One off or making?

[zenbiddist]

Last night I played in 5♠ off three aces. I understand this is a sub-optimal approach to bridge - but it did lead to an interesting situation.

 

Anyways, I decided to play a few cards rather than concede, in the hopes that something good might happen. After the opening lead, I needed all the tricks but one, but sadly two aces were out. After drawing trumps, I played a low diamond up. West showed out, and I played the king, which East won:

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj6532hjdq97cjt&w=shakt9743d82c6543&n=sqt74hq6dkj54ck72&e=s98h852dat63caq98&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3hpp4sp5sppp&p=hkh6h8hjhahqh2s2sah3s4s8skh4s7s9d7d2dk]399|300[/hv]

 

He sat there and deliberated. To put him out of his misery, I said:

"If you don't cash your ♣A now, I'll take the marked diamond finesse, unblock, cross to dummy and pitch a club on a diamond, so either way you get a club".

 

At this point the opponents put their cards on the table, and I noticed that LHO had diamonds! Confused, I called the director. What's your ruling?

[gordontd]

Last night I played in 5♠ off three aces. I understand this is a sub-optimal approach to bridge - but it did lead to an interesting situation.

 

Anyways, I decided to play a few cards rather than concede, in the hopes that something good might happen. After the opening lead, I needed all the tricks but one, but sadly two aces were out. After drawing trumps, I played a low diamond up. West showed out, and I played the king, which East won:

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj6532hjdq97cjt&w=shakt9743d82c6543&n=sqt74hq6dkj54ck72&e=s98h852dat63caq98&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3hpp4sp5sppp&p=hkh6h8hjhahqh2s2sah3s4s8skh4s7s9d7d2dk]399|300[/hv]

 

He sat there and deliberated. To put him out of his misery, I said:

"If you don't cash your ♣A now, I'll take the marked diamond finesse, unblock, cross to dummy and pitch a club on a diamond, so either way you get a club".

 

At this point the opponents put their cards on the table, and I noticed that LHO had diamonds! Confused, I called the director. What's your ruling?

Law 63A. Revoke Becomes Established

A revoke becomes established:

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or

concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way

 

Is that what happened?

[zenbiddist]

The opponents hadn't verbally accepted the claim or contested it - it seems like the they faced their cards so that they could compute my claim visually. They seemed to know that play stops after a claim, which is why I don't think they perceived any risk in facing their cards (ie that a revoke would become etablished)

[gordontd]

The opponents hadn't verbally accepted the claim or contested it - it seems like the they faced their cards so that they could compute my claim visually. They seemed to know that play stops after a claim, which is why I don't think they perceived any risk in facing their cards (ie that a revoke would become etablished)

I think that's the crux of the matter and what the director would have to decide.

[weejonnie]

Law 63A. Revoke Becomes Established

A revoke becomes established:

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or

concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way

 

Is that what happened?

So presumably the decision will be that the revoke is not established if EW hadn't agreed to the claim when the Director was called. NB Law 68 states

 

"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)."

 

Even though a concession is equivalent to a claim, EW have not made a claim or concession - they are discussing South's claim/ concession. (This also has ramification in deciding whether a trick is 'likely to be won' or 'could not be lost' when allocating tricks (but is not really relevant here)).

 

So next time - when you see the revoke don't call the director until EW agree to your claim. (Nothing wrong with that - attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke and it is in time (before 1st call of next hand or the end of the round: 64B4).)

[gordontd]

So presumably the decision will be that the revoke is not established if EW hadn't agreed to the claim when the Director was called. NB Law 68 states

 

"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)."

 

Even though a concession is equivalent to a claim, EW have not made a claim or concession - they are discussing South's claim/ concession. (This also has ramification in deciding whether a trick is 'likely to be won' or 'could not be lost' when allocating tricks (but is not really relevant here)).

 

So next time - when you see the revoke don't call the director until EW agree to your claim. (Nothing wrong with that - attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke and it is in time (before 1st call of next hand or the end of the round: 64B4).)

It's interesting to compare and contrast

 

Law 63A. Revoke Becomes Established

A revoke becomes established:

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or

concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way

 

with

 

Law 69A. When Agreement is Established

Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent’s claim

or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on

a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first.

 

It does sound as though it is intended that agreement for the purpose of establishing a revoke be more easily created than for other purposes. However, from the OP's descriptions I think it's quite likely that agreement was not made even by the standards of L63A.

[chrism]

I agree that the revoke is not established. However, in that case all of the defenders' cards are now penalty cards, since this is not a 68B2 disputed concession. Unless it can credibly be argued that declarer could have known this might happen, he can take full advantage. Club underlead, followed by the diamond finesse and a club discard - 5S making 5.

[chrism]

Well, maybe not since play has already ceased. It seemed like justice though.

[sanst]

Does a player abandon his hand when he puts his cards on the table and thus concedes all the remaining tricks? I would answer that with "Yes", what else? You're certainly not allowed to discuss whether you concede or not with open cards. If the opps lay down their cards and that's not a concession, all their card become penalty cards. For the proviso of Law 68B2 one of the defenders should have conceded and the other immediately objected, but that's not the case here, so the declarer decides which card each of the opponents play at each trick.

My decisson would be that the revoke is established, so one trick to NS, E is on lead and he can play hearts, in which case the declarer discards a club, diamonds, and the declarer follows his proposed line of play which works notwithstanding the revoke, or clubs, NS losing only one club trick. Either way, 5♣ making.

[gordontd]

Does a player abandon his hand when he puts his cards on the table and thus concedes all the remaining tricks?

Not when you are putting them on the table because your opponent has claimed. Nor if you were making a claim yourself.

 

You're certainly not allowed to discuss whether you concede or not with open cards.

You certainly are allowed to discuss whether or not to accept declarer's claim with open cards.

[pran]

You certainly are allowed to discuss whether or not to accept declarer's claim with open cards.

Technically you either accept or contest opponents' claim.

During the following clarification you either maintain your contest or accept the claim.

 

Before entering into any discussion with your partner whether or not to accept the claim you must contest it.

[gordontd]

Technically you either accept or contest opponents' claim.

During the following clarification you either maintain your contest or accept the claim.

 

Before entering into any discussion with your partner whether or not to accept the claim you must contest it.

Where is this stated?

[pran]

Technically you either accept or contest opponents' claim.

During the following clarification you either maintain your contest or accept the claim.

 

Before entering into any discussion with your partner whether or not to accept the claim you must contest it.

Where is this stated?

Just read and understand Laws 68, 69 and 70.

[gordontd]

Just read and understand Laws 68, 69 and 70.

Oh, I have and I do and that's why I question your assertion.

[ggwhiz]

I don't know the laws that apply at all but want to rule -1 for not noticing (or playing) the opening bidder for TWO!!! voids.

[ahydra]

Sounds like the revoke is not established, as the claim hasn't yet been agreed and East hasn't yet led to the next trick.

 

Can I now apply

 

A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.

 

?

 

West will have been made aware of his mistake when declarer saw that he had diamonds, so West replaces his heart or whatever with a diamond. No further rectification (edit: ok, the heart is a MPC, but that doesn't have any material impact). Now we consider the claim, which looks correct, so declarer is one off.

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Under which law do the defenders get to decide they can expose their hands while discussing the claim/concession?

[pran]

Under which law do the defenders get to decide they can expose their hands while discussing the claim/concession?

This is not up to the defenders to decide!

Once a claim is contested the Director should be summoned (Law 9) and then he handles the situation.

Now we have:

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.

 

2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).

 

3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

Whatever the players do without the Director present at the table is at their own risk.

[barmar]

The wording of 63A seems to say that facing their hand is accepting the claim in this situation. It's not normally a claim acceptance, but in the case where their side has revoked, it is, and it establishes the revoke. I think it was written like this precisely to address this situation.

[gordontd]

Under which law do the defenders get to decide they can expose their hands while discussing the claim/concession?

Under the law that says that play ceases.

[gordontd]

This is not up to the defenders to decide!

Once a claim is contested the Director should be summoned (Law 9) and then he handles the situation.

Players often won't know whether they need to contest the claim until they've consulted their partner or seen each other's hands. Sounds like you want them to contest claims even if it turns out they don't need to.

[barmar]

Players often won't know whether they need to contest the claim until they've consulted their partner or seen each other's hands. Sounds like you want them to contest claims even if it turns out they don't need to.

I think you're expected to contest if you think there's some hand partner might have that would make the stated line fail.

 

Most of time declarers show their hand when they claim, even though it's not required (it would be nice if this were made a requirement). From that you should know what partner has (assuming you remember what has been played earlier), so you don't need him to show his hand.

[axman]

It's interesting to compare and contrast

 

 

 

with

 

 

 

It does sound as though it is intended that agreement for the purpose of establishing a revoke be more easily created than for other purposes. However, from the OP's descriptions I think it's quite likely that agreement was not made even by the standards of L63A.

 

It has just struck me about the importance of wording of L69A:

 

'Law 69A. When Agreement is Established

' Agreement is established when a contestant assents ...'

 

By definition Contestant will be a pair or team- so when a contestant assents it is going to be 2 assents or 4 assents. I think that when those four people are at different tables there is a problem. I am all in favor that it takes both members of the pair to achieve assent as distinct from but only a single member, but the law does no good service to use a term that has the properties that can be singular, or, plural, or, singular AND plural, or, singular AND/OR plural.

[blackshoe]

Under the law that says that play ceases.

You refer to

Law 68 D: After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

 

"The director must be summoned immediately" and "No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival". Nothing in there about anybody facing their hands and discussing whether to accept the claim. Nor is there anything like that in any other law.

 

FWIW I want to agree with barmar regarding Law 63A, but I'm not sure I do.

 

Law 63A3: A revoke becomes established when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

So, if a member of the offending side orally agrees to a claim or concession, or agrees by facing his hand, or agrees in any other way, the revoke is established. But when declarer makes a claim, and the defenders face their hands, are they agreeing, or are they simply trying (illegally, I think) to determine whether they wish to do so? As to the facing, it seems to me correct procedure when declarer claims is for each defender individually, without consultation to decide whether to accept the claim, and if either one decides to contest it, it is contested, and the director must be called, even if the other one already accepted it. Otherwise we get into "now that I see your hand, partner, I realize that we can defeat the claim by playing thus and so". I think he has to figure that out on his own, without seeing his partner's hand.

[gordontd]

"The director must be summoned immediately" and "No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival". Nothing in there about anybody facing their hands and discussing whether to accept the claim. Nor is there anything like that in any other law.

I wasn't arguing that there is a specific right or requirement for defenders to look at each other's hands before deciding whether or not to accept the claim, but it follows naturally from standard practice and there is no prohibition against it.

 

When a hand is finished, it's permitted for players to show their cards to others at the table - indeed some TD's recommend it to avoid breaching Law 7 by touching another player's cards. If looking at your partner's cards leads you think the claim may have been erroneous, you should call the TD immediately and that's just following Law 68D. There's nothing to say that you should call the TD before you doubt the claim and that's a good thing because otherwise we would have a number of pointless TD calls.

 

Even if you don't show/look at your partner's cards, it's quite common to ask what they had after you put away your hand, before you start the next board. Once again, this may lead you to doubt the claim and that would be a good time to establish this doubt by calling the director, since agreement has not yet been reached according to the terms of Law 69. I certainly don't think you have to call the TD before asking, between hands, what your partner held and nor do I think it would be helpful if it were required.