[dburn]

blackshoe, on Jun 27 2010, 07:39 PM, said:

You are arguing that the WBFLC is wrong.

No, I'm not. The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Bluejak and I had this discussion a very long time ago, and Max Bavin became involved; we concluded that "a claim is a concession" does not mean "a claim is one and the same thing as a concession" but "a claim is, inter alia, a concession".

[RMB1]

dburn, on Jun 28 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

[pran]

RMB1, on Jun 28 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

dburn, on Jun 28 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

Law 68 B Concession Defined:

1. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

Notice the words: "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred ..... Play continues.".

What the WBFLC minute clarified was that it does not matter whether the concession was explicit or the consequence of a partial claim. When objected to by the partner both the concession and the corresponding claim (if any) is nullified and play shall continue.

Isn't it obvious that if the claim part had been upheld then play would in any case have ended? This is obvious to me, and as I understood the minute it also was to WBFLC.

[bluejak]

RMB1, on Jun 28 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

dburn, on Jun 28 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

I do not understand where this has come from, but it seems against the Laws to me.

If there is a defensive concession then it is nullified by partner objecting. Implicit and explicit do not come into it since the Laws define a concession without any such split.



Of course TDs have to sort out legal difficulties: that is what they are for, at least in part, and any other approach seems pretty pointless because of its total impracticality.

But in the specific case of a claim, it seems senseless to leave the TD to sort out 90+% of contested claims, and let the players play on in a scenario complicated by UI in less than 10% of cases. Why not let the TD sort out 100% rather than 90+%?

[dburn]

RMB1, on Jun 28 2010, 04:15 AM, said:

dburn, on Jun 28 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

Imagine a position like this:

Scoring: MP

---

Hearts are trumps and the lead is in dummy. West says "you get three spades and then I get the ace of clubs." East objects, so play continues and East ruffs a spade lead from the table. The knowledge that West has ♣A is UI to East, and the Director may rule that unless there is no logical alternative to a club play, East next plays a diamond and the defence ends up with one trick.

In the actual case, however, East has not merely objected - East has claimed. Play ceases, and both claims must be dealt with according to the relevant Laws.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jun 29 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

Of course TDs have to sort out legal difficulties: that is what they are for, at least in part, and any other approach seems pretty pointless because of its total impracticality.

But in the specific case of a claim, it seems senseless to leave the TD to sort out 90+% of contested claims, and let the players play on in a scenario complicated by UI in less than 10% of cases.  Why not let the TD sort out 100% rather than 90+%?

Are you suggesting a change of Law 68B2?

[pran]

dburn, on Jun 29 2010, 07:19 AM, said:

RMB1, on Jun 28 2010, 04:15 AM, said:

dburn, on Jun 28 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit.

So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues?

But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases?

I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

Imagine a position like this:

Scoring: MP

---

Hearts are trumps and the lead is in dummy. West says "you get three spades and then I get the ace of clubs." East objects, so play continues and East ruffs a spade lead from the table. The knowledge that West has ♣A is UI to East, and the Director may rule that unless there is no logical alternative to a club play, East next plays a diamond and the defence ends up with one trick.

In the actual case, however, East has not merely objected - East has claimed. Play ceases, and both claims must be dealt with according to the relevant Laws.

East has stated a reason for his (immediate) objection to the concession.

If such a statement is to be taken as a separate claim with the consequence that play must cease then Law68B2 would be completely redundant and superfluous.

This is apparently not the WBFLC understanding.

However, I agree that East (in your example) after ruffing one of the spades may not lead his club if leading a diamond is a logical alternative.

This question can only be resolved with knowledge of what has happened earlier during the auction and play.

[RMB1]

dburn, on Jun 29 2010, 07:19 AM, said:

Hearts are trumps and the lead is in dummy. West says "you get three spades and then I get the ace of clubs." East objects, so play continues and East ruffs a spade lead from the table.  The knowledge that West has ♣A is UI to East, and the Director may rule that unless there is no logical alternative to a club play, East next plays a diamond and the defence ends up with one trick.

So I can understand your position, in your example:

If Wests says "I will make ♣A" (implicitly conceding three spades), and East objects, does play cease?

If West says "You will make three spades" (implicitly claiming ♣A), and East objects, does play cease?

[iviehoff]

I wonder if the following is what David Burn may have in mind.

An objection to a claim-that-implicitly-concedes-some-tricks, or indeed to a concession-that-implicitly-claims-some-tricks, is that the objection may or may not be an objection to the concession part of it. I would suggest the defender has to be objecting specifically to the concession part of his partner's claim-with-concession in order for it to be an objection to a concession.

In the present case, E was specifically objecting to the fact that his partner had conceded, albeit implicitly, the final trick, because E knew he could win that trick regardless of what declarer did. That wasn't all of his objection (he also objected to the suggestion that the SQ would win trick 12), but it was part of it, so I think we can say E objected to the concession.

In another situation, a defender may object to his partner's claim simply because it is wrong, and he desires not to have the claim adjudicated. For example, if your defensive partner wrongly claims 2 of the remaining 3 tricks and you have reason to believe it is only 1 trick if played out, but fear it might be none at all if the faulty claim is adjudicated, I suspect that your objection may not be an adequate objection to get play restarted, because it is not an objection to the concession part of it.

[campboy]

There is nothing in the law to require you to have any particular reason for objecting, so a player who is aware of the law could legally object to the concession, even though he knows it to be correct, simply in order to cancel the claim.

[dburn]

RMB1, on Jun 29 2010, 04:58 AM, said:

dburn, on Jun 29 2010, 07:19 AM, said:

Hearts are trumps and the lead is in dummy. West says "you get three spades and then I get the ace of clubs." East objects, so play continues and East ruffs a spade lead from the table.  The knowledge that West has ♣A is UI to East, and the Director may rule that unless there is no logical alternative to a club play, East next plays a diamond and the defence ends up with one trick.

So I can understand your position, in your example:

If Wests says "I will make ♣A" (implicitly conceding three spades), and East objects, does play cease?

If West says "You will make three spades" (implicitly claiming ♣A), and East objects, does play cease?

It depends on the form of East's objection.

If East merely says "play on", then West has not conceded (so he has not claimed) and play continues (both East and West may have UI at this point, so the Director must be called before play actually does continue).

If East says "I can ruff a spade", that is not a claim (because he has not stated that his side can win a specific number of tricks), so West has not conceded and play continues as above.

If East says "I can ruff a spade and then we get the ace of clubs", that is a claim of two tricks, so play ceases and both claims (West's and East's) need to be adjudicated. West's claim can be dealt with quickly, since it has been superseded by East's (if you like, play has continued per Law 68B2 after West's claim up to the point at which East claims, when play stops). East's claim must be judged according to whether the Director considers it illogical for East to play a diamond rather than a club after ruffing the spade.

In the actual case, East claimed three tricks, and the Director must determine whether it would be illogical, solely on the AI that East posseses before West's claim, to allow West's ♠Q to hold.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jun 29 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 29 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

Of course TDs have to sort out legal difficulties: that is what they are for, at least in part, and any other approach seems pretty pointless because of its total impracticality.

But in the specific case of a claim, it seems senseless to leave the TD to sort out 90+% of contested claims, and let the players play on in a scenario complicated by UI in less than 10% of cases.  Why not let the TD sort out 100% rather than 90+%?

Are you suggesting a change of Law 68B2?

Certainly. I think, with the demise of Law 25B, it is now the worst Law in the book.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jun 29 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 29 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 29 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

Of course TDs have to sort out legal difficulties: that is what they are for, at least in part, and any other approach seems pretty pointless because of its total impracticality.

But in the specific case of a claim, it seems senseless to leave the TD to sort out 90+% of contested claims, and let the players play on in a scenario complicated by UI in less than 10% of cases.  Why not let the TD sort out 100% rather than 90+%?

Are you suggesting a change of Law 68B2?

Certainly. I think, with the demise of Law 25B, it is now the worst Law in the book.

Well, to use your own words: In this thread we are discussing the laws, not what we think the laws should be.

And I find the laws on claims and concessions very consistent and fairly easy to apply as they now exist.

Of course, a director who starts discussing what came first: The hen or the egg, eh - sorry, the claim or the consession in order to know if he should apply Law 68B2 or 68D will easily find himself in trouble, trouble that IMHO is completely uncalled for.

A clam of some of, but not all the remaining tricks is simultaneously a consession of the remainder.

A consession of some of, but not all the remaining tricks is simultaneously a claim of the remainder.

A legal objection to partner's consession cancels not only the consession but also the accompanied claim.

[axman]

bluejak, on Jun 29 2010, 08:18 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 29 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 29 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

Of course TDs have to sort out legal difficulties: that is what they are for, at least in part, and any other approach seems pretty pointless because of its total impracticality.

But in the specific case of a claim, it seems senseless to leave the TD to sort out 90+% of contested claims, and let the players play on in a scenario complicated by UI in less than 10% of cases.  Why not let the TD sort out 100% rather than 90+%?

Are you suggesting a change of Law 68B2?

Certainly. I think, with the demise of Law 25B, it is now the worst Law in the book.

Actually, as horrid [and indeed it is horrid] as L68B2 it is nowhere near the worst, as L77 has always been the worst, followed closely by L1 which put together are the source of well more than 95% of the problems suffered by bridge players.