West concedes, East claims

[barmar]

[hv=n=sxhd8xc&w=sqhdt5c&e=saxhdxc&s=shdcxxx]399|300|[/hv]West is on lead in a heart contract by South. He faces his hand and says he's going to take the ♦T and ♠Q and concede the last ♦. East says, "No, I'm going to overtake the Q, because I have a full count of the hand and I know my spade spot will be good, so we get all 3 tricks."

 

I ruled that the concession stands, because of the UI from West showing his hand to his partner. Without seeing his partner's hand, it would be careless not to overtake the spade, but it's not irrational. While I believe that's what he would have done had play gone normally, once he has UI I felt I had to discount the self-serving statement.

 

Did I get this right?

[nigel_k]

In order for overtaking the spade to be wrong, East's count of the spade suit would have to be off by two, not just one. I.e. he thinks declarer has two spades left instead of none. Plus partner would need a diamond or other winner which they don't have and cannot have unless it is possibly in clubs. That is getting pretty close to irrational, though it depends on the player.

[iviehoff]

I ruled that the concession stands, because of the UI from West showing his hand to his partner. Without seeing his partner's hand, it would be careless not to overtake the spade, but it's not irrational. While I believe that's what he would have done had play gone normally, once he has UI I felt I had to discount the self-serving statement.

 

Did I get this right?

I suspect that you got the score correct by the wrong route.

 

The presence of UI, which a player has not carefully avoided taking advantage of, allows you to adjust a result which has been obtained. I don't think it is good grounds to rule that a concession must stand.

 

According to 68B2, if a defender immediately objects to his partner's concession, the concession is deemed not to have occurred. This law specifically refers to the presence of UI, so the presence of UI is not a good reason to disapply this law: there is inevitably UI in this situation.

 

So what is clear is that you must

(1) Rule that the concession is now deemed never to have occurred, and play restarts from there

(2) Rule that West picks up his cards and that they are not penalty cards

 

Next problem, did East make a claim? Or were his statements merely explanations associated with his objection to his partner's?

 

If we decide he made a claim, we have some issues. According to the line of play he has stated, EW take all the tricks. Again UI is not grounds for varying his claim, or a consideration in adjudicating the claim, but it could be grounds for adjusting the score afterwards. Moreover East's claim is only subject to adjudication if the opponents specifically object to it. But if East did make a claim, and the opponents object to it, then, by 70D2, "The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal plays." This is tricky, because West has told us exactly what he is going to do in advance of East claiming, and that is what East is relying on, so can the director now say West might not do that? If were were playing it out, normally we would say that West is constrained, because of the UI, to doing exactly what he said he would do. So I think it might be difficult to adjudicate East's claim on the grounds that West might do something different from what he said he would do.

 

But I think actually at this point it doesn't matter. Whether East made a claim, or if it was not a claim and the hand is played out, it looks like EW get the 3 tricks in the play.

 

And then at that point we decide whether to rule on the UI point that East has not carefully refrained from taking advantage of the UI of seeing his partner's cards and hearing his explanations.

[ggwhiz]

The fact that west seems to have designated the ♦10 followed by the ♠Q in his claim and the following...

 

East's count of the spade suit would have to be off by two, not just one

 

would lead me to award the last 3 tricks to the defence.

 

However, I'm not so sure about the laws, just common courtesy and fair play. Easts statement about having a count on the hand is credible and the ruling that they may duck the ♠Q is harsh and particularly insulting if east disputed the claim quickly, without a long pause for thought.

 

If I was the declarer, you would not have been called.

[PrinceNep]

Ivie,

 

If this statement:

 

"West is on lead in a heart contract by South. He faces his hand and says he's going to take the ♦T and ♠Q and concede the last ♦"

 

Is a concession and not a claim, then the rulebooks need adjusting!

 

It is to my understanding that a concession is placing your cards face down. If your partner then refuses, then play can continue as normal.

 

While I'm not an expert on the laws, and the jurisdiction is not clear, I think the claim has to stand. Had E held the stiff Ace of Spades and a winning heart, then I could see there being no problem (as E must follow suit). While East may have a count on the hand, the claim stops all play. East no longer has an option on how to play out his hand.

 

What bothers me most about this situation is that E/W is the OS. South, the NOS, should get the benefit of the doubt. As South is the one who is potentially damaged, I don't believe East has the right to overrule the claim ... which is what I believe it was, not a concession. I would rule two tricks to E/W and one trick to N/S.

 

Willing to be corrected on the basis that W made a claim and not a concession.

[blackshoe]

West claimed two tricks and conceded one. Per Law 68A, this is a claim.

 

The director shall not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

 

West's claim depends on his partner choosing to play his low spade. The TD shall therefore not accept this claim. However, East's only alternative is to do exactly what he said he'd do. Three tricks to the defense.

 

E/W is the OS

Oh? What was the offense?

[campboy]

Ivie,

 

If this statement:

 

"West is on lead in a heart contract by South. He faces his hand and says he's going to take the ♦T and ♠Q and concede the last ♦"

 

Is a concession and not a claim, then the rulebooks need adjusting!

 

It is to my understanding that a concession is placing your cards face down. If your partner then refuses, then play can continue as normal.

Then your understanding is wrong. When the laws use the word "concession", they mean concession of one or more tricks, not necessarily all of the tricks. So West's statement is both a claim (of two tricks) and a concession (of the third).

 

Law 68B1 is clear on this point: "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any".

[PrinceNep]

Campboy,

 

If this is the case, then truly what needs to be examined are the laws regarding claims and not a concession. Though West conceded a trick, he first and foremost made a claim. It is to my understanding that after ANY claim, play stops. Therefore, that is where the jurisdiction should fall.

 

Blackshoe:

 

E/W is the OS because W made an inaccurate claim. While West still has rights, they fall under the laws pertaining to claims. Explain to me why South should be punished when East sees West's hand and explains his alternate line of play? While I have no doubt that West's statement is probably legitimate, his partner's claim has given up the right to "alternative lines". It should come down to the laws regarding a claim and assigning appropriate tricks. It is possible for East to duck the spade trick, therefore the benefit of the doubt should be given to South ... who is again, the NOS.

[campboy]

Campboy,

 

If this is the case, then truly what needs to be examined are the laws regarding claims and not a concession.  Though West conceded a trick, he first and foremost made a claim.  It is to my understanding that after ANY claim, play stops.  Therefore, that is where the jurisdiction should fall.

Again your understanding is wrong because you have not read the laws. Law 68B2 says that in this case play continues, because there was no concession (and hence no claim -- there's a minute about that somewhere, does anyone have a link?).

 

Some thought has gone into the current law. It would be silly to allow a defender to concede a trick which his partner does not wish to concede, so (unless he is claiming all the tricks) a defender cannot make an autocratic claim; he needs partner to acquiesce.

[blackshoe]

E/W is the OS because W made an inaccurate claim.

Against which Law is this an offense?

 

Explain to me why South should be punished when East sees West's hand and explains his alternate line of play?

Who said South should be punished? We're adjudicating a claim, not administering punishment.

 

While I have no doubt that West's statement is probably legitimate, his partner's claim has given up the right to "alternative lines". It should come down to the laws regarding a claim and assigning appropriate tricks. It is possible  for East to duck the spade trick, therefore the benefit of the doubt should be given to South ... who is again, the NOS.

There is no NOS, nor any OS.

 

However, the minutes of the WBFLC meeting of 28 Oct 2001 say, inter alia:

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.

So it looks like Iviehoff's approach is the correct one.

[PrinceNep]

Blackshoe,

 

First:

 

Law 68A:

 

"Claim Defined

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of

tricks is a claim of those tricks. 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)."

 

So first and foremost, we agree this is a claim of two tricks and a concession of the third trick.

 

You pointed out Law 68B:

 

"Concession Defined

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. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender

attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no

concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorised Information, may apply,

so the Director should be summoned forthwith"

 

Law 68D states:

 

"After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or

concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is

acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy

included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or

Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival."

 

So I cannot see how play could possibly continue after West faces his hand and states a line of play. It is now entirely up to the Director to assign equality based on Law 70A:

 

"General Objective

In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board

as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be

resolved against the claimer."

 

I believe the emphasis here is that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. I'll concede that the term OS may not be appropriate in this situation, but in context has the same meaning. E/W should be given the worst of equal options and N/S should be given the best of equal options.

 

These were the points I was trying to make. I can't see how UI plays any role in this situation and I cannot fathom that the play "continue".

 

There are 3 situations in which the Concession is overturned:

 

"71A: Trick Cannot Be Lost

71B: Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated

71C: Implausible Concession"

 

I cannot see this particular situation falling into any of these three categories. It is not Implausible for East to duck the Queen of Spades. Therefore, the third trick belongs to N/S.

 

Your thoughts?

[mjj29]

You pointed out Law 68B:

 

"Concession Defined

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. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender

attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no

concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorised Information, may apply,

so the Director should be summoned forthwith"

 

Law 68D states:

 

"After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or

concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is

acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy

included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or

Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival."

 

So I cannot see how play could possibly continue after West faces his hand and states a line of play.  It is now entirely up to the Director to assign equality based on Law 70A:

Read what you quoted again, Yes, L68 does say "After any claim or concession, play ceases", however, it also says "Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred" (emphasis mine) ergo play does not cease. This is made clear by the WBF minute which blackshoe quoted.

 

Of course, his partner then made a claim for all the rest of the tricks, which does stand as a claim, but it is that claim which should be adjudicated as such

 

Matt

[campboy]

Read what you quoted again, Yes, L68 does say "After any claim or concession, play ceases", however, it also says "Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred" (emphasis mine) ergo play does not cease. This is made clear by the WBF minute which blackshoe quoted.

... and in fact, if you were to continue the incomplete quote of Law 68B2, the very next two words would be "play continues" :)

[bluejak]

Some thought has gone into the current law.

BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :) :o :lol: :huh: :P

 

Oh, be serious!

 

If any thought had gone into it, they would have left the TD to sort it out as with any other contested claim or disputed concession. The current mess is based on a silly historical idea with no sensible thought attached to it.

[Vampyr]

Some thought has gone into the current law.

BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D ;) :o :lol: :huh: :P

 

Oh, be serious!

 

If any thought had gone into it, they would have left the TD to sort it out as with any other contested claim or disputed concession. The current mess is based on a silly historical idea with no sensible thought attached to it.

He said "thought". He didn't say "sense" or "logic", or suggest that the result was reasonable.

[Bbradley62]

If this is an individual event, can you award different scores to E and W?

[campboy]

No (Law 12C3), though PPs may be given individually.

[dburn]

If any thought had gone into it, they would have left the TD to sort it out

If anyone ever gave any thought to anything, absolutely the last thing they should do is "leave it to the TD to sort it out".

 

Instead, they should write Laws in such a fashion that whoever the TD is, the matter will be resolved in the only legally permitted manner. But this would mean that TDs had nothing to do except put the tables up and take them down again, and there would be no International Bridge Laws Forum. Whether or not this would be a Good Thing is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

Meanwhile: West has made both a claim and a concession. Though East has objected to the concession, the claim remains to be dealt with, so that play does not continue. Those who say that "there was no concession and hence no claim" are... well, I will use the word "wrong" rather than some unparliamentary language, though I am tempted to place the words "not even" before the word I have chosen.

 

Whether or not East would have ensured that his side took the last three tricks given that East has UI as well as AI about the actual position is unclear. My inclination would be to give declarer a trick, but I could imagine being persuaded otherwise.

[blackshoe]

You are arguing that the WBFLC is wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but the fact is that the final arbiter of the laws is the WBFLC. So if they say that when there is a claim-and-concession by a defender, and his partner immediately objects, neither a claim nor a concession is deemed to have occurred, and play continues, well, they may be foolish, or misguided, or whatever, but they are not wrong. :lol:

 

There seems to be an ongoing theme through several threads here that TDs have a vested interest in complicated, arbitrary, or capricious laws and regulations, so that they will "have something to do" during a game. I won't speak for any other TD, but as far as I'm concerned, that's utter nonsense. :lol:

[gordontd]

There seems to be an ongoing theme through several threads here that TDs have a vested interest in complicated, arbitrary, or capricious laws and regulations, so that they will "have something to do" during a game.

One of the other proponents of this idea has managed simultaneously to suggest that TDs are lazy and look to avoid too much work!

[dburn]

You are arguing that the WBFLC is wrong.

No, I'm not. The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

 

Bluejak and I had this discussion a very long time ago, and Max Bavin became involved; we concluded that "a claim is a concession" does not mean "a claim is one and the same thing as a concession" but "a claim is, inter alia, a concession".

[RMB1]

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

 

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

 

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

 

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

[pran]

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

 

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

 

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

 

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

Law 68 B 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.

 

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

 

What the WBFLC minute clarified was that it does not matter whether the concession was explicit or the consequence of a partial claim. When objected to by the partner both the concession and the corresponding claim (if any) is nullified and play shall continue.

 

Isn't it obvious that if the claim part had been upheld then play would in any case have ended? This is obvious to me, and as I understood the minute it also was to WBFLC.

[bluejak]

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

 

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

 

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

 

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

I do not understand where this has come from, but it seems against the Laws to me.

 

If there is a defensive concession then it is nullified by partner objecting. Implicit and explicit do not come into it since the Laws define a concession without any such split.

 

:(

 

Of course TDs have to sort out legal difficulties: that is what they are for, at least in part, and any other approach seems pretty pointless because of its total impracticality.

 

But in the specific case of a claim, it seems senseless to leave the TD to sort out 90+% of contested claims, and let the players play on in a scenario complicated by UI in less than 10% of cases. Why not let the TD sort out 100% rather than 90+%?

[dburn]

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

 

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

 

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

 

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

Imagine a position like this:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakqhdc4&w=s432hdca&e=sh2d32c2&s=shdakqck]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Hearts are trumps and the lead is in dummy. West says "you get three spades and then I get the ace of clubs." East objects, so play continues and East ruffs a spade lead from the table. The knowledge that West has ♣A is UI to East, and the Director may rule that unless there is no logical alternative to a club play, East next plays a diamond and the defence ends up with one trick.

 

In the actual case, however, East has not merely objected - East has claimed. Play ceases, and both claims must be dealt with according to the relevant Laws.