dickiegera Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Declarer is in his hand. 4 cards to play. Two Spades and 10&8 of diamonds. Spades are trump. Dummy has 2spades all trump is gone except 2 in dummy.Dummy also has 2 diamonds, 10&8. The A,K,Q &9 have been played.A,K being in original dummy and 9 in declarer hand. Declarer claims stating I have to give you 2 diamonds. Making 4 Spades I being dummy state that 1 of diamonds is good. Therefore making 5 Whom is correct???Can you lose 2 diamonds here? Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Depends on how the cards lie in the defenders' hands. If the player holding the ♦J can keep that card and any ♥ or ♣, then declarer loses two tricks. If that defender has only ♦, then one trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 To be clear, this is a ruling under Law 71 which says: Law 71: A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Periodestablished under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal22play of the remaining cards.The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side Footnote 22: For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless orinferior for the class of player involved. Blackshoe is essentially arguing it would almost certainly be a normal line of play to ruff something in dummy at trick 10, cash the last trump, and then play a diamond. If the DJ holder can retain something other than a loser for trick 13, then the concession of two tricks stands. I also think it almost certain that would be ruled "normal". I think actually it might be "normal" in the circumstances for declarer to lead a loser at trick 10 and discard a diamond on it, and if the TD is of that persuasion, then there really is no chance of reversing the concession. There are indeed simple lines for declarer to take 3 tricks, but under Law 71 it is unlikely he will get the benefit of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 This is another one of those cases where the wording of the concession implies that declarer has forgotten which diamonds are still out. "I have to give you two diamonds" suggests that he thinks the opponents still have two diamond honors. In this case, there's nothing abnormal about cashing trumps then exiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jh51 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 Declarer is in his hand. 4 cards to play. Two Spades and 10&8 of diamonds. Spades are trump.Dummy has 2spades all trump is gone except 2 in dummy.Dummy also has 2 diamonds, 10&8. The A,K,Q &9 have been played.A,K being in original dummy and 9 in declarer hand.Declarer claims stating I have to give you 2 diamonds. Making 4 SpadesI being dummy state that 1 of diamonds is good. Therefore making 5Whom is correct???Can you lose 2 diamonds here?Thank you If I am reading this correctly, both declarer and dummy have the 10 & 8 of diamonds. If that is indeed the case, there is a bigger problem than whether the concession stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 He never said what cards remain in declarer's hand, he only described dummy's hand and one card that used to be in declarer's hand. I admit that I misread it similarly to you when I first read the post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jh51 Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Apparntly the OP described dummy twice, once right after saying that Declarer is in his hand and not stating that he was describing dummy. After rereading the post several times, I guess that is the only interpretation that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Apparntly the OP described dummy twice, once right after saying that Declarer is in his hand and not stating that he was describing dummy. After rereading the post several times, I guess that is the only interpretation that makes sense.No, the OP is clear that declarer and dummy both have the 10 8 of diamonds, so it is just a case of working through Laws 13 and 14, and we need to establish the earlier play. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickiegera Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 No, the OP is clear that declarer and dummy both have the 10 8 of diamonds, so it is just a case of working through Laws 13 and 14, and we need to establish the earlier play. :) Sorry for confusion. The dummy had 10&8 of diamonds and the only 2 missing trump ♠ Declarer is in his hand with 4 cards none of which are diamonds.Declarer's original diamonds were 9 and a smaller one.The Q of diamonds had been played earlier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.