[effervesce]

Stupid question here - why can't we let declarer claim the number of tricks he wanted - "take as many tricks as you want" - so if the defenders want 13, then declarer gets 0; if the defenders only want down 5, then give declarer down 5... What's wrong with taking declarer's claim literally?

[pran]

effervesce, on Mar 5 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

Stupid question here - why can't we let declarer claim the number of tricks he wanted - "take as many tricks as you want" - so if the defenders want 13, then declarer gets 0; if the defenders only want down 5, then give declarer down 5... What's wrong with taking declarer's claim literally?

Law 71: 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.


(If only we could get Bluejak to admit that there was a concession here.)

[bluejak]

In this case, the TDs were asked to reconsider their ruling.



Be serious, pran, of course there was a concession here. He did not claim the rest of the tricks, did he?



No-one asked for 13 tricks at the time. The opponents were a perfectly ethical pair.

[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 5 2010, 01:57 PM, said:

In this case, the TDs were asked to reconsider their ruling.



Be serious, pran, of course there was a concession here. He did not claim the rest of the tricks, did he?



No-one asked for 13 tricks at the time. The opponents were a perfectly ethical pair.

Good gracious - at last!

That is what most of us have been arguing all the time: The player conceeded all remaining thirteen tricks, both (physically) by abandoning his cards and (verbally) by "claiming" no tricks (or offering opponents all the tricks they wanted). The relevant law is 68B.

Then Law 71 kicks in as soon as the Director becomes aware of the situation. Literally this law instructs the Director to validate the concession (a request from somebody is not required), and the only remaining question is his judgement on how many tricks could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards

Simple ruling of law if you ask me.

[barmar]

I think anyone who takes declarer's word "want" literally is being silly. It was an emotional outburst, and people don't choose their precise words carefully under such circumstances. His intention, IMHO, was "take as many tricks as you can get", with a bit of "I don't really care" thrown in because of his disgust. He didn't want to bother playing out the hand, but since he didn't know the opponents' hands he couldn't claim or concede a specific number of tricks.

I'm not sure any of the cases in the Law precisely address this. The usual example of "abandoning the hand" is when declarer simply folds up his cards and puts them back in the board. But that's probably the closest description of what this declarer did, so I agree with the responses that say that the TD should figure out the most tricks the defenders could get under any normal line of play.

[bluejak]

pran, on Mar 5 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

Good gracious - at last!

That is what most of us have been arguing all the time: The player conceeded all remaining thirteen tricks, both (physically) by abandoning his cards and (verbally) by "claiming" no tricks (or offering opponents all the tricks they wanted). The relevant law is 68B.

He did not concede all the tricks - that is not what he said. But of course he conceded some tricks - he did not claim the rest, now did he?

[dburn]

It does not really matter how many tricks he claimed or conceded. If the Director is notified before the expiry of the correction period that the score for an illegal concession has been recorded (3♠ down nine), he will award declarer the fewest number of tricks achievable by "normal" play.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Feb 28 2010, 11:05 PM, said:

The auction could be best described as dreadful. Eventually, North cue-bid his void, bidding 3♠, and South passed.

After seeing the dummy, declarer [North] threw his hand on the table, saying have as many tricks as you want.

How would you rule?

What did East/West do or say in response to North's statement?

[bluejak]

I understand they just called the TD.

[blackshoe]

Under what law did the TD originally rule? Under what law did he consider the team captain's request?

[bluejak]

I do not believe they quoted Laws.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Mar 5 2010, 07:22 PM, said:

I do not believe they quoted Laws.

Figures.

I would have ruled under Law 68B that declarer has conceded all the tricks. If no objections were raised at the table (as seems to be the case) I would direct that the board be so scored.

When later the team captain asked for a reconsideration, I would treat that as an appeal under Law 92A, and apply Law 71.2 (still boggled that neither the ACBL nor the WBF version of the laws call this "Law 71B").

In the end I would give declarer four tricks.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2010, 01:34 AM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 5 2010, 07:22 PM, said:

I do not believe they quoted Laws.

Figures.

I would have ruled under Law 68B that declarer has conceded all the tricks. If no objections were raised at the table (as seems to be the case) I would direct that the board be so scored.

When later the team captain asked for a reconsideration, I would treat that as an appeal under Law 92A, and apply Law 71.2 (still boggled that neither the ACBL nor the WBF version of the laws call this "Law 71B").

In the end I would give declarer four tricks.

Exactly what I have stated all the time, ecept (to my surprise) I discovered that Law 71 instructs the Director to cancel a concession of such tricks that meet the specified criteria apparently without the need for any request (or asking) to this effect.

[blackshoe]

Maybe so, but if no one asks him to look at it, he's never going to know, is he?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2010, 03:15 AM, said:

Maybe so, but if no one asks him to look at it, he's never going to know, is he?

Hardly, agreed.

But what surprised me is that according to Law 71 it seems as if the Director shall try the concession even if he becomes aware of it simply by accident?

Anyway, how the Director became involved in the OP case is in my opinion completely irrelevant, the important fact is what actually happened.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Mar 6 2010, 12:19 AM, said:

I understand they just called the TD.

I think the correct procedure for the TD is then to ask East/West how many tricks they actually want. If they specify a number then that is the agreed number of tricks per Law 69A.

Yes, there may need to be an adjustment under Law 71 if the number of agreed tricks could not have been arrived at under "normal" play, but given declarer's state of mind, "normal" might well include playing misere. Hence:

Quote

then it becomes a double dummy problem to see how declarer can restrict himself through legal plays to the minimum number of tricks.

seems entirely reasonable.

[mjj29]

pran, on Mar 6 2010, 03:40 AM, said:

But what surprised me is that according to Law 71 it seems as if the Director shall try the concession even if he becomes aware of it simply by accident?

It's not that surprising, surely, given L81C3 (emphasis mine):

L81C3 said:

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner within the correction period ...

[pran]

mjj29, on Mar 6 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

pran, on Mar 6 2010, 03:40 AM, said:

But what surprised me is that according to Law 71 it seems as if the Director shall try the concession even if he becomes aware of it simply by accident?

It's not that surprising, surely, given L81C3 (emphasis mine):

L81C3 said:

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner within the correction period ...

Well, I cannot say that I consider a concession to be an error or irregularity?

[blackshoe]

pran, on Mar 6 2010, 06:57 AM, said:

Well, I cannot say that I consider a concession to be an error or irregularity?

Not in itself, but surely conceding tricks one cannot lose is an error.

[dburn]

jallerton, on Mar 6 2010, 04:45 AM, said:

Yes, there may need to be an adjustment under Law 71 if the number of agreed tricks could not have been arrived at under "normal" play, but given declarer's state of mind, "normal" might well include playing misere.  Hence:

Quote

then it becomes a double dummy problem to see how declarer can restrict himself through legal plays to the minimum number of tricks.

seems entirely reasonable.

This is actually quite a difficult "helpmate" problem - can North take no tricks with spades as trumps, assuming the best defence and the worst play?

But it is not "entirely reasonable" for anyone to be called upon to solve it as part of the administration of a game of bridge.

Suppose that with the ruling on this board outstanding, the (knock-out) match score is plus 1 IMP to North-South's team, and that East-West at the other table record plus 400 (unlikely, but they might have defended a higher-level spade cue bid and defeated it eight tricks on "normal" play - bridge is a funny game, although it is not intended to be).

Now: if North is ruled down eight or fewer in three spades, he wins the match; if he is ruled down nine, he loses it. Is jallerton's notion simply that because of North's outburst when he found himself declarer in 3♠, a Committee should be formed that might or might not solve the tricky problem of whether North could, if he made strenuous efforts, have gone down nine?