[mink]

LAW 68B2 reads:

Quote

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.

After his partner has objected, the player trying to concede knows that partner intends to win trick(s) that conceder did not expect him to win. The text of the Law does not explicitly refer to this information, but only labels information arising from the conceder's exposed cards as UI.

Law 16A1c states that information arising from legal procedures may be used. Objecting a concession is a legal procedure. So I would think that it is not UI to know that partner expects to win some trick(s).

Furthermore, even if I would believe the knowledge was UI, I wonder what a player is expected to do in possession of such UI. Shall he play a suit where it is most unlikely for his partner to win a trick, even if partner has signalled for some other suit?

The question arose from the following example:

---

4 Tricks played (Click "Next"). Now West displays all his remaining ♥ cards without saying anything. East objects.

When play continues, we can expect West to win his 4 ♥ tricks first. Discarding on this, East can easily signal for ♠. Should West really be required to shift to ♣ when he runs out of ♥, actively ignoring partners signal?

This was discussed in the German bridge mailing list "Doubl". Some of the contributors really believed that the information about East's objection is UI for West, and one of them cited Ton Kooijman ("Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge"):

Quote

A claim and/or concession is an initiative to curtail play. It is the task of the opponents to agree or not with such claim/concession. Play ceases with one exception: if a defender concedes one or more tricks (therewith claiming the others, if there are) and his partner immediately objects, the TD will decide that play continues. And he will warn the conceding player that he may not use the information that his partner expects him to win more tricks than he had thought. Any logical alternative play by the conceding player that leads to fewer tricks will lead to an adjusted score.

In my view, this comment in contradiction to the Law. What do you think?

Karl

[pran]

mink, on 2016-March-14, 17:57, said:

LAW 68B2 reads:

After his partner has objected, the player trying to concede knows that partner intends to win trick(s) that conceder did not expect him to win. The text of the Law does not explicitly refer to this information, but only labels information arising from the conceder's exposed cards as UI.

This was discussed in the German bridge mailing list "Doubl". Some of the contributors really believed that the information about East's objection is UI for West, and one of them cited Ton Kooijman ("Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge"):

Quote

A claim and/or concession is an initiative to curtail play. It is the task of the opponents to agree or not with such claim/concession. Play ceases with one exception: if a defender concedes one or more tricks (therewith claiming the others, if there are) and his partner immediately objects, the TD will decide that play continues. And he will warn the conceding player that he may not use the information that his partner expects him to win more tricks than he had thought. Any logical alternative play by the conceding player that leads to fewer tricks will lead to an adjusted score.

In my view, this comment in contradiction to the Law. What do you think?

Karl

Law 49 (exposure of a defender's cards) reads:
Except in the normal course of play or application of law [...] but [...] see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.

This implies that while no card becomes penalty card from an objection to a partner's concession, any information that might be drawn from such objection is still UI to the partner.

I think Ton is safely clarifying and not contradicting the law.

If East in a normal continued play is able to legally signal West for a spade switch (or whatever) then that signal should override the UI from the objection.

[barmar]

I don't see how the objection suggests whether partner's winner is a spade or a club. So how does the UI demonstrably suggest one over the other? If the UI doesn't suggest anything specific, West should be able to follow his partner's signals.

[mink]

pran, on 2016-March-15, 01:25, said:

Law 49 (exposure of a defender's cards) reads:
Except in the normal course of play or application of law [...] but [...] see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.

This implies that while no card becomes penalty card from an objection to a partner's concession, any information that might be drawn from such objection is still UI to the partner.

I think Ton is safely clarifying and not contradicting the law.

By omitting the [...] parts of the text of this law you created a sentence that makes no sense any more. Law 49 mentions the fact that there are some exceptions where an exposed card of a defender does not become a penalty card and refers to the Laws where this is defined in detail. In no way Law 49 contains any statement about the nature of the objection, neither explicitly nor implicitly.

Karl

[mink]

barmar, on 2016-March-15, 01:59, said:

I don't see how the objection suggests whether partner's winner is a spade or a club. So how does the UI demonstrably suggest one over the other? If the UI doesn't suggest anything specific, West should be able to follow his partner's signals.

The UI - if this is really an UI - suggests to be alert and try to read partner's signals. If West had not claimed his ♥ and conceded the rest, he would have played under the impression that the card he will play after his ♥ cards is unimportant, and that partner would not signal anything meaningful as the partnership will not get another trick anyway.

Karl

[axman]

mink, on 2016-March-14, 17:57, said:

LAW 68B2 reads:


After his partner has objected, the player trying to concede knows that partner intends to win trick(s) that conceder did not expect him to win. The text of the Law does not explicitly refer to this information, but only labels information arising from the conceder's exposed cards as UI.

Law 16A1c states that information arising from legal procedures may be used. Objecting a concession is a legal procedure. So I would think that it is not UI to know that partner expects to win some trick(s).

Furthermore, even if I would believe the knowledge was UI, I wonder what a player is expected to do in possession of such UI. Shall he play a suit where it is most unlikely for his partner to win a trick, even if partner has signalled for some other suit?

The question arose from the following example:

---

4 Tricks played (Click "Next"). Now West displays all his remaining ♥ cards without saying anything. East objects.

When play continues, we can expect West to win his 4 ♥ tricks first. Discarding on this, East can easily signal for ♠. Should West really be required to shift to ♣ when he runs out of ♥, actively ignoring partners signal?

This was discussed in the German bridge mailing list "Doubl". Some of the contributors really believed that the information about East's objection is UI for West, and one of them cited Ton Kooijman ("Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge"):


In my view, this comment in contradiction to the Law. What do you think?

Karl

Play continues only if there was no concession- as in the player merely ATTEMPTED to concede but had not yet conceded ('because' pard objected in time):

68D. Play Ceases
After any claim or concession, play ceases ......



The player abandoned his hand by exposing his cards- that is a concession.

[blackshoe]

mink, on 2016-March-15, 04:46, said:

The UI - if this is really an UI - suggests to be alert and try to read partner's signals. If West had not claimed his ♥ and conceded the rest, he would have played under the impression that the card he will play after his ♥ cards is unimportant, and that partner would not signal anything meaningful as the partnership will not get another trick anyway.

That's a hell of a stretch.

[barmar]

mink, on 2016-March-15, 04:46, said:

The UI - if this is really an UI - suggests to be alert and try to read partner's signals.

You should always be alert and try to read partner's signals. So the objection suggests that partner should play normally.