Not the best claim ever

[nige1]

Ok, so far, we seem to have

6 tricks [2 votes]

5 or 6 tricks [1 vote]

5 tricks [1 vote]

3 or 6 tricks [1 vote]

Fewer than 6 but more than 0 tricks [1 vote]

The TDs decided he had abandoned the hand and conceded all the tricks. So they ruled 9 off.

I did not feel that was correct, and asked them to re-consider. I asked them to consider 4 tricks, 5 off, and they agreed with that.

Seems right to me

[pran]

Oh, sure, and I personally find it quite fun to try a different challenge. But most people don't. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, we cannot get rid of cross words between partners, even if they should not happen, and playing contracts in cue-bids leads to cross words. :P

It happened recently in an event here, and resulted in laughter rather than cross words.

 

We do accept laughter, but we have a zero tolerance on audible cross words and the like.

[helene_t]

I think normal play is most likely to give him six tricks, but given his emotional state I will allow him to play slightly worse than otherwise. I give him five tricks.

 

I would not issue a PP. It wouldn't be very interesting or enjoyable to play this board anyway. As an opponent I would feel relieved not to have to play this hand. Of course his behaviour is not quite correct, but it doesn't really cost anything except that the TD had to spent a few seconds on the board.

 

There are tons of other behavioral issues that I would penalize sooner than this one. People postmortemning the previous hand while playing, for example. Not to mention the really nasty things like people teaching opponents that they can't bid due to their p's hesitation, or the use of rhetoric questions during the post-mortem ("why didn't you give me a ruff?", said with a voice that makes it obvious that it means "you must be a low-grade moron since you didn't give me a ruff").

[barmar]

Oh, sure, and I personally find it quite fun to try a different challenge. But most people don't. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, we cannot get rid of cross words between partners, even if they should not happen, and playing contracts in cue-bids leads to cross words. :D

There's a difference between cross words (e.g. the possibly apocryphal "Where's the hand you had when you were bidding?") and throwing your cards down and stomping away from the table.

[blackshoe]

I think normal play is most likely to give him six tricks, but given his emotional state I will allow him to play slightly worse than otherwise. I give him five tricks.

Keep in mind that this is a concession of all the tricks, not a claim. In particular, declarer should get only those tricks he cannot lose by normal play, not those he might make by normal play.

 

There's a difference between cross words (e.g. the possibly apocryphal "Where's the hand you had when you were bidding?") and throwing your cards down and stomping away from the table.

 

True, but in the instant case, no one stomped anywhere.

[jdonn]

I wonder where to draw the line. Partner overbids by 2 points? Raises my weak 2 bid on a doubleton? Or am I only allowed to not have to play the hand with no repurcussions if he passes my cuebid (and it turns out to be a bad contract)?

[Vampyr]

Keep in mind that this is a concession of all the tricks

Is it? The declarer told the defenders to take as many tricks as they wanted, but it seems to be implied that they will not want 13.

[blackshoe]

I see no such implication.

[mycroft]

At a club I play at one player harangued his partner to such an extent that the director was called (and this is not usually done). The director asked him to be quiet but was then called back about 3 boards later when another rant was heard. He again asked the player to stop but the player declined saying he" had not finished explaining to his partner why he was wrong"! He was, unsurprisingly in my view, asked to leave.

I should hope so. I would hope, were I called in that situation and got that response, I would have the quickness of thought to say my immediate reaction to this story:

 

"Oh, I can do that for you in one sentence - he agreed to play with you. Luckily I can rectify his mistake; your game is done for the night. Please leave - I will find a new partner."

 

I hope also a report to the club management took place, so that the vacation from bridge could be more than just the one night.

[Vampyr]

I see no such implication.

So you really think that it would have been reasonable for the opponents to say, "OK then, we'll have the lot"? And that declarer would have been amenable to this?

 

I certainly don't think so.

[blackshoe]

I see no such implication.

So you really think that it would have been reasonable for the opponents to say, "OK then, we'll have the lot"? And that declarer would have been amenable to this?

 

I certainly don't think so.

Two entirely different questions.

 

Do I think it reasonable for opponents to accept all the tricks? No, of course not. In the event, the opponents in fact asked the director to reconsider his ruling, on the grounds that they (the opponents) believed the declarer was entitled to at least some tricks. That is IMO the right thing to do here, but it has nothing to do with whether there was an implication in declarer's concession that he did not intend to concede all the tricks. As for what declarer would have said if the opponents hadn't asked the director to reconsider his ruling, I have no idea. Anyone acting as irrationally as this declarer apparently was might do anything.

 

If I were to draw an inference from declarer's actions when conceding, it would be that he didn't expect to get any tricks, and didn't care whether he did or didn't.

[pran]

Keep in mind that this is a concession of all the tricks

Is it? The declarer told the defenders to take as many tricks as they wanted, but it seems to be implied that they will not want 13.

Absolutely:

 

From OP: After seeing the dummy, declarer [North] threw his hand on the table, saying have as many tricks as you want.

 

From Law 68B1: A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

 

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

 

IMO the correct ruling is to start with Law 68B1 and then continue with 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* play of the remaining cards.

 

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

 

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

[bluejak]

Do I think it reasonable for opponents to accept all the tricks? No, of course not. In the event, the opponents in fact asked the director to reconsider his ruling, on the grounds that they (the opponents) believed the declarer was entitled to at least some tricks. That is IMO the right thing to do here, but it has nothing to do with whether there was an implication in declarer's concession that he did not intend to concede all the tricks. As for what declarer would have said if the opponents hadn't asked the director to reconsider his ruling, I have no idea. Anyone acting as irrationally as this declarer apparently was might do anything.

No, they did not. A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

 

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

[blackshoe]

No, they did not. A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

A team-mate of whom? The declarer? Not that I think it matters to the ruling.

 

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

 

That is exactly what happened here. Declarer threw his cards on the table, indicating he wanted no more tricks. Or didn't care if he got any. Either way, he abandoned his hand, we apply Law 71, and he gets only those tricks he could not lose by any normal play. He acted (and spoke) in a fit of childish pique, and while I agree that there doesn't appear to be sufficient reason in this case to give him a DP, I don't see any reason to give him any more tricks than the law entitles him to either.

[pran]

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

WHAT ! ? ! ? ! ?

[pran]

A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

There is no condition in Law 71 that it depends on a request to the Director from somebody (e.g. a player):

..... 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* play of the remaining cards.

 

The way I (somewhat surprised) understand this law the Director shall on his own initiative try under Law 71 any concession he becomes aware of and cancel the concession of such tricks that satisfies the condition in this law..

[bluejak]

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

WHAT ! ? ! ? ! ?

Yes, very funny, pran, and no doubt someone will not read it in full and will merely be misled by your colour scheme. But any competent TD knows the difference between "throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks" and what happened here where a claim was made in an inappropriate fashion - but it was made with an accompanying claim statement.

 

A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

There is no condition in Law 71 that it depends on a request to the Director from somebody (e.g. a player):

..... 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* play of the remaining cards.

 

The way I (somewhat surprised) understand this law the Director shall on his own initiative try under Law 71 any concession he becomes aware of and cancel the concession of such tricks that satisfies the condition in this law..

There is no rule that says he should not do it when a player asks, despite your completely superfluous writing in bold, which is not part of the Law, merely an invention. A quick read of Law 71 will not find those words.

 

Competent TDs are never too full of themselves that they refuse to review a ruling when asked in a reasonable manner. Law 82C is often initiated by a request from a player, as is Law 71.

 

No, they did not.  A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

A team-mate of whom? The declarer? Not that I think it matters to the ruling.

A team-mate of declarer, who considered the ruling wrong.

 

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

 

That is exactly what happened here. Declarer threw his cards on the table, indicating he wanted no more tricks. Or didn't care if he got any. Either way, he abandoned his hand, we apply Law 71, and he gets only those tricks he could not lose by any normal play. He acted (and spoke) in a fit of childish pique, and while I agree that there doesn't appear to be sufficient reason in this case to give him a DP, I don't see any reason to give him any more tricks than the law entitles him to either.

He did not indicate he wanted no more tricks. Yes, of course he should get no more tricks than the Law suggests, but that does not mean he should get no tricks. His opponents get the benefit of any doubt, no question. He did claim with a claim statement, even though his method and manner and statement were none of them what they should have been.

[blackshoe]

This was not a claim, it was a concession.

A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

The fact that he made a statement (general term, not "claim statement") doesn't change that.

[bluejak]

Well, putting your hand on the table in any way and making a statement about the number of tricks sounds considerably more like a claim than abandoning the hand to me.

[pran]

Well, putting your hand on the table in any way and making a statement about the number of tricks sounds considerably more like a claim than abandoning the hand to me.

To be technical: He claimed no tricks and therefore conceeded the rest. Do you need a law reference for this?

 

And unless the player clearly indicates that he wants to continue the play (with open cards?) he is abandoning the hand by throwing all his cards on the table and saying words to the effect that he claims no more tricks.

[pran]

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

WHAT ! ? ! ? ! ?

Yes, very funny, pran, and no doubt someone will not read it in full and will merely be misled by your colour scheme. But any competent TD knows the difference between "throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks" and what happened here where a claim was made in an inappropriate fashion - but it was made with an accompanying claim statement.

 

To be honest, I was quite confident that you knew the difference if there is any, but you make me doubt. He physically abandoned his hand and verbally "claimed" precisely zero tricks.

 

This discussion is just silly so I quit.

(As far as I can remember this is the first time ever that I use the word "silly" in a discussion, but here I find it justified)

[RMB1]

Does it matter how many tricks he claimed/conceded?

 

It is entirely reasonable to regard the request for the TD to reconsider the ruling as a cancellation of the concession by the declaring side. Under Law 71, declarer is entitled to all the tricks that could not be lost by any normal play. As far as I can see that is all that declarer's team were asking for.

[jdonn]

It is entirely reasonable to regard the request for the TD to reconsider the ruling as a cancellatgion of the concession by the declaring side.

By declarer's teammate, after the round, and after the director has already ruled? I don't think so...

 

I can't believe where this discussion has gone. Of course declarer conceded! Declarer THREW his hand on the table, saying have as many tricks as you WANT. He did not show his cards and ask how many tricks do I have to lose, or anything like that. Declarer saying (implying) that he doesn't care how many tricks he takes is exactly equivalent to saying he doesn't want any tricks, because he doesn't care if he gets them.

[blackshoe]

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

Nope. Didn't happen.

A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim — for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn, Law 54, not this law will apply).

I suppose he suggested that play be curtailed (but see below) but I think his actions and words suggest that he didn't intend to claim, he intended to concede.

However...

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks;

This one didn't happen either.

a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any.

Nor did this.

A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

That's what's left, and it seems to me that's what he's done, so I guess we'll have to disagree.

[blackshoe]

It is entirely reasonable to regard the request for the TD to reconsider the ruling as a cancellation of the concession by the declaring side.

By declarer's teammate, after the round, and after the director has already ruled? I don't think so...

Careful, Josh...

 

First, the teammate was acting as team captain. Second,

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* play of the remaining cards. the board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

doesn't say anything about who is entitled to ask the TD to reconsider his ruling in this kind of case. And that's even before we get to

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the director.

Either way, it looks to me like such a request is perfectly legal.