Not the best claim ever

[jdonn]

Yes legal. But you said reasonable. I was arguing a subjective point only.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say reasonable, Robin did. As it happens, I agree with him.

[jdonn]

Actually in hindsight I agree it's fine to ask for a review of the ruling on the basis he is acting as captain. Although I'm not so sure requesting a review of the ruling should be considered the same as cancelling the concession.

 

In any case regardless of that there is really no doubt declarer conceded at the table.

[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.

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.

He didn't claim no tricks as you know perfectly well. I agree, if he had done something different from what he did do then thew ruling would been different. Seems a completely pointless discussion to me.

 

:)

 

Let me ask the rest of you a question. Your opponent says have as many tricks as you want. Excluding madness, the most you can take is nine tricks. How many do you want?

[dburn]

Let me ask the rest of you a question.  Your opponent says have as many tricks as you want.  Excluding madness, the most you can take is nine tricks.  How many do you want?

Nine, I imagine. But I am somewhat mystified as to what the point of all this may be.

 

If the notion is that instead of scoring the board as 3♠ down nine, the Director should on his own initiative make some determination as to the actual result to be recorded, I have no difficulty with that. Though if you were to ask me to sit on an AC in order to determine, in the face of a challenge by some member of the offending side, what the result of the worst "normal" play by declarer might be, I hope you would understand if instead I went to the pub - I play enough hands misere on my own, without being required to do it by proxy.

 

If you are asking what a Director should do in future cases of this kind, he should follow Laws 70 and 71 as closely as he is able. It is true that declarer has abandoned his hand; it is also true that his "claim statement" is sufficiently meaningless as not to constitute a claim statement at all, so that he has per L68B1 conceded all the tricks; but it is equally true that L71 means that he should in fact be credited with some of them.

 

If you are asking what procedural or disciplinary or other penalties should be applied in this or similar cases, that is a matter for the Director at the time.

 

If instead you merely wish to engender research on the maximum size of a storm that may be generated in a teacup, that is beyond my competence - I am no meteorologist.

[bluejak]

The point of putting rulings into this forum is to see what people do, and provide [hopefully] useful advice should something similar come up. If everyone had been of one mind, I doubt we would have had 54 replies.

[blackshoe]

Actually in hindsight I agree it's fine to ask for a review of the ruling on the basis he is acting as captain. Although I'm not so sure requesting a review of the ruling should be considered the same as cancelling the concession.

 

In any case regardless of that there is really no doubt declarer conceded at the table.

If a player concedes all the tricks, and his captain asks for a review of his ruling, then what else is the TD going to do than consider canceling the concession under Law 71?

[jdonn]

Actually in hindsight I agree it's fine to ask for a review of the ruling on the basis he is acting as captain. Although I'm not so sure requesting a review of the ruling should be considered the same as cancelling the concession.

 

In any case regardless of that there is really no doubt declarer conceded at the table.

If a player concedes all the tricks, and his captain asks for a review of his ruling, then what else is the TD going to do than consider canceling the concession under Law 71?

You are either changing words or misinterpreting. The original claim wasn't about what the tournament director should consider doing, it was that calling for the director is akin to cancelling the concession.

[blackshoe]

A contestant has a right to appeal any ruling by the TD, but he needs to have a good reason. In the case where a player has conceded all the tricks the only reason I can see is that the appellant or person calling the TD thinks that the ruling gave more tricks to the other side than they were entitled to get. What difference does it make if you call it "calling the director" or "canceling the concession"? I can't see any.

[jdonn]

Then I wonder why you answered to begin with :)

[effervesce]

Stupid question here - why can't we let declarer claim the number of tricks he wanted - "take as many tricks as you want" - so if the defenders want 13, then declarer gets 0; if the defenders only want down 5, then give declarer down 5... What's wrong with taking declarer's claim literally?

[pran]

Stupid question here - why can't we let declarer claim the number of tricks he wanted - "take as many tricks as you want" - so if the defenders want 13, then declarer gets 0; if the defenders only want down 5, then give declarer down 5... What's wrong with taking declarer's claim literally?

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.

 

 

(If only we could get Bluejak to admit that there was a concession here.)

[bluejak]

In this case, the TDs were asked to reconsider their ruling.

 

:)

 

Be serious, pran, of course there was a concession here. He did not claim the rest of the tricks, did he?

 

:)

 

No-one asked for 13 tricks at the time. The opponents were a perfectly ethical pair.

[pran]

In this case, the TDs were asked to reconsider their ruling.

 

:ph34r:

 

Be serious, pran, of course there was a concession here. He did not claim the rest of the tricks, did he?

 

:ph34r:

 

No-one asked for 13 tricks at the time. The opponents were a perfectly ethical pair.

Good gracious - at last!

 

That is what most of us have been arguing all the time: The player conceeded all remaining thirteen tricks, both (physically) by abandoning his cards and (verbally) by "claiming" no tricks (or offering opponents all the tricks they wanted). The relevant law is 68B.

 

Then Law 71 kicks in as soon as the Director becomes aware of the situation. Literally this law instructs the Director to validate the concession (a request from somebody is not required), and the only remaining question is his judgement on how many tricks could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards

 

Simple ruling of law if you ask me.

[barmar]

I think anyone who takes declarer's word "want" literally is being silly. It was an emotional outburst, and people don't choose their precise words carefully under such circumstances. His intention, IMHO, was "take as many tricks as you can get", with a bit of "I don't really care" thrown in because of his disgust. He didn't want to bother playing out the hand, but since he didn't know the opponents' hands he couldn't claim or concede a specific number of tricks.

 

I'm not sure any of the cases in the Law precisely address this. The usual example of "abandoning the hand" is when declarer simply folds up his cards and puts them back in the board. But that's probably the closest description of what this declarer did, so I agree with the responses that say that the TD should figure out the most tricks the defenders could get under any normal line of play.

[bluejak]

Good gracious - at last!

 

That is what most of us have been arguing all the time: The player conceeded all remaining thirteen tricks, both (physically) by abandoning his cards and (verbally) by "claiming" no tricks (or offering opponents all the tricks they wanted). The relevant law is 68B.

He did not concede all the tricks - that is not what he said. But of course he conceded some tricks - he did not claim the rest, now did he?

[dburn]

It does not really matter how many tricks he claimed or conceded. If the Director is notified before the expiry of the correction period that the score for an illegal concession has been recorded (3♠ down nine), he will award declarer the fewest number of tricks achievable by "normal" play.

[jallerton]

The auction could be best described as dreadful. Eventually, North cue-bid his void, bidding 3♠, and South passed.

 

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

 

How would you rule?

What did East/West do or say in response to North's statement?

[bluejak]

I understand they just called the TD.

[blackshoe]

Under what law did the TD originally rule? Under what law did he consider the team captain's request?

[bluejak]

I do not believe they quoted Laws.

[blackshoe]

I do not believe they quoted Laws.

Figures. :(

 

I would have ruled under Law 68B that declarer has conceded all the tricks. If no objections were raised at the table (as seems to be the case) I would direct that the board be so scored.

 

When later the team captain asked for a reconsideration, I would treat that as an appeal under Law 92A, and apply Law 71.2 (still boggled that neither the ACBL nor the WBF version of the laws call this "Law 71B").

 

In the end I would give declarer four tricks.

[pran]

I do not believe they quoted Laws.

Figures. :(

 

I would have ruled under Law 68B that declarer has conceded all the tricks. If no objections were raised at the table (as seems to be the case) I would direct that the board be so scored.

 

When later the team captain asked for a reconsideration, I would treat that as an appeal under Law 92A, and apply Law 71.2 (still boggled that neither the ACBL nor the WBF version of the laws call this "Law 71B").

 

In the end I would give declarer four tricks.

Exactly what I have stated all the time, ecept (to my surprise) I discovered that Law 71 instructs the Director to cancel a concession of such tricks that meet the specified criteria apparently without the need for any request (or asking) to this effect.

[blackshoe]

Maybe so, but if no one asks him to look at it, he's never going to know, is he? :(

[pran]

Maybe so, but if no one asks him to look at it, he's never going to know, is he? :(

Hardly, agreed.

 

But what surprised me is that according to Law 71 it seems as if the Director shall try the concession even if he becomes aware of it simply by accident?

 

Anyway, how the Director became involved in the OP case is in my opinion completely irrelevant, the important fact is what actually happened.