[jdgalt]

Just now, in tournament #2752, declarer on my left, playing 6NT, claimed the rest of the tricks. I rejected the claim because both he and dummy had four spades, as did I, so he must lose a spade to my J.

My partner, who presumably didn't see it, then conceded all the tricks to declarer -- and the site accepted that without asking me. Boom, I'm kicked into the next round, with no chance to summon the director. I called him anyway after the new hand, but he didn't understand me.

This needs to be fixed yesterday. Law 68B2 gives every player the absolute right to veto a concession by his partner.

[1eyedjack]

Here is your hand:

---

It was your partner who had the S:J, but not important as your 9, if required, would have been sufficient to beat dummy's 7.

However, you miscounted declarer's tricks. Having (perhaps understandably) failed to find a Club lead at trick 1, declarer has 13 tricks without the long Spade (8 Diamonds, 2 hearts and 3 Spades)

So in this case both claim and concession were good. Maybe the director could see this.

This poor example unfortunately perhaps detracts from the fundamental validity of your point.

Maybe a distinction should be drawn between a single-dummy concession and a double-dummy concession. Here your partner had sight of all cards at the point of conceding (by reason of declarer's earlier contested claim), and notwithstanding the published laws (of which there are numerous breaches in the online game), maybe under those circumstances he should be trusted to get it right.At the risk of cluttering the interface, maybe the tournament host or table host should have some control in the settings.

Although it is not what happened on this hand, there may be a case for permitting concessions without partner consultation on occasions where the conceder is the same person who earlier rejected a claim,, ie so that all he is doing is changing his mind about the earlier rejection of claim.


(This thread really belongs in the Software Suggestions subforum)