Claim, Concession or Both?

[Chris L]

S is in 3NT. After eight tricks, when declarer is in dummy, declarer has five of them. Dummy (North) holds ♦ AKQTx and East holds ♦ J9876, having discarded one earlier. Declarer started with ♦ xx.

 

At this point declarer calls for a top ♦; East then faces his hand and claims the last two tricks. The claim is accepted for +50 to EW.

 

This is the fifth board in a set of 12 making up the first half of a county teams KO match ("Pachabo Qualifying" in EBU land). After another four boards or so, dummy (an experienced EBU TD) realises that the contract could have been made if after cashing one or two top ♦'s, declarer endplays East with a low one - and reserves their rights in relation to the claim.

 

Despite the best efforts of both teams to give the match to their opponents, the end result is a win by declarer's team by 5 IMPs (scoring the board in question as 3NT-1) so the question is of academic interest only, but can/should the TD adjust?

 

The effect of Law 69A is that agreement on the claim is "established". Under Law 69 B 2, that agreement may be withdrawn "if a player has agreed to a loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued". Law 71 deals with the circumstances in which a "concession" may be cancelled and refers to the concession of a trick that could not be lost by any "normal" play of the remaining cards. In a footnote "normal" is defined as including play that would be "careless or inferior" for the class of player involved. I seem to remember that in an earlier version of the Laws the definition of "normal" included the additional words "but not irrational".

 

Assuming we are concerned exclusively with Law 69, is "likely" the same as "normal" - or does it require a higher (or lower) degree of skill from declarer? Declarer is of county "C" team standard, capable (on a good day) of getting this right but at least equally capable of resigning herself to her apparent fate. Had not East (a better player than declarer) made his claim, I think it is more likely than not that declarer would have gone wrong (evidenced not least by her acceptance of the claim). (I was West).

[pran]

S is in 3NT. After eight tricks, when declarer is in dummy, declarer has five of them. Dummy (North) holds ♦ AKQTx and East holds ♦ J9876, having discarded one earlier. Declarer started with ♦ xx.

 

At this point declarer calls for a top ♦; East then faces his hand and claims the last two tricks. The claim is accepted for +50 to EW.

 

This is the fifth board in a set of 12 making up the first half of a county teams KO match ("Pachabo Qualifying" in EBU land). After another four boards or so, dummy (an experienced EBU TD) realises that the contract could have been made if after cashing one or two top ♦'s, declarer endplays East with a low one - and reserves their rights in relation to the claim.

 

Despite the best efforts of both teams to give the match to their opponents, the end result is a win by declarer's team by 5 IMPs (scoring the board in question as 3NT-1) so the question is of academic interest only, but can/should the TD adjust?

 

The effect of Law 69A is that agreement on the claim is "established". Under Law 69 B 2, that agreement may be withdrawn "if a player has agreed to a loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued". Law 71 deals with the circumstances in which a "concession" may be cancelled and refers to the concession of a trick that could not be lost by any "normal" play of the remaining cards. In a footnote "normal" is defined as including play that would be "careless or inferior" for the class of player involved. I seem to remember that in an earlier version of the Laws the definition of "normal" included the additional words "but not irrational".

 

Assuming we are concerned exclusively with Law 69, is "likely" the same as "normal" - or does it require a higher (or lower) degree of skill from declarer? Declarer is of county "C" team standard, capable (on a good day) of getting this right but at least equally capable of resigning herself to her apparent fate. Had not East (a better player than declarer) made his claim, I think it is more likely than not that declarer would have gone wrong (evidenced not least by her acceptance of the claim). (I was West).

 

"Likely" implies a fairly high probability, significantly better than even chance. That declarer on a good day might get it right is certainly not sufficient. TD should definitely not adjust in this case.

 

However, although declarer most likely would have played his diamonds top-down and lost the last two tricks had East not claimed, declarer would certainly have been allowed to find the good play in response to East's claim. When he didn't find it at that time his chance is gone. (The clause "had the play continued" in Law 69B2 must refer to the situation without any claim because Law 68D irrevocably states that play ceases when a claim is made.)

Edited December 10, 2010 by pran

[RMB1]

Assuming we are concerned exclusively with Law 69, is "likely" the same as "normal" - or does it require a higher (or lower) degree of skill from declarer? Declarer is of county "C" team standard, capable (on a good day) of getting this right but at least equally capable of resigning herself to her apparent fate. Had not East (a better player than declarer) made his claim, I think it is more likely than not that declarer would have gone wrong (evidenced not least by her acceptance of the claim). (I was West).

 

I think this is a Law 69 case and the first test I have seen of the new law. The inclusion of the word "likely" here happened in 2007, as did the removal of "but not irrational" from the footnote.

 

I do not think "likely" means "normal"; I think "likely" is somewhere in the middle, between: all normal line succeed and all normal lines fail.

 

When a declarer sees diamonds are 5-1 at trick 10, I would expect most to work out that ducking a diamond will win. The fact that this declarer did not see this line when shown the diamonds makes the successful play less likely. However, I think the change in the law is meant to benefit the non-claimer and I think this is the sort of case that law is aimed at. So I would (perhaps reluctantly) give declarer 4 diamond tricks.

[iviehoff]

You are correct, Law 69 is the only relevant one here. East claimed and declarer agreed with the claim. This does not amount to a claim or concession by declarer under Law 68.

 

Law 69B in its present form is new in the 2007 Laws, and few if any examples of its application have come up on this forum or its predecessor. It is definitely a more generous law to those wishing to withdraw agreement than under the old laws. "Likely" is a different, less strict, criterion to the "normal" criterion in Law 70D, which also was in the old L69. If declarer had to show that he would make the trick in all "normal" lines of play, as he did under the 1997 Laws, he would certainly fail, because failing to spot the end-play is a "normal" line.

 

Under these new laws, declarer has to show it is "likely" he would win the trick. That is plainly a matter of judgment for the TD. I think you are right, it is a matter of the declarer's skill level whether he would likely execute a pretty routine bit of technique, accessible to anyone who has heard of an endplay and has the nous to count a suit when one player shows out on the first round. For the kind of player who knows how to execute a few endplays, and does it when he thinks about it, this one is about the easiest in the book and I hope would be routine from a fairly middling level of skill upwards. I think this is a close one. On the one hand the player didn't spot it immediately at the time. On the other hand, I think it is the sort of thing a player at county C level really ought to get right most of the time in the actual tempo of play without being rushed by the op.

[RMB1]

(second thoughts)

 

If the throw-in is so likely/obvious to this class of player, why did East claim?

 

Either East did not see the throw-in in which case perhaps South would not; or East did see the throw-in and claimed in the hope of avoiding South stumbling into the right line. In the latter case, I think the new Law 69B is there to protect North-South.

[wyman]

I think saying declarer would not have found this is premature. LHO showing out on the second diamond will be a huge red flag to declarer. He would likely pause and ask himself "is there any way to salvage this?" even if his original intent was to just run diamonds from the top. When that happens, he'll likely consider his other options (besides leading top down). Since there's only one other option, and since he's got perfect count on the hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to think declarer would have found it. Accepting the claim (which people often do too freely) is tantamount to saying "what I was planning on isn't working" but I think a normal (not even "good") declarer gets this right often enough once he sees LHO show out that I'm adjusting.

[Chris L]

(second thoughts)

 

If the throw-in is so likely/obvious to this class of player, why did East claim?

 

Either East did not see the throw-in in which case perhaps South would not; or East did see the throw-in and claimed in the hope of avoiding South stumbling into the right line. In the latter case, I think the new Law 69B is there to protect North-South.

 

Nothing Machiavellian about East's claim; similar blind spot to South's in accepting it. :rolleyes:

[Chris L]

 

When a declarer sees diamonds are 5-1 at trick 10, I would expect most to work out that ducking a diamond will win. The fact that this declarer did not see this line when shown the diamonds makes the successful play less likely. However, I think the change in the law is meant to benefit the non-claimer and I think this is the sort of case that law is aimed at. So I would (perhaps reluctantly) give declarer 4 diamond tricks.

 

According to the White Book, the benefit of any doubt is given to the claimer.

[Phil]

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable that no one realized the claim was questionable except dummy? I have no idea about the class of the players here, but when East claims and South accepts, even when the diamonds are in plain sight, I question the ability of declarer to execute this endplay.

[Finch]

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable that no one realized the claim was questionable except dummy? I have no idea about the class of the players here, but when East claims and South accepts, even when the diamonds are in plain sight, I question the ability of declarer to execute this endplay.

 

Me too.

If declarer had accepted the claim, but then said a few minutes later "Hold on, I could have made that" I would give him the extra trick. But the fact that it took dummy another four boards even to realise the position means that I don't believe declarer would have got it right.

[Chris L]

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable that no one realized the claim was questionable except dummy? I have no idea about the class of the players here, but when East claims and South accepts, even when the diamonds are in plain sight, I question the ability of declarer to execute this endplay.

 

East's claim was made quite confidently and no one really looked at it before returning their cards to the board; almost immediately dummy pointed out (as was the case) that the contract could have been made trivially had declarer set up the two ♠ winners in her hand before exhausting her entries, which rather took the players' thought processes away from the claim.

[jallerton]

So the facts are:

 

1. Declarer had missed an earlier opportunity to make her contract trivially.

2. When East claimed, declarer did not see any reason to contest the claim.

3. Even several hands later, the winning line had not occurred to South; it needed North to point this out.

 

On this basis, it does not seem to me "likely" that South would have found the winning line had East remained silent.

 

I note with interest Robin's observation that this new Law 69 has not been tested much in practice. However, we have got some theoretical guidance: the views of WBFLC Chairman, Tom Kooijman are published in the EBU White Book. He gives this example:

 

Example 2:

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hadaca&w=s52h3d7c&n=skqj6hdc&e=sa3h8dc2]399|300[/hv]

 

South is declarer in NT. When he leads ♠K from dummy, he shows his three aces claiming three tricks.

Case 1: Both defenders accept the claim. But if one of them discovers, before their side makes a call on the next board, that ducking ♠A squeezes declarer, Law 70A applies and the claim should be denied.

Case 2: After play, but within the correction period, E/W discover that declarer’s winning three tricks is not automatic. The TD should decide that it is too late to change the result. Had play continued, it is clear that E/W would not have won any extra tricks if East failed to see this play at the table.

 

I think that his case 2 is analagous to Chris's County Knockout case.

[blackshoe]

Interesting. If East ducks the first spade, and South pitches his ♣A on the second, the ♣2 wins the third trick. Haven't seen that too often. :)

[bluejak]

I am intrigued about this talk of a "new" Law 69B. Isn't it identical with the previous Law 69B with updated wording?

 

As I understand it when someone claims, the benefit of doubt goes to the non-claimer, see Law 70A.

 

However, once someone claims, and his opponents agree to it ['acquiesce' previously] while thy may later change their mind, the benefit of any doubt has swung to the claimer's side, see Law 69B.

 

A likely play is a higher standard than a normal play. In the cited case, if declarer immediately objects, he certainly gets a trick. When dummy realises a few tricks later, declarer does not [in my view] get a trick, in fact I do not even think this close.

[jallerton]

I am intrigued about this talk of a "new" Law 69B. Isn't it identical with the previous Law 69B with updated wording?

 

No, it isn't.

 

Although Laws 70 and 71 in the 2007 Laws may fit the description "identical with the previous Law 69B with updated wording" (in both of these Laws, in both the 1997 and 2007 versions refer to "normal* plays") there has been a change to the threshold in Law 69B.

 

Under the 1997 Law 69B, a trick could only revert to the non-claiming side for "the loss of the trick that could not, in the director's opinion, be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.

 

However, under the 2007 Law 69B, a trick reverts to the non-claiming side "if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had play continued."

[bluejak]

You are right, it is a little different. Just another example of why, when you want to rule under a Law that is not in very frequent use, you take the Law book out and read the wording then.

[blackshoe]

I do that. I usually get "chastised" by players for "wasting their time". My usual response is "Would you rather have an incorrect ruling?" Followed by inarticulate grumbling.

[iviehoff]

According to the White Book, the benefit of any doubt is given to the claimer.

To be clear, it doesn't say that. It says the "benefit of any doubt shifts in favour of the claimer".

 

It shifts, but not all the way. The non-claimer has to show it is "likely" he would have got it right. He no longer has the benefit of the doubt if he had objected earlier. But while the benefit of the doubt has shifted, we can hardly say that the claimer now enjoys the full benefit of the doubt under this criterion.

[iviehoff]

So the facts are:

 

1. Declarer had missed an earlier opportunity to make her contract trivially.

2. When East claimed, declarer did not see any reason to contest the claim.

3. Even several hands later, the winning line had not occurred to South; it needed North to point this out.

 

On this basis, it does not seem to me "likely" that South would have found the winning line had East remained silent.

(1) is irrelevant. People make mistakes. It may even have been an unlikely mistake. We are asked to judge what is likely in the specific situation. As far is (2) is concerned, as we know well, some people claim in a manner that suggests that no further thought is necessary or welcome. Even if the claimer is not a person with such table arrogance, the mere fact of the claim may have suggested to declarer that no thought is necessary because it must be very obvious if the defender can make a claim - defensive claims usually require the situation to be very clear. (3) is irrelevant - Declarer may just not have thought about it any more.

 

This is not the same as what would have happened at the table if it had been played out. The claimed occurred before the event of the show-out occurred, and when this happens Declarer is likely to have a little think about it.

 

I'm not saying from this it is clear that Declarer should be given the trick. But it just isn't sufficiently clear the other way to say there's no doubt about it. Really, you need to know the player.

[WellSpyder]

as we know well, some people claim in a manner that suggests that no further thought is necessary or welcome.

Indeed. I played a match recently against one of the very top English players who made clear that not only was further thought unwelcome, but that it was entirely unreasonable even to expect to see his cards when he claimed (whether as defender or declarer). I did manage to insist on seeing the cards, but only at the expense of a variety of sarcastic comments.

[Chris L]

To be clear, it doesn't say that. It says the "benefit of any doubt shifts in favour of the claimer".

 

It shifts, but not all the way. The non-claimer has to show it is "likely" he would have got it right. He no longer has the benefit of the doubt if he had objected earlier. But while the benefit of the doubt has shifted, we can hardly say that the claimer now enjoys the full benefit of the doubt under this criterion.

 

I don't think this is right. Either there is doubt or there isn't; how can you get less than the full benefit of any doubt? If the claim is immediately objected to, the non-claimer gets the benefit of any doubt. If it is agreed and withdrawn later, the claimer gets it. In the latter case the T D has to decide whether it is "likely" that (here) declarer would have won the trick had play continued; if he does, declarer gets the trick. If he doesn't, or if he's not sure, declarer doesn't.

[iviehoff]

Either there is doubt or there isn't; how can you get less than the full benefit of any doubt?

By applying the law as written.

 

L69B. Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:

1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.

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

 

Under 69B2, it suffices that it is likely that the non-claiming side would have won the trick had play continued. At the level of "likely", some doubt remains. So the claiming side do not get the full benefit of any doubt. I think what the White Books says does not actually assist here, better look at what the law says.

[Chris L]

By applying the law as written.

 

L69B. Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:

1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.

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

 

Under 69B2, it suffices that it is likely that the non-claiming side would have won the trick had play continued. At the level of "likely", some doubt remains. So the claiming side do not get the full benefit of any doubt. I think what the White Books says does not actually assist here, better look at what the law says.

 

The "doubt" referred to in the White Book is surely a reference to whether or not the TD thinks it "likely". Whatever "likely" means (does it mean, for example, "more likely than not"), he may think it is clear cut one way or another - or he may be in doubt, in which case the claimer gets the benefit of that doubt, no doubt in part reflecting the fact that the claim was originally agreed when it could have been challenged.

[bluejak]

Sounds worth a DP to me.

[jallerton]

(1) is irrelevant. People make mistakes. It may even have been an unlikely mistake. We are asked to judge what is likely in the specific situation. As far is (2) is concerned, as we know well, some people claim in a manner that suggests that no further thought is necessary or welcome. Even if the claimer is not a person with such table arrogance, the mere fact of the claim may have suggested to declarer that no thought is necessary because it must be very obvious if the defender can make a claim - defensive claims usually require the situation to be very clear. (3) is irrelevant - Declarer may just not have thought about it any more.

 

This is not the same as what would have happened at the table if it had been played out. The claimed occurred before the event of the show-out occurred, and when this happens Declarer is likely to have a little think about it.

 

I'm not saying from this it is clear that Declarer should be given the trick. But it just isn't sufficiently clear the other way to say there's no doubt about it. Really, you need to know the player.

 

(1) is perfectly relevant. If a declarer is not alert enough to find the straghtforward line of establishing her 9th winner earlier in the play, then that level of alertness should help the TD form a view of the likelihood of the declarer finding a more advanced play (an endplay) later in the hand.

 

Re (2), are you suggesting that is the norm to accept claims without question and assume that the claimer is always right? As the declarer will well know, the best time to consider the vailidity of any claim is when the claim is made, whilst the cards are there and the hand is fresh in everybody's minds.

 

Re (3), are you suggesting that dummy is now allowed to assist his partner with declarer play?