BBO Discussion Forums: A matter of conscience - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

A matter of conscience

#1 User is offline   661_Pete 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 373
  • Joined: 2016-May-01

Posted 2018-July-14, 08:23

This has been nagging at me for several weeks now. What do others think?

In no-trumps, sitting as RH defender, I am on lead with just two cards left: Ax. I know that KQx are still out, along with a winner in another suit (I forget which). Dummy's cards were irrelevant. Clearly, not knowing how the cards lay, I had a dilemma as to which spade to lead, so I must have hesitated a bit.

At this point, declarer says "I'll give you the last two" and tables his cards. But dummy responds (illegally, I think - in Law dummy has no right to question declarer's claim or concession, surely?) "wait a moment - it depends what is led..."

This put me in a quandary. I could see at once that declarer was left with Qx so my partner must have stiff K and the other winner, so I must lead low! But logically, it would be safer, statistically, for me to lead the A since that guarantees at least one of the last two tricks! So I had now gained some UI unwittingly thanks to declarer's clumsiness. I was afraid that if I took advantage of this, it might lead to a bit of a row, so I summoned the TD at this point.

The TD was perfectly fair about this. He looked at my cards and then asked "what would you have led Peter?". I had little hesitation in replying "the Ace". He said "very well: play your Ace" - so I did so and of course declarer got the last trick.

I did not want to cause trouble so I said nothing about dummy's conduct at this point - nor did anyone else. I'm reasonably content with the outcome (and so was my partner). At least my conscience is clear - at the cost of a trick.

Should it be?
1

#2 User is offline   PrecisionL 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 941
  • Joined: 2004-March-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Knoxville, TN, USA
  • Interests:Diamond LM (6700+ MP)
    God
    Family
    Counseling
    Bridge

Posted 2018-July-14, 09:19

Law 43 A. Dummy's Limitations

Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Edit: Apparently dummy can participate in the claim by agreeing or objecting.
Ultra Relay: see Daniel's web page: https://bridgewithda...19/07/Ultra.pdf
C3: Copious Canape Club is still my favorite system. (Ultra upgraded, PM for notes)

Santa Fe Precision published 8/19. TOP3 published 11/20. Magic experiment (Science Modernized) with Lenzo. 2020: Jan Eric Larsson's Cottontail . 2020. BFUN (Bridge For the UNbalanced) 2021: Weiss Simplified (Canape & Relay). 2022: Canary Modernized, 2023-4: KOK Canape.
0

#3 User is offline   Gerardo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 2,482
  • Joined: 2003-February-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Posted 2018-July-14, 09:20

Dummy intervention is not illegal, Law 68 (Claims or Concession of Tricks) D (Suspension of Play) states:

Quote

2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included);..........

but said intervention is irrelevant here.
You have no UI, you have AI (information came from opponents, not your partner), and dummy's comment does not cancel the concession.
You are also allowed to take your time, as you had a legitimate bridge problem.

So you can:

1. Accept the concession OR
2. Describe the line leading to two tricks to your side. OR
3. Continue playing, and lead the low .
All leading to two tricks to your side.

#4 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2018-July-14, 09:22

regarding dummy, Law 68D covers this

D. Suspension of Play
After any claim or concession, play is suspended.
1. If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies.
2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included); either
(a) the Director may immediately be summoned and no action should be taken pending his arrival, Law 70 applies; or
(b) upon the request of the non‐claiming or non‐conceding side, play may continue subject to the following:
(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above.
(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.

From what you say

Dummy has cast doubt on the concession (2) and 2(a) has been applied so the director is summoned - and will apply law 70A

A. General Objective
In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows.

...


and finally Law 71

LAW 71 ‐ CONCESSION CANCELLED
A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:
A. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
B. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

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

I would therefore expect the concession (of two tricks) to stand since playing a small spade by you is a 'normal play'.

Please note that you have no UI from declarer's statement and can do what you please.

(Note that if a defender concedes tricks and his partner objects then neither a concession nor claim has been made (68B1). This protection is not afforded to declarer).
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#5 User is offline   axman 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 866
  • Joined: 2009-July-29
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-July-14, 09:43

View Post661_Pete, on 2018-July-14, 08:23, said:

This has been nagging at me for several weeks now. What do others think?


The TD was perfectly fair about this. He looked at my cards and then asked "what would you have led Peter?". I had little hesitation in replying "the Ace". He said "very well: play your Ace" - so I did so and of course declarer got the last trick.



It is dubious to believe that the TD was fair, perfectly or otherwise. A concession was made and objected. To be fair the TD must satisfy L71 as well as the rest of TFLB- he did not.
0

#6 User is offline   The_Badger 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,125
  • Joined: 2013-January-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, Chess, Film, Literature, Herbal Medicine, Nutrition

Posted 2018-July-14, 10:01

+1 for your honesty, Peter. I'm sure other players would have taken advantage of the situation.
0

#7 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2018-July-14, 10:08

The fact that you had not yet led the Ace of Spades suggests to me that there was still some doubt in your mind as to what to do. That's enough for the director to give you the benefit of it.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
2

#8 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2018-July-14, 12:28

I am not at all sure that the intent of the law's provision in (dummy included) was to allow dummy to "doubt" his partner's claim or concession.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#9 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2018-July-14, 13:35

View Postblackshoe, on 2018-July-14, 12:28, said:

I am not at all sure that the intent of the law's provision in (dummy included) was to allow dummy to "doubt" his partner's claim or concession.

What is your basis for thinking this?
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#10 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,204
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2018-July-14, 14:20

View Postgordontd, on 2018-July-14, 10:08, said:

The fact that you had not yet led the Ace of Spades suggests to me that there was still some doubt in your mind as to what to do. That's enough for the director to give you the benefit of it.


Even if he had little hesitation in replying "the Ace" ?
0

#11 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2018-July-14, 15:30

View Postpescetom, on 2018-July-14, 14:20, said:

Even if he had little hesitation in replying "the Ace" ?


“not knowing how the cards lay, I had a dilemma as to which spade to lead”.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#12 User is offline   steve2005 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,148
  • Joined: 2010-April-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Canada
  • Interests:Bridge duh!

Posted 2018-July-14, 16:36

View Postblackshoe, on 2018-July-14, 12:28, said:

I am not at all sure that the intent of the law's provision in (dummy included) was to allow dummy to "doubt" his partner's claim or concession.

The law pretty much says dummy can object. It can't be much clearer.
Sarcasm is a state of mind
1

#13 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2018-July-14, 19:04

View Postgordontd, on 2018-July-14, 13:35, said:

What is your basis for thinking this?

Good question. It seems to me that in consonance with dummy not participating in the play, he shouldn't be able to participate here, either. OTOH, it is certainly true that a defender can object to his partner's claim or concession. Maybe I'm wrong.

View Poststeve2005, on 2018-July-14, 16:36, said:

The law pretty much says dummy can object. It can't be much clearer.

I know that. But is what they said what they intended to say? That I don't know, and cannot know unless they clarify it.

IAC, I think we have to rule on the basis of the law as written.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#14 User is offline   661_Pete 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 373
  • Joined: 2016-May-01

Posted 2018-July-15, 02:36

Thanks for all the replies. I should explain that all this happened at friendly local club level. If it had been a more high-powered event (fat chance, at my ability!), I might have stood my ground differently! :rolleyes:
0

#15 User is offline   661_Pete 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 373
  • Joined: 2016-May-01

Posted 2018-July-15, 02:43

Oh - and another thing. When playing on BBO, sitting as dummy (when of course I can see declarer's hand), I often notice that partner has an obvious claim, whilst they still obstinately continue to play out. But if I type "claim, partner?" on the chatline, I often get an earful! So I've taken to remaining silent. Perhaps being the 'silent dummy' is the best course, etiquette-wise... French-speaking players call Dummy "le mort" which makes some sense!
0

#16 User is offline   Gerardo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 2,482
  • Joined: 2003-February-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Posted 2018-July-15, 06:52

View Post661_Pete, on 2018-July-15, 02:43, said:

Oh - and another thing. When playing on BBO, sitting as dummy (when of course I can see declarer's hand), I often notice that partner has an obvious claim, whilst they still obstinately continue to play out. But if I type "claim, partner?" on the chatline, I often get an earful! So I've taken to remaining silent. Perhaps being the 'silent dummy' is the best course, etiquette-wise... French-speaking players call Dummy "le mort" which makes some sense!


The problem with that is, even if it is obvious to you, it may not be obvious to declarer (because there is no claim yet), and it may be construed as dummy giving information to declarer.


#17 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,204
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2018-July-15, 06:59

View PostGerardo, on 2018-July-15, 06:52, said:

The problem with that is, even if it is obvious to you, it may not be obvious to declarer (because there is no claim yet), and it may be construed as dummy giving information to declarer.


Also because when dummy on BBO (IIRC) you can see the defenders hands, not just declarer's.
0

#18 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2018-July-15, 07:21

View PostGerardo, on 2018-July-15, 06:52, said:

The problem with that is, even if it is obvious to you, it may not be obvious to declarer (because there is no claim yet), and it may be construed as dummy giving information to declarer.

Law 68A/B: Declarer facing his remaining cards is by definition a claim and/or a concession (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim) after which Law 68D immediately applies.
0

#19 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2018-July-15, 10:12

It seems to me that though dummy CAN object to declarer's claim or concession, he can't do anything to increase the number of tricks that declarer can claim - other than through law 71 (and the barrier is very high - ANY normal play of the cards).
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#20 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2018-July-15, 13:00

True. Dummy can "doubt" the concession, but he shouldn't say anything about why he doubts it until the director is called and comes to the table. At that point there can be no further play, and the director must rule on the outcome.

In general, I don't like the director looking in a player's hand before making a ruling, but since there can be no further play, I suppose it doesn't matter in this case. And before somebody objects, yes, the director told the defender "play your ace", but again, that doesn't really matter. He's in effect ruling that the defender would play his ace and declarer would get one trick.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users