[barmar]

The problem with the way Law 69A is worded is that it says that acquiescence occurs when a player assents to an opponent's claim or concession. This apparently is what allows for the possibility that both clauses in 68D could apply -- acquiescence has occurred, but someone else (the other defender or dummy) could dispute it.

This is apparently the situation that occurred in this case. The opponent's acquiesced, while dummy disputed, and now it's not clear which clause in 68D applies. One says to go to 69A, which says that the board is scored as claimed; the other says to call the TD.

I think that the spirit of the Laws clearly suggests that in a confusing state like this, calling the TD is appropriate.

I would suggest that the lawgivers reword the law to indicate that acquiescence occurs when ALL the players assent to the claim.

[mink]

Let's assume the director is there, no matter who called him. What he is told is that the declarer party wishes to undo the concession of 1 trick. Director applies law 71C and judges that the tick cannot be lost by normal play and therefore cancels the concession. The fact that the concession is canceled now implies that it would have been an irregularity if it was not canceled. So it was ok for the dummy to draw attention to this irregularity after the play had been ended by the claim/concession. And if the director judges that there was a normal play that causes a trick to be lost, I hope nobody will blame the dummy for his different opinion.

Looking at the story this way, we do not need to interpret details of law 68. Frankly I am a bit puzzled by the idea of law 68D that any player may dispute a claim or a concession. What I would have expected was that the opponents of the claimer maybe like to dispute a claim, while the conceder's partner or even the conceder himself might find a reason to regret a concession. But in the latter case, I would not call this dispute, because a dispute implies different parties, but partners should not be different parties, or should they? Considering this, I tend to believe that when the dummy is mentioned in law 68D, the idea was that a defender had claimed and the dummy now is allowed to dispute that claim. Being declarer I would be rather annoyed if the dummy said, "partner you claimed one trick too many, because opps maybe find a cute way to endplay you". Further evidence to believe that the lawmakers did not intend to enable the dummy to "dispute" a declarers concession is that in case a defender concedes a trick his partner is explicitly allowed to disagree, thereby canceling the concession (law 68B). And, while law 70 deals with a contested claim, law 71 starts with "A concession must stand, once made, except ...". The words "dispute" or "contested" are not mentioned in this law.

Karl

[Tola18]

david_c, on Sep 10 2007, 05:54 AM, said:

(I would actually be more worried about the possibility of him playing off all his trumps before starting on clubs...

Yes. Which is exactly what happened this my near-expert partner I did told about.
His bidding not top shot not, but cardplay usually very good. As I said - often among prize money, enough to be be one of the few people getting money from bridge (the others are the board-changers as everyone knows. )

After making a couple of inspired guesses in a hard-bidden contract, he was now home, and but stopped thinking.... (And we werent even disturbed by anything).

If he didnt, he would be once again among the top-prize money. Now we get only some bronze-points but no money.... The difference between shared top and shared bottom in a big field.

Thus. Even very good players can make beginners mistakes in a easy endplay if the unluck is there.

[bid_em_up]

Mink,

I have given one example why dummy should be allowed to dispute a claim using this same hand earlier in this thread.

Add the heart K to dummy. Have declarer "misclaim" 12 tricks when no possible rational line of play can prevent declarer from making all 13 tricks. The opponents are quite likely to accept this claim, either from self-interest or simply not seeing that declarer actually has all 13.

Should dummy be required to sit idly by and take a bad result because of a simple misclaim?

Another example would be in f2f play where a card happens to be turned wrong. Assume declarer had turned a trick the wrong way thinking he lost a trick in the play (maybe one that he should rightfully lose, but didn't, but turned it as if he did). He then subsequently never lost that trick. If he claims according to the # of tricks he thinks he has won (or lost), does dummy have to sit by and accept the fact partner turned a card wrong and so has misclaimed? And again, the opponents are likely to accept the claim, even though it is incorrect.

No. Dummy is allowed to dispute it.

[barmar]

bid_em_up, on Sep 11 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

Should dummy be required to sit idly by and take a bad result because of a simple misclaim?

Dummy has to live with declarer's simple misplays, why shouldn't he have to live with declarer's misclaims?

Quote

Another example would be in f2f play where a card happens to be turned wrong.  Assume declarer had turned a trick the wrong way thinking he lost a trick in the play (maybe one that he should rightfully lose, but didn't, but turned it as if he did).  He then subsequently never lost that trick.  If he claims according to the # of tricks he thinks he has won (or lost), does dummy have to sit by and accept the fact partner turned a card wrong and so has misclaimed?  And again, the opponents are likely to accept the claim, even though it is incorrect.

No.  Dummy is allowed to dispute it.

I believe a claim or concession only refers to the remaining tricks -- it's not possible to concede a trick you already won. If declarer has a trick turned wrong, this is an irregularity that dummy is allowed to draw attention to after the play is completed. And if declarer describes his claim in terms of the total number of tricks taken or lost, this is a simple factual error that I think dummy may also correct; it's no different than if declarer had played it out and announced the result as "down 1" when he actually made.

On the other hand, if turning the trick wrong caused declarer to choose a different line of play, and he ends up really going down as a result, you're stuck with that result. But the number of undertricks should be based on the tricks he really lost, not how declarer had his cards turned.

[Cascade]

Free, on Sep 11 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

Easiest 12 tricks to declarer ever! Declarer made his line of play VERY clear: cash all the trumps and all the ♣s, lose a ♥ in the end. It's a correct claim, it's accepted, and nothing that is said now will change the number of tricks he made.

Where did declarer say he would cash all of his trumps.

The play had three rounds of trumps and then there was a statement about the clubs and a claim of 12 tricks and therefore a Law 68B concession of one trick.

Dummy objected immediately and so the director needs to apply the test in Law 71C

"if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."

Normal here includes careless and inferior.

If you are saying 12 tricks then you have to be saying that it would be normal to play off all of the trumps or normal to not discard the heart.

And if you are saying 13 tricks then you have to be saying that it would irrational to play off all of the trumps or irrational to not discard the heart.

To a large extent it is irrelevant what declarer thought before the claim we need to judge the irrationality of declarer seeing that pitching a heart will enable 13 tricks on the run of the clubs - unless of course you think it was not irrational to exhaust the trumps before running the clubs.

For me on this hand I am inclined to think there is no normal line that will lead to 12 tricks. That is it is more than careless or inferior to exhaust the trumps or not pitch a heart on one of the clubs.

For me careless and inferior are things like not playing a standard safety play (careless) - say AK10xx Q9xx - and playing for the drop missing the queen in an eight card fit (inferior) - AKJx xxxx. They are not keeping a sure loser that could easily be discarded.

[mink]

bid_em_up,

in both of your examples, even if I was a defender, and aware of the misconcession, I would tell the declarer about it and accept the cancellation of the concession by the director, because it would be irregular to let this concession become effective. And because it would be irregular, the dummy is also allowed to draw attention to it after the playing ends. Maybe reread the first paragraph of my previous posting.

Karl

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Sep 11 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

I believe a claim or concession only refers to the remaining tricks -- it's not possible to concede a trick you already won.

Then why does Law 71A contain the words "...if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won..."?

[bid_em_up]

mink, on Sep 11 2007, 05:35 PM, said:

bid_em_up,

in both of your examples, even if I was a defender, and aware of the misconcession, I would tell the declarer about it and accept the cancellation of the concession by the director, because it would be irregular to let this concession become effective. And because it would be irregular, the dummy is also allowed to draw attention to it after the playing ends. Maybe reread the first paragraph of my previous posting.

Karl

It's the 2nd paragraph thats confusing.

The first paragraph, appears to say its ok for dummy to have called the director.

The second one, says dummy wasnt allowed to.

Or at least thats the way I interpreted it. I could be mistaken.

[Free]

Cascade, on Sep 11 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 11 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

Easiest 12 tricks to declarer ever!  Declarer made his line of play VERY clear: cash all the trumps and all the ♣s, lose a ♥ in the end.  It's a correct claim, it's accepted, and nothing that is said now will change the number of tricks he made.

Where did declarer say he would cash all of his trumps.

The play had three rounds of trumps and then there was a statement about the clubs and a claim of 12 tricks and therefore a Law 68B concession of one trick.

Dummy objected immediately and so the director needs to apply the test in Law 71C

"if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."

Normal here includes careless and inferior.

If you are saying 12 tricks then you have to be saying that it would be normal to play off all of the trumps or normal to not discard the heart.

And if you are saying 13 tricks then you have to be saying that it would irrational to play off all of the trumps or irrational to not discard the heart.

To a large extent it is irrelevant what declarer thought before the claim we need to judge the irrationality of declarer seeing that pitching a heart will enable 13 tricks on the run of the clubs - unless of course you think it was not irrational to exhaust the trumps before running the clubs.

For me on this hand I am inclined to think there is no normal line that will lead to 12 tricks. That is it is more than careless or inferior to exhaust the trumps or not pitch a heart on one of the clubs.

For me careless and inferior are things like not playing a standard safety play (careless) - say AK10xx Q9xx - and playing for the drop missing the queen in an eight card fit (inferior) - AKJx xxxx. They are not keeping a sure loser that could easily be discarded.

He didn't state his line of play explicitly, but it is clear that declarer didn't know he could discard his ♥s! So his line of play is clearly to either play his trumps, or not to discard hearts.

Dummy's objection is irrelevant, until the claim is accepted, he can't point out any irregularity like this! Opps only said clubs break, so in fact you should give a procedural penalty to dummy (starting with a warning ofcourse). (Not sure about the following, but I think you can make a case that they lose all rights to a correction)

Once the claim has been accepted, declarer made it clear he would choose a line of play that gave him 12 tricks, not 13. Claiming 12 tricks on this hand proves he didn't see he can discard his hearts. Him being careless, lazy, whatever you call it is irrelevant imo. I must admit, he may realize while playing his ♣s that he can discard a ♥. But I'm not sure if this is decisive...

[jtfanclub]

Quote

He didn't state his line of play explicitly, but it is clear that declarer didn't know he could discard his ♥s!  So his line of play is clearly to either play his trumps, or not to discard hearts.

He cannot play trumps. Can't play for any trumps to be outstanding, special rules on that.

Quote

Dummy's objection is irrelevant, until the claim is accepted,

C'mon, seriously, read the rules. Don't make stuff up and claim that they're the rules.

Find anything, anywhere, no matter how you stretch, where the rules support this interpretation. 5 pages of quoting the rules in this thread, and you start making stuff up.


Here's the link:
http://web2.acbl.org/laws/play.htm

Here's a good starting point:
68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases.

What dummy can and cannot do DURING PLAY is irrelevant. You aren't going to find a single thing saying that dummy cannot act until after acquiescence. Especially since acquiescence doesn't actually happen until the next board.

[skjaeran]

jtfanclub, on Sep 12 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

Quote

He didn't state his line of play explicitly, but it is clear that declarer didn't know he could discard his ♥s!  So his line of play is clearly to either play his trumps, or not to discard hearts.

He cannot play trumps. Can't play for any trumps to be outstanding, special rules on that.

He can't play a single card - it's the TD's job to judge the outcome after a disputed claim. Btw, there's nothing in the laws saying that the TD can't rule that declarer must play trumps when it's clear that there's no outstanding trumps. (I know some SO's have made stupid rules concerning this......)

[Echognome]

I think this is an interesting ruling. To me, the fact that declarer has claimed 12 winners means that he did not see at the time of the claim that he could ruff a heart for his 13th means I wouldn't subsequently rule that he makes 13. Sure he might have realized it later in the play, but that is time inconsistency in a ruling. Let me give a different example. Suppose you have an expert player who has 12 top tricks in NT. He claims 12, but if he had actually played out the hand we would have noticed that a squeeze developed for the 13th trick. Suppose further that the squeeze was based on a full count and that any player of his caliber would have realized it. Would you rule 13 tricks then? I don't think you can, because at the time of the claim, declarer did not see that possibility. Here declarer saw 12 tricks. In my view, it would be careless, but not irrational, for him to play his trumps off first when he saw that clubs split. Why? Because if he has all winners, so the order in which he plays them is irrelevant. At least that's how I would rule.

[Cascade]

Free, on Sep 13 2007, 04:08 AM, said:

Cascade, on Sep 11 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 11 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

Easiest 12 tricks to declarer ever!  Declarer made his line of play VERY clear: cash all the trumps and all the ♣s, lose a ♥ in the end.  It's a correct claim, it's accepted, and nothing that is said now will change the number of tricks he made.

Where did declarer say he would cash all of his trumps.

The play had three rounds of trumps and then there was a statement about the clubs and a claim of 12 tricks and therefore a Law 68B concession of one trick.

Dummy objected immediately and so the director needs to apply the test in Law 71C

"if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."

Normal here includes careless and inferior.

If you are saying 12 tricks then you have to be saying that it would be normal to play off all of the trumps or normal to not discard the heart.

And if you are saying 13 tricks then you have to be saying that it would irrational to play off all of the trumps or irrational to not discard the heart.

To a large extent it is irrelevant what declarer thought before the claim we need to judge the irrationality of declarer seeing that pitching a heart will enable 13 tricks on the run of the clubs - unless of course you think it was not irrational to exhaust the trumps before running the clubs.

For me on this hand I am inclined to think there is no normal line that will lead to 12 tricks. That is it is more than careless or inferior to exhaust the trumps or not pitch a heart on one of the clubs.

For me careless and inferior are things like not playing a standard safety play (careless) - say AK10xx Q9xx - and playing for the drop missing the queen in an eight card fit (inferior) - AKJx xxxx. They are not keeping a sure loser that could easily be discarded.

He didn't state his line of play explicitly, but it is clear that declarer didn't know he could discard his ♥s! So his line of play is clearly to either play his trumps, or not to discard hearts.

Dummy's objection is irrelevant, until the claim is accepted, he can't point out any irregularity like this! Opps only said clubs break, so in fact you should give a procedural penalty to dummy (starting with a warning ofcourse). (Not sure about the following, but I think you can make a case that they lose all rights to a correction)

Once the claim has been accepted, declarer made it clear he would choose a line of play that gave him 12 tricks, not 13. Claiming 12 tricks on this hand proves he didn't see he can discard his hearts. Him being careless, lazy, whatever you call it is irrelevant imo. I must admit, he may realize while playing his ♣s that he can discard a ♥. But I'm not sure if this is decisive...

Absolutely he didn't see it.

However this is exactly what L71C deals with. Tricks that weren't claimed but that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

What the TD has to judge is whether it would be just careless or irrational to keep his hearts on the run of the clubs.

[Cascade]

Echognome, on Sep 13 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

I think this is an interesting ruling. To me, the fact that declarer has claimed 12 winners means that he did not see at the time of the claim that he could ruff a heart for his 13th means I wouldn't subsequently rule that he makes 13. Sure he might have realized it later in the play, but that is time inconsistency in a ruling. Let me give a different example. Suppose you have an expert player who has 12 top tricks in NT. He claims 12, but if he had actually played out the hand we would have noticed that a squeeze developed for the 13th trick. Suppose further that the squeeze was based on a full count and that any player of his caliber would have realized it. Would you rule 13 tricks then? I don't think you can, because at the time of the claim, declarer did not see that possibility. Here declarer saw 12 tricks. In my view, it would be careless, but not irrational, for him to play his trumps off first when he saw that clubs split. Why? Because if he has all winners, so the order in which he plays them is irrelevant. At least that's how I would rule.

I think there is a difference in your two examples. The squeeze probably depends on the order in which the cards were played. I could easily imagine that declarer could carelessly play the cards in the wrong order so as to stop the squeeze from operating. If this was not possible then I would be inclined to give the trick that eventuated from the squeeze.

In this case (this thread) on the run of the clubs IMO it would be more than careless to keep your sure heart losers while pitching some other irrelevant cards.

I also think that trump winners and side-suit winners are not equal.

[Codo]

I really do not understand why this statement:

"What the TD has to judge is whether it would be just careless or irrational to keep his hearts on the run of the clubs. "

does not finish the case. It is clear that dummy can dispute the claim. He did in time. So we have a disputed claim and TD has to judge how many tricks.
This is so easy that I do not understand why somebody can ruleifferent.

I can absolutely agree that a TD may give the player just 12 tricks (which I wouldn´t), after all it is his personal descission and the borderline between irrational and careless depends on personal judgement.

[Free]

Ok, I asked this to an international TD. He would give 13 tricks, so I guess he's right

[kfay]

To me this is clearly 13 tricks. It's totally unbelievable that wouldn't realize that he could pitch a heart in dummy and ruff by the 3rd pitch. Claiming 12 tricks is completely irrational so the ruling should be 13 tricks. That's my understanding of this.

[Cascade]

Free, on Sep 13 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

Ok, I asked this to an international TD. He would give 13 tricks, so I guess he's right

Such faith ...

[drinbrasil]

Cascade, on Sep 13 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 13 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

Ok, I asked this to an international TD.  He would give 13 tricks, so I guess he's right 

Such faith ...

some guys like autority arguments...from claim rules looks 12 tricks is clear.