"Is declarer allowed to give us a trick?"

[VixTD]

[hv=v=n&n=sj7hd642c&w=shdj10cq93&e=s104hd87c7&s=s5hqj93dc]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

South is on lead as declarer in 5♥ and has lost two tricks. At this point she claims, saying "I have to give you a spade." It is clear to everyone that South knows there are no more trumps out, but thinks there is a top spade honour at large.

 

EW call me and ask if declarer is allowed to give them a trick.

 

What would you say?

[bluejak]

Yes.

[iviehoff]

See Law 71.

 

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period

established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal (footnote: “normal” includes play that would be careless or

inferior for the class of player involved.) play of the remaining cards.

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

 

It's the old conundrum about whether playing the ♠7 is a "normal" play or not. Clearly Bluejak thinks it is, but some people don't.

[bluejak]

Ok, let me ask you a question. Your holding is 63 opposite 4, and the ace is out. You lead the 4 and play the .....?

[jdonn]

If I thought a higher spade was out but I decided to play the full hand just in case, I'm sure my line of play would involve discarding all the spades from dummy on the hearts to fool the opponents into think there are no more spades. I'd be willing to wager it's the same for most players. So what south would play from dummy if he led a spade now is a red herring because if his spade was a loser he wouldn't lead it now.

 

On that basis I think it's actually somewhere between "very likely" and "almost certain" that he would have lost another trick. The concession stands.

[helene_t]

I was going to say that when declarer says "spade, please" dummy must play a low, but Josh's point is better.

[ICEmachine]

As much as I dislike it, I will have to say that the claim stands.

 

Its close thou, as if its sure that she knows that there is no trumps outside Im very close to say that its impossible she will lead small spade to 7.

 

Ive never seen a declarer needing 1 trick leading 2 to K653 and playing small instead of K!

 

Also Ive never seen anyone playing a singleton to a second highest and and not playing the second highest (without ofc having a very good reason, which doesnt apply to this ending).

[Cascade]

Ok, let me ask you a question. Your holding is 63 opposite 4, and the ace is out. You lead the 4 and play the .....?

the six if the rest of my hand are winning trumps like in this case where a second round winner is of no use to me.

[bluejak]

Fine: Wayne, you are in a very small minority. When the cards look relevant, eg K653 opposite 2, people often [not always] play the king, but when the cards are small losers, the majority play whichever card takes their fancy at the time. Only a very small minority always play the biggest in case.

 

I do not believe that we should rule on the presumption that declarer will play to try an make a trick he knows he will not, since people do not always do so.

[lamford]

The question is: how good do dummy's spades have to be to allow the concession? If dummy has Ax of spades, I would decide that discarding the ace of spades on a heart was not normal play. Presumably therefore, with Kx of spades, declarer would be deemed to try jdonn's line of keeping the six of diamonds in dummy and discarding the king of spades. The alternative is for declarer to duck a spade completely before playing four rounds of hearts. Both come close to irrational, and the only surprise for me is that, in comparison with other recent threads where unsuccessful play is nowhere near irrational, we are considering giving the defence a trick here.

 

I think it is about as irrational here to play a low spade as it is to play a low spade in a five card ending with spades as trumps from AKQJ9. If there are no trumps out, it is true that it does not matter, but it is irrational to play the low spade because to play the high spade first is always better. In our quoted example, to play the higher spade from J7 is always better as playing the low spade can never gain, as there are four other winners. But I have to agree that to play the lower card could be regarded as just careless. In our five card ending above, I might carelessly lead the 9 of spades one time in 500 as well. Where do we draw the line?

[iviehoff]

Ok, let me ask you a question. Your holding is 63 opposite 4, and the ace is out. You lead the 4 and play the .....?

I don't think I presented an opinion, or even that I had one: I merely suggested that there would be some arguing for both sides.

 

If dummy's holding was Z3 and I thought that Z was the second highest card remaining, whether Z is K, J or 6, I'd obviously be careful with it. I'd play the Z in case the player on my left had foolishly withheld the A.

 

For the present hand, Josh's point seems decisive. There will be other hands where such a route out won't exist.

[bluejak]

The trouble with josh's point is it ignores the claim statement. When declarer says "I have to give you ..." there is a strong inference that if he had played it out he would have played the loser next. He was, after all, trying to shorten play when he believed there was no question. So I do not care what he might or might not have discarded on the hearts. My ruling is based on the fact that playing his loser now is a normal line for a player who believes he cannot win a spade, and playing small when he believes both spades to be losers is also normal.

 

Someone makes a bad claim: why is everyone looking for ways to give it to him? What happened to the principle, specifically stated in Law 70A, of giving the benefit of doubt to the non-claimers?

[Codo]

... and playing small when he believes both spades to be losers is also normal.

You see much more hands then I do, but I still wait for people who have a suit like x opposite Jx or Tx or Qx who plays small out of both hands. This is not normal at all.

Maybe it happens often enough that you should give the opponents a trick, but to call it normal is not true for bridge players.

 

And I am with Wayne here. There is no way that I would play the 3 in the example you give. Why should I?

[RMB1]

And I am with Wayne here. There is no way that I would play the 3 in the example you give. Why should I?

Because its careless, because you don't care; and careless is included in normal.

[blackshoe]

You know, it doesn't matter what anyone posting here would do. What matters is what a player who says "I have to give you a spade" might do - taking into consideration that any benefit of the doubt goes to the side not claiming. It is not remotely possible that there is no doubt what this player would do. So, giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming side, claimer gives up the trick he said he would give up. Next case!

[Codo]

And I am with Wayne here. There is no way that I would play the 3 in the example you give. Why should I?

Because its careless, because you don't care; and careless is included in normal.

So he meant "normal" in the way of: Still possible, not "normal" in the way of: Everybody does it! That makes much more sense now...

 

Thanks for clarification, I understood it different. (Not my mother language, sorry)

[RMB1]

So he meant "normal" in the way of: Still possible, not "normal" in the way of: Everybody does it! That makes much more sense now...

 

Thanks for clarification, I understood it different. (Not my mother language, sorry)

Please don't apologise that English is not your first language. I think the international bridge laws could do much more to accomodate their non-native English spreaking audience.

 

When I say

Because its careless, because you don't care; and careless is included in normal.

It is meant to be a direct restatement of the footnote

22.  For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

[mich-b]

A question to David:

Would you rule "5♥ just made" if dummy's ♠s were only the J rather than J7?

It seems to me that Josh would still rule "down 1".

[iviehoff]

The trouble with josh's point is it ignores the claim statement. When declarer says "I have to give you ..." there is a strong inference that if he had played it out he would have played the loser next. He was, after all, trying to shorten play when he believed there was no question.

I beg to differ: "I'll have to give you a spade" means "I'll have to give you a spade at some point."

 

Your line requires 2 bits of carelessness from declarer for the ops to get their trick: (1) that declarer doesn't attempt to play out the pseudosqueeze but plays his imagined "loser" first merely to shorten play, and (2) that he ducks the spade even though he "knows" the J is the second highest card remaining in the suit.

 

Whereas Josh's line only requires 1 bit of carelessness from declarer. Which is why I prefer it.

 

I don't know whether 2 bits of carelessness on the same trick is too rich for the play still to be "normal".

[jdonn]

The trouble with josh's point is it ignores the claim statement.  When declarer says "I have to give you ..." there is a strong inference that if he had played it out he would have played the loser next.

There are two problems with that.

 

One is that I completely disagree with the inference that "I have to give you" means "I have to give you now" rather than "I have to give you ultimately". It seems to me like another way of saying "I can't avoid losing a...". You are making an unwarranted assumption.

 

The other is that, even taking your interpretation for a moment, the statement is based on the premise that declarer is trying to shorten the hand. But if declarer were to play the hand out it could only be to try and win as many tricks as possible. Losing the spade first wouldn't shorten the hand if declarer were not claiming.

[Vampyr]

The trouble with josh's point is it ignores the claim statement.  When declarer says "I have to give you ..." there is a strong inference that if he had played it out he would have played the loser next.

There are two problems with that.

 

One is that I completely disagree with the inference that "I have to give you" means "I have to give you now" rather than "I have to give you ultimately".

I agree. Normally the loser is deemed to be given at the last trick. In fact if the opponents ask for a line of play, declarer will usually say something like "I am going to cash x, y and z and give you w at the end."

[mycroft]

Odd - when it matters, I do say "I'll give you a spade *at the end*" or "I can't get around the club loser". When it doesn't, I don't - and I don't think there's any implication as to when I'll do it. I think I'm that particular about this phrase in my claims because I was nailed by it at one point...

[bluejak]

A question to David:

Would you rule "5♥ just made" if dummy's ♠s were only the J rather than J7?

It seems to me that Josh would still rule "down 1".

Yes.

 

One is that I completely disagree with the inference that "I have to give you" means "I have to give you now" rather than "I have to give you ultimately". It seems to me like another way of saying "I can't avoid losing a...". You are making an unwarranted assumption.

Ok, but I am not going to assume it means at the end either. So losing one now and at the end are both normal lines, so we give the defence a trick.

[jdonn]

The part after "so" (that playing spades either now or later is normal) doesn't follow from the part before it (that we can't be sure exactly what declarer's statement meant), and also ignores the second point I made (that the only reason declarer could have to play a spade now would be to claim anyway).

 

That's not to say playing a spade now definitely isn't normal, but if you were playing the hand out to the end why wouldn't you run all your winners first just in case?

[bluejak]

That is not the point. Of course, running your winners is a 'normal' play, but that does not mean conceding a trick immediately is not. Players do it all the time - and in fact we know that the intent of the claimer was to concede the trick. So running all the winners hoping someone will go wrong was not what the claimer was intending, and we know from his claim statement that a 'normal' play was to give up a trick.