"Is declarer allowed to give us a trick?"

[jdonn]

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.

Consider that perhaps was his intent because only if claiming. My point is you have reason to believe that's not what he would do if he played the hand out.

 

Think of it this way. There are only two thought processes anyone has when they have a bunch of winners and one loser. Either they run the winners and hope the opponents make a mistake and the loser ends up being good. Or they give up the loser and claim (giving up the loser could equivalently come either before the claim or as part of the claim). If there is a player that gives up the loser and then runs all the winners to the end I haven't met him, but it seems to me that's the line of play you want to consider "normal".

[ICEmachine]

Well

 

It sees we have to decide the differnce between saying:

 

I will give you a spade

 

and

 

I have to give you a spade

 

 

It seem the latter gives us more alternatives, but if its wide enough to consider he would always play the J isnt quite clear to me.

I guess I will just agree with the best english speaking person here :D :rolleyes:

[bluejak]

Think of it this way. There are only two thought processes anyone has when they have a bunch of winners and one loser. Either they run the winners and hope the opponents make a mistake and the loser ends up being good. Or they give up the loser and claim (giving up the loser could equivalently come either before the claim or as part of the claim). If there is a player that gives up the loser and then runs all the winners to the end I haven't met him, but it seems to me that's the line of play you want to consider "normal".

Now, based on my experience, some players give up the trick and then claim, so that's a normal play. Furthermore, I am sick of people playing winners out to the end, so that's a normal play.

 

I guess I will just agree with the best english speaking person here  :D  :P

Where is Peter Eidt when you need him?

 

 

<shush>

 

 

<very very quietly>

 

 

In San Remo he said he had been sent with no warning a White book, and had read 150 pages before he said "That's enough!". Hopefully he is currently reading the other 77 pages. :D

[barmar]

The way I personally try to avoid getting into this situation is to phrase my claim in the form of a conditional, something like "I think there's still a high spade out, so I have to give that to you." If there isn't, I expect the opponents to correct me and not take the trick. Or if I'm conceding all the remaining tricks, "I don't think I can take any more tricks."

[jdonn]

Now, based on my experience, some players give up the trick and then claim, so that's a normal play.

Actually this is something I've wondered before so maybe it's a question for another thread. Can the director enforce a "line of play" on someone that includes a later claim? Like in this case where you say it's a normal play to make some play and then claim, I think it's a normal thing to do but I don't think a claim is a play at all. In fact I think it's not by definition. But I wondered if there is any official guidance on this.

[blackshoe]

If a player has a losing spade, and the rest of his cards are winners, then it could well be normal for that player to give up the spade, and then win the rest of the tricks. There is in such a case no need to "rule" that he would claim.

[jdonn]

If a player has a losing spade, and the rest of his cards are winners, then it could well be normal for that player to give up the spade, and then win the rest of the tricks. There is in such a case no need to "rule" that he would claim.

But what do you mean by "win"? I am arguing it is normal to lose a spade then claim the rest of the tricks, but it is (maybe) not normal to lose a spade then play off the rest of the tricks one by one.

 

Even if you disagree with me on that it could potentially be a director's judgment, so it seems important to know whether or not he is allowed to include a claim as part of a line of play in order to determine normalcy. I feel he is not allowed to but I'm open to feedback on that. Saying there is no need to answer that question is not inherently true.

[blackshoe]

Normal for whom? I've seen players do it, so it's certainly normal for somebody.

 

I didn't say there is no need to discuss the question whether a TD may rule that a player would claim at some point. I said that there's no need for the TD to rule that way. Different question, or so it seems to me.

 

If there has been no claim or concession, so that we are adjusting a score under Law 12, I don't see any TD bring a claim or concession into the discussion - the law tells us to, in effect, decide how many tricks each side would take if the hand were played out. In the case of a claim, where the TD is called on to decide which lines of play (consistent with the claimer's clarification statement) are "normal", there is again no suggestion in law, and no need in practice, for the TD to rule that a player would claim when he has the rest of the tricks.

 

Before you made this suggestion, Josh, it would never have occurred to me to include "at this point the player will claim" in a ruling. In answer to your question, I don't think a TD is permitted to do that, in law. I don't see a basis for it. And IAC, as I said, there's no need for him to do so.

[Chris3875]

Something seems not quite ethical about EW accepting the concession to me - I get the sense from their question to the TD that they knew S was going to take the rest of the tricks on a "normal" line of play. So, I would answer the question, Yes, South CAN concede and give you trick, but are you going to take it? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't.

[Mbodell]

Think of it this way. There are only two thought processes anyone has when they have a bunch of winners and one loser. Either they run the winners and hope the opponents make a mistake and the loser ends up being good. Or they give up the loser and claim (giving up the loser could equivalently come either before the claim or as part of the claim). If there is a player that gives up the loser and then runs all the winners to the end I haven't met him, but it seems to me that's the line of play you want to consider "normal".

Now, based on my experience, some players give up the trick and then claim, so that's a normal play. Furthermore, I am sick of people playing winners out to the end, so that's a normal play.

Ok, but what about this only very slightly different and related hand:

 

[hv=v=n&n=sjthd642c&w=shdjtcq93&e=s75hd87c7&s=s4hqj93dc]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.

 

It is certainly possible for N/S to lose a spade if they take jdonn's proposed line of running hearts pitching spades hoping to have a defender drop the "missing" spade honor and thus will lose the ♠4 to the east player. But if we take the bluejak argument that normal play means they lose their "loser" in spades right away then they will not lose the spade.

 

Do the N/S in the OP and this only slightly modified N/S get a different ruling to the number of tricks they take? Is the "normal" play the same for both of them?

[jdonn]

Do the N/S in the OP and this only slightly modified N/S get a different ruling to the number of tricks they take?  Is the "normal" play the same for both of them?

There is no "the" normal play. There can easily be more than one normal line of play, and in a case of 4 winners and 1 loser probably just about any order of plays is normal.

[VixTD]

Something seems not quite ethical about EW accepting the concession to me - I get the sense from their question to the TD that they knew S was going to take the rest of the tricks on a "normal" line of play. So, I would answer the question, Yes, South CAN concede and give you trick, but are you going to take it? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't.

I was called while the room was in the middle of moving for the next round. EW were obviously half joking, and didn't expect (or possibly want) to get a trick. This might have contributed to my initial reaction, which was to tell the players to score it as 5♥ = while I thought about it. After some quiet reflection later on I realised how wrong I had been and amended my ruling to 5♥-1.

 

If EW really didn't want the trick they shouldn't have called me. If they really had been joking when they called me and didn't want the trick, they could have asked me not to give them the trick and I could have acceded to their request (law 81C5). What I feel uncomfortable with is saying something like (paraphrasing Chris's suggestion for effect): "You can insist on having that trick if you really think that's the way the game should be played, otherwise I'll award it to declarer."

[Vampyr]

What I feel uncomfortable with is saying something like (paraphrasing Chris's suggestion for effect): "You can insist on having that trick if you really think that's the way the game should be played, otherwise I'll award it to declarer."

I agree. A director should never make it seem that accepting an application of law is somehow poor sportsmanship or unethical.

[barmar]

It is certainly possible for N/S to lose a spade if they take jdonn's proposed line of running hearts pitching spades hoping to have a defender drop the "missing" spade honor and thus will lose the ♠4 to the east player. But if we take the bluejak argument that normal play means they lose their "loser" in spades right away then they will not lose the spade.

But if that line of play even entered declarer's mind, he wouldn't have made the claim in the first place, so I wouldn't consider it consistent with the claim statement (except maybe if it's just an overtrick in a friendly game, but then there's not likely to be a director call).

 

Sometimes when I'm certain the opponents know what's in my hand (I've shown out in all the side suits) and there's no squeeze on, I'll concede a trick with the explanation "I don't think you're throwing away the heart ace", but that doesn't seem to be the case in these examples.

 

That brings up a question: suppose I was wrong that there's no squeeze. If the player with the ace would have been squeeze out of it, should he dispute the claim and should the TD award the trick? Probably only if the squeeze is automatic, and any line that doesn't squeeze him would require giving up even more tricks than he'd conceded.

[Chris3875]

Something seems not quite ethical about EW accepting the concession to me - I get the sense from their question to the TD that they knew S was going to take the rest of the tricks on a "normal" line of play. So, I would answer the question, "Yes, South CAN concede and give you a trick, but are you going to take it?"

 

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't.

 

Sorry, the last sentence in my reply was directed to "you guys" here in the forum - I wouldn't say that to the players.

[richlp]

To say that a player would always call for the highest card "just in case" does not, at least in my opinion, accord with reality for a player who knows there is a higher card outstanding.

 

I know it's careless to play low because I've done it. In my case the lead was in dummy and I said "Spade. You get this and I get the rest."

 

My opponents looked at me strangely and said "OK."

 

My partner looked at me strangely and said "You're buying tonight" and we went on to the next hand.

 

I would not be surprised if I made the same mistake again some time in the next couple of years.

[bluejak]

Something seems not quite ethical about EW accepting the concession to me - I get the sense from their question to the TD that they knew S was going to take the rest of the tricks on a "normal" line of play. So, I would answer the question, Yes, South CAN concede and give you trick, but are you going to take it? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't.

Bridge is primarily a game of mistakes, and most good boards players get are from opponents' mistakes. Of course it is ethical to benefit from opponents mistakes: you do it all the time.

[Chris3875]

So... if you've got three winners in dummy but no way of getting over there and ops say - "the table's good" and fold up their cards, you just smile and say, thanks?

I don't think so !

[mjj29]

So... if you've got three winners in dummy but no way of getting over there and ops say - "the table's good" and fold up their cards, you just smile and say, thanks?

I don't think so !

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose

 

In this case it's possible to lose the trick via legal (but not neccessarily sensible) plays, so it's certainly not illegal to accept such a concession. If your opponent had actually ducked from both hands with one outstanding card he could have drawn (don't laugh, I've seen it done) would you suggest giving them the trick back?