Help
I agree with dburn. There is an additional chance that a West who thinks declarer has the remainder will not know that it his lead and, by the time he is told, he will have forgotten what was played at trick one. Such a defender will almost certainly return a heart.
Table talk (possible defensive concession, logical alternatives) What is your ruling? Does it change in a club vs a tournament setting?
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,420
- Joined: 2007-October-15
Posted 2014-November-24, 08:42
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
#22
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,121
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2014-November-24, 14:36
There's a reason I'm saying "I'm not sure". I'm not. I think it's quite clear given case law that "normal*", should the concession be disputed after the fact, involves potentially leading any of the cards-that-won't-win. But I'm not sure that given the definition of LA, that you'll find any of this player's peers leading a minor absent the UI, even if those peers are convinced that they're not making any more tricks.
There's a reason all judgement rulings are after consultation.
There's a reason all judgement rulings are after consultation.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#23
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 2013-May-20
- Gender:Male
- Location:Australia
Posted 2014-November-24, 17:36
blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 09:30, said:
Hm. I was wondering whether the AI (from the auction) leaves West with no LA to a spade, but I guess it doesn't.
Well, the purpose of educating EW would be to educate, not to punish, but otherwise I agree. To educate in this case, it seems to me, the TD would have to find some way to explain what they need to learn without seeming to indicate that he gave them an adverse ruling because he wants to educate them.
I think the TD should present the ruling this way:
"West has conceded the remaining tricks, but East's objection voids that concession. This is Law 68B. West has UI from East's comment that East has a winner, probably either a black suit ace or the ♥K. This constrains him per Law Law 16B1 not to lead a black suit or a heart. Since West thinks they have no more tricks, he might lead anything, including a diamond. If he leads a diamond, North will make twelve tricks, so I adjust the score to 3NT making 6, +690 for NS, -690 for EW. This is Law 12C1." Specific education is a little harder, and might best be saved for another time, in the interest of keeping the game moving.
I don't think this is a case for a weighted score. It seems an either/or proposition — either declarer makes 12 tricks, or he makes 7 (EW taking the ♥A and five spades). You're ruling that West's spade lead cannot stand, so you can't include that possibility in a weighting — that would, as I understand it, be a Reveley ruling. So there's nothing to weight.
One last comment: TDs, particularly in North America, don't state rulings that way. They say "I'm adjusting the score to +690 for NS" and leave it at that. I think that's poor practice, in spite of the fact that most players don't care about the legal basis for a ruling (until they decide to appeal).
Well, the purpose of educating EW would be to educate, not to punish, but otherwise I agree. To educate in this case, it seems to me, the TD would have to find some way to explain what they need to learn without seeming to indicate that he gave them an adverse ruling because he wants to educate them.
I think the TD should present the ruling this way:
"West has conceded the remaining tricks, but East's objection voids that concession. This is Law 68B. West has UI from East's comment that East has a winner, probably either a black suit ace or the ♥K. This constrains him per Law Law 16B1 not to lead a black suit or a heart. Since West thinks they have no more tricks, he might lead anything, including a diamond. If he leads a diamond, North will make twelve tricks, so I adjust the score to 3NT making 6, +690 for NS, -690 for EW. This is Law 12C1." Specific education is a little harder, and might best be saved for another time, in the interest of keeping the game moving.
I don't think this is a case for a weighted score. It seems an either/or proposition — either declarer makes 12 tricks, or he makes 7 (EW taking the ♥A and five spades). You're ruling that West's spade lead cannot stand, so you can't include that possibility in a weighting — that would, as I understand it, be a Reveley ruling. So there's nothing to weight.
One last comment: TDs, particularly in North America, don't state rulings that way. They say "I'm adjusting the score to +690 for NS" and leave it at that. I think that's poor practice, in spite of the fact that most players don't care about the legal basis for a ruling (until they decide to appeal).
This is a thoughtful ruling IMO. It is essentially consistent with what one of Australia's top directors (Matthew McManus) said when I gave him the problem: http://www.abda.org....msg1968#msg1968
Thanks everyone