[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

There is no condition in Law 71 that it depends on a request to the Director from somebody (e.g. a player):
..... the Director shall cancel a concession:
1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.

The way I (somewhat surprised) understand this law the Director shall on his own initiative try under Law 71 any concession he becomes aware of and cancel the concession of such tricks that satisfies the condition in this law..

[bluejak]

pran, on Mar 4 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

pran, on Mar 3 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

WHAT ! ? ! ? ! ?

Yes, very funny, pran, and no doubt someone will not read it in full and will merely be misled by your colour scheme. But any competent TD knows the difference between "throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks" and what happened here where a claim was made in an inappropriate fashion - but it was made with an accompanying claim statement.

pran, on Mar 4 2010, 09:13 AM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

There is no condition in Law 71 that it depends on a request to the Director from somebody (e.g. a player):
..... the Director shall cancel a concession:
1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.

The way I (somewhat surprised) understand this law the Director shall on his own initiative try under Law 71 any concession he becomes aware of and cancel the concession of such tricks that satisfies the condition in this law..

There is no rule that says he should not do it when a player asks, despite your completely superfluous writing in bold, which is not part of the Law, merely an invention. A quick read of Law 71 will not find those words.

Competent TDs are never too full of themselves that they refuse to review a ruling when asked in a reasonable manner. Law 82C is often initiated by a request from a player, as is Law 71.

blackshoe, on Mar 4 2010, 02:00 AM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 3 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

No, they did not.  A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

A team-mate of whom? The declarer? Not that I think it matters to the ruling.

A team-mate of declarer, who considered the ruling wrong.

blackshoe, on Mar 4 2010, 02:00 AM, said:

Quote

pran, on Mar 3 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

That is exactly what happened here. Declarer threw his cards on the table, indicating he wanted no more tricks. Or didn't care if he got any. Either way, he abandoned his hand, we apply Law 71, and he gets only those tricks he could not lose by any normal play. He acted (and spoke) in a fit of childish pique, and while I agree that there doesn't appear to be sufficient reason in this case to give him a DP, I don't see any reason to give him any more tricks than the law entitles him to either.

He did not indicate he wanted no more tricks. Yes, of course he should get no more tricks than the Law suggests, but that does not mean he should get no tricks. His opponents get the benefit of any doubt, no question. He did claim with a claim statement, even though his method and manner and statement were none of them what they should have been.

[blackshoe]

This was not a claim, it was a concession.

Quote

A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

The fact that he made a statement (general term, not "claim statement") doesn't change that.

[bluejak]

Well, putting your hand on the table in any way and making a statement about the number of tricks sounds considerably more like a claim than abandoning the hand to me.

[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

Well, putting your hand on the table in any way and making a statement about the number of tricks sounds considerably more like a claim than abandoning the hand to me.

To be technical: He claimed no tricks and therefore conceeded the rest. Do you need a law reference for this?

And unless the player clearly indicates that he wants to continue the play (with open cards?) he is abandoning the hand by throwing all his cards on the table and saying words to the effect that he claims no more tricks.

[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

pran, on Mar 4 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

pran, on Mar 3 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

WHAT ! ? ! ? ! ?

Yes, very funny, pran, and no doubt someone will not read it in full and will merely be misled by your colour scheme. But any competent TD knows the difference between "throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks" and what happened here where a claim was made in an inappropriate fashion - but it was made with an accompanying claim statement.

To be honest, I was quite confident that you knew the difference if there is any, but you make me doubt. He physically abandoned his hand and verbally "claimed" precisely zero tricks.

This discussion is just silly so I quit.
(As far as I can remember this is the first time ever that I use the word "silly" in a discussion, but here I find it justified)

[RMB1]

Does it matter how many tricks he claimed/conceded?

It is entirely reasonable to regard the request for the TD to reconsider the ruling as a cancellation of the concession by the declaring side. Under Law 71, declarer is entitled to all the tricks that could not be lost by any normal play. As far as I can see that is all that declarer's team were asking for.

[jdonn]

RMB1, on Mar 4 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

It is entirely reasonable to regard the request for the TD to reconsider the ruling as a cancellatgion of the concession by the declaring side.

By declarer's teammate, after the round, and after the director has already ruled? I don't think so...

I can't believe where this discussion has gone. Of course declarer conceded! Declarer THREW his hand on the table, saying have as many tricks as you WANT. He did not show his cards and ask how many tricks do I have to lose, or anything like that. Declarer saying (implying) that he doesn't care how many tricks he takes is exactly equivalent to saying he doesn't want any tricks, because he doesn't care if he gets them.

[blackshoe]

Law 68A said:

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

Nope. Didn't happen.

Quote

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).

I suppose he suggested that play be curtailed (but see below) but I think his actions and words suggest that he didn't intend to claim, he intended to concede.
However...

Law68B said:

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks;

This one didn't happen either.

Quote

a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any.

Nor did this.

Quote

A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

That's what's left, and it seems to me that's what he's done, so I guess we'll have to disagree.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 4 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

RMB1, on Mar 4 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

It is entirely reasonable to regard the request for the TD to reconsider the ruling as a cancellation of the concession by the declaring side.

By declarer's teammate, after the round, and after the director has already ruled? I don't think so...

Careful, Josh...

First, the teammate was acting as team captain. Second,

Law 71 said:

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established under Law 79C the director shall cancel a concession:
1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. 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.

doesn't say anything about who is entitled to ask the TD to reconsider his ruling in this kind of case. And that's even before we get to

Law 92A said:

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the director.

Either way, it looks to me like such a request is perfectly legal.

[jdonn]

Yes legal. But you said reasonable. I was arguing a subjective point only.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say reasonable, Robin did. As it happens, I agree with him.

[jdonn]

Actually in hindsight I agree it's fine to ask for a review of the ruling on the basis he is acting as captain. Although I'm not so sure requesting a review of the ruling should be considered the same as cancelling the concession.

In any case regardless of that there is really no doubt declarer conceded at the table.

[bluejak]

pran, on Mar 4 2010, 06:23 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

Well, putting your hand on the table in any way and making a statement about the number of tricks sounds considerably more like a claim than abandoning the hand to me.

To be technical: He claimed no tricks and therefore conceeded the rest. Do you need a law reference for this?

And unless the player clearly indicates that he wants to continue the play (with open cards?) he is abandoning the hand by throwing all his cards on the table and saying words to the effect that he claims no more tricks.

He didn't claim no tricks as you know perfectly well. I agree, if he had done something different from what he did do then thew ruling would been different. Seems a completely pointless discussion to me.



Let me ask the rest of you a question. Your opponent says have as many tricks as you want. Excluding madness, the most you can take is nine tricks. How many do you want?

[dburn]

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

Let me ask the rest of you a question.  Your opponent says have as many tricks as you want.  Excluding madness, the most you can take is nine tricks.  How many do you want?

Nine, I imagine. But I am somewhat mystified as to what the point of all this may be.

If the notion is that instead of scoring the board as 3♠ down nine, the Director should on his own initiative make some determination as to the actual result to be recorded, I have no difficulty with that. Though if you were to ask me to sit on an AC in order to determine, in the face of a challenge by some member of the offending side, what the result of the worst "normal" play by declarer might be, I hope you would understand if instead I went to the pub - I play enough hands misere on my own, without being required to do it by proxy.

If you are asking what a Director should do in future cases of this kind, he should follow Laws 70 and 71 as closely as he is able. It is true that declarer has abandoned his hand; it is also true that his "claim statement" is sufficiently meaningless as not to constitute a claim statement at all, so that he has per L68B1 conceded all the tricks; but it is equally true that L71 means that he should in fact be credited with some of them.

If you are asking what procedural or disciplinary or other penalties should be applied in this or similar cases, that is a matter for the Director at the time.

If instead you merely wish to engender research on the maximum size of a storm that may be generated in a teacup, that is beyond my competence - I am no meteorologist.

[bluejak]

The point of putting rulings into this forum is to see what people do, and provide [hopefully] useful advice should something similar come up. If everyone had been of one mind, I doubt we would have had 54 replies.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 4 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

Actually in hindsight I agree it's fine to ask for a review of the ruling on the basis he is acting as captain. Although I'm not so sure requesting a review of the ruling should be considered the same as cancelling the concession.

In any case regardless of that there is really no doubt declarer conceded at the table.

If a player concedes all the tricks, and his captain asks for a review of his ruling, then what else is the TD going to do than consider canceling the concession under Law 71?

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 4 2010, 09:52 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 4 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

Actually in hindsight I agree it's fine to ask for a review of the ruling on the basis he is acting as captain. Although I'm not so sure requesting a review of the ruling should be considered the same as cancelling the concession.

In any case regardless of that there is really no doubt declarer conceded at the table.

If a player concedes all the tricks, and his captain asks for a review of his ruling, then what else is the TD going to do than consider canceling the concession under Law 71?

You are either changing words or misinterpreting. The original claim wasn't about what the tournament director should consider doing, it was that calling for the director is akin to cancelling the concession.

[blackshoe]

A contestant has a right to appeal any ruling by the TD, but he needs to have a good reason. In the case where a player has conceded all the tricks the only reason I can see is that the appellant or person calling the TD thinks that the ruling gave more tricks to the other side than they were entitled to get. What difference does it make if you call it "calling the director" or "canceling the concession"? I can't see any.

[jdonn]

Then I wonder why you answered to begin with