abandon" one's hand? Get up and leave the table, heading for the bar, muttering "Oh screw it" or something?

 

This sounds funny. His partner objects to the concession by abandonment. Now what happens? The laws seem to recognize the ability to abandon your cards, by heading to the bar or whatever, as a concession. If partner objects, play continues. However, the abandoning player is gone. So, who plays his cards? Is this a second dummy?

If a player leaves the table, abandoning his hand, and his partner objects, the TD should be called, and he will have to go find the player who left (if that's possible) and instruct him to return to the table. If he refuses to comply, well, the TD will have to deal with that - as he will have to deal with being unable to find the player.

 

Second dummy? No. Substitute player, maybe. I'd have to think about it, and consult the law book.

[pran]

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Paris 2001:

 

10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender’s partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply.

 

I haven't checked if there has been any minute relevant to Law 68B subsequent to the publication of the 2007 laws, but it appears to me that Law 68B was modified in 2007 just to incorporate the Paris minute from 2001.

 

Sven

[bluejak]

Did I or did I not have a teensy thread about the one Law that I would change?

 

How soon they forget! B)

 

Yes, play on is correct. Law 68B1 applies, and it includes the dreaded words "Play continues".

 

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Wrong Law book: that was 1997.

 

It's normal (required, in fact) to show one's cards when claiming.

Oh, yes? Where, pray, does it say this?

[pran]

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Wrong Law book: that was 1997.

Yes, but the minute does indeed apply, it was incorporated in the 2007 laws. See my post a few minutes ago.

 

Sven

[bluejak]

The 2007 Laws say "Play continues".

[blackshoe]

It seems I may have misremembered what the minute said - or i was thinking of a different minute. I'll have to do some research, but I don't have time right now.

[pran]

The 2007 Laws say "Play continues".

And so said the minute.

 

What (and why) are you arguing?

[bluejak]

The 2007 Laws say "Play continues".

And so said the minute.

 

What (and why) are you arguing?

According to Sven Pran:

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Wrong Law book: that was 1997.

Yes, but the minute does indeed apply, it was incorporated in the 2007 laws. See my post a few minutes ago.

Sven confirmed blackshoe's statement that there was a minute that said - as you can see above - "Play ceases". This is different from the 2007 Laws, so saying the minute was incorporated in the 2007 Laws is incorrect and misleading.

[pran]

The 2007 Laws say "Play continues".

And so said the minute.

 

What (and why) are you arguing?

According to Sven Pran:

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Wrong Law book: that was 1997.

Yes, but the minute does indeed apply, it was incorporated in the 2007 laws. See my post a few minutes ago.

Sven confirmed blackshoe's statement that there was a minute that said - as you can see above - "Play ceases". This is different from the 2007 Laws, so saying the minute was incorporated in the 2007 Laws is incorrect and misleading.

Oh, so you didn't bother to follow my suggestion and read what I wrote "a few minutes ago".

If you had done that you would (hopefully) have noticed that while I confirmed there was a minute I pointed out that it certainly did not say what blackshoe believed it said:

 

Paris 2001:

 

10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender’s partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply.

[bluejak]

What an unhelpful post. No, I did not look back - why should I? blackshoe quoted a minute: you confirmed it knowing it to be wrong. You could post in a more helpful fashion if you tried.

[blackshoe]

I mentioned a minute, and said what I thought the minute said. I didn't quote it - and I was wrong, it didn't say what I remembered. Sven quoted the minute, from 2001, which says in part "by the same token neither has any claim been made".

 

I have just searched through the WBFLC minutes from the latest back through to the one Sven quoted (Paris, 28th Oct, 2001). The quoted minute is the latest on this subject. There is also the current law:

Regardless of B1 above, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card, but Law 16d applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

So I was wrong. Once conceding defender's partner objects to the concession, play ceases temporarily, the TD should be called, and he shall direct that play continue, after informing the players, when pertinent, of the caveat regarding the applicability of Law 16D. Going back up the thread, it looks to me like Duschek's ruling is correct.

[pran]

What an unhelpful post.  No, I did not look back - why should I?  blackshoe quoted a minute: you confirmed it knowing it to be wrong.  You could post in a more helpful fashion if you tried.

Because I clearly suggested that you should (in order to avoid making any silly assumptions). And it would have saved you from making all these silly comments.

I found this more "helpful" than making another insertion of the same minute text in a second post within a few minutes.

Had you not made your irrelevant statement (about which lawbook) after the post where I quoted the minute, there would have been no need for a second post from me.

 

Blackshoe has said all there is to say about him mentioning a minute; he certainly did not quote anything (and I would never dream of the possibility that anybody could take it as a quotation).

 

Sven