[kgr]

---

You play 3NT and already lost 5 tricks when West returns a ♠. East now thinks that you can make the trick in dummy and concedes it all by throwing his cards on the tables. West knows that you only have ♠K and disagrees.
How do you rule?

[nickf]

I rule East is a goose, among other things.

Wouldnt his partner play the SK if he had it to smother dummy's Q?

nickf
sydney

[pigpenz]

i would assume that since the concession isnt valid it cant be accepted....but I have seen even good players accept invalid concessions when in the running for high overalls in regioanal rated events....their take....you conceded.

[Posleda]

Law 71C should be applied: ...the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal* play...

*..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational.
(end of Law, shortened)

One or two tricks may be assigned to EW depending on TD's judgement about class and carelessness of that individual player. Making all tricks is imho irrational.

[david_c]

Posleda, on Oct 23 2005, 02:17 PM, said:

Law 71C should be applied: ...the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal* play...

It shouldn't even get that far: Law 68B says (in part), "If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred." However, if this is an online game then the software may have other ideas about this.

[candybar]

If "throws his cards on the table" means it was live bridge, then his partner can immediately object to the concession.

Law 68B. Concession Defined
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. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred.....

Director adjudicates the result in accordance with Law 70.

In online bridge, partner is not given the chance to object, so here, I would listen to partner's objection and adjust the score appropriately.

[kgr]

Additional info: face to face game; East did show his cards.
- Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) if East did show his cards?
- When does law 71A (...a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play) apply and when 71C (.. not have lost by any normal play )?
According to Law 71A East could have discarded ♥K on the ♠ trick, played ♥J under ♥Q ... and does not make any more tricks in accordance to his concession.
Law 71C: Is it 'normal' to discard ♥K on the ♠ trick if you are convinced that South still has a small ♠ so that North will make all tricks with ♣'s?

[Posleda]

candybar, on Oct 23 2005, 10:40 PM, said:

Director adjudicates the result in accordance with Law 70.

IMHO Law 70 has no sense when 0 tricks claimed.

[Posleda]

kqr said:

- Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) if East did show his cards?

Sure, but last sentence from L68B applies (Law 16, Unauthorized Information,may apply,...).

kqr said:

- When does law 71A (...a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play) apply and when 71C (.. not have lost by any normal play )?

As usually, L71A applies first. As you have deduced, there is no such trick in this case. According to L71A TD must assign tricks without judgement. Then he may assign more tricks according to judgement L71C.

kqr said:

Law 71C: Is it 'normal' to discard ♥K on the ♠ trick if you are convinced that South  still has a small ♠ so that North will make all tricks with ♣'s?

As I have said: TD's judgement, Appeal Committee, Bridge Magazine, forums, ...

[mpefritz]

Did he concede all his tricks by throwing his cards down or did he make a verbal concession? I think there is a real difference. In one case, he has pitched a card on the spade and the remainder are penalty cards if he has made no statement. Someone can parse the rules (I tried) to see if he gets to choose which card he has pitched on the spade. And then I think declarer gets to choose which penatly card to play. Also I wonder if there is a difference if he makes a concession before or after his cards hit the table.

fritz

[mr1303]

I once claimed "you can take all your hearts, I have the rest" when playing 3NT with JT9 opposite a void.

LHO (silent throughout the auction) had KQ to 8 and no entry, RHO had Ax.

Director ruled that opps could not take 8 tricks since they could not possibly be made, and said that I could make all of my top tricks.

[candybar]

I'm reconsidering my statement about Law 70.

There are Laws that cover a defender exposing his cards deliberately.

LAW 50 DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD
A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise.

LAW 51 TWO OR MORE PENALTY CARDS
A. Offender to Play
If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played at that turn.

Law 68B. Concession Defined
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. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred.....

Since no concession has occurred, I would think Laws 50 and 51 would apply.

[kgr]

I did also post this question on blml and this was the response:
- If West immediatly objects the concession then the play will continue, but all cards exposed by East become major penalty cards. In the actual case the declarer can choose which card East has to play to every trick and the declarer will not loose any more trick.
- If West does not immediatly objects the concession, but only objects a bit later then we have to look at Law 71C (and Law 71A, but this law seems to be redundant because of Law 71C). This law tells that we have to look at what would have happened according to normal play. Here we could say that East would always make 2 more tricks in normal play.
...This is strange, isn't it? If West objects immediatly he does not get any more trick. If he objects a bit later then he still gets 2 tricks. The person who answered my question on blml does solve this strange thing in the Laws by saying that normal play should take into account that East did expose his cards and that he has all penalty cards now. So, still all tricks would go to the declarer.
I did copy the last response below.

...not always that easy, the bridge laws
Koen
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Assuming of course that East actually exposed his cards when he conceded
Literally Law 71C tells us to rule the case according to "normal" play if
the objection is raised afterwards, that is a major reason why I disagree
with the change made to this law.

However, if I am told that East actually exposed his cards when conceding
then I will still rule all tricks to declarer because "normal" play includes
the effects of the penalty cards.

If I am not told that East actually exposed his cards with the concession
then yes, I shall award EW two more tricks."

[mpefritz]

Quote

LAW 58 - SIMULTANEOUS LEADS OR PLAYS
...
B. Simultaneous Cards from One Hand
    If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously:

    1. One Card Visible
        If only one card is visible, that card is played; all other cards are picked up without penalty.
    2. More Cards Visible
        If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50).

I think EAST gets to choose which of his 4 cards gets played on this trick. All the others are penalty cards. So wouldn't EAST get to choose an x instead of the K to throw on the spade? After that declarer gets to choose which penalty card EAST plays, allowing EAST to take one more trick?

fritz

[barmar]

I don't think that exposing your hand while claiming or conceding is considered to be leading or playing any of the cards, so Law 58 doesn't really apply.

[Free]

Jlall, on Oct 28 2005, 04:44 PM, said:

I could be wrong but this seems like a no-brainer. East gets 2 tricks. Forcing him to pitch his king of hearts on the spade is beyond silly, it would be completely irrational.

Agree, normal play ALWAYS gives East 2 tricks. South can't play anything else than ♠K overtaking, and return ♥ to the KJ. So even if he conceded, the opponents can't claim their tricks because the laws say so. Very simple

[kgr]

Free, on Oct 28 2005, 06:38 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 28 2005, 04:44 PM, said:

I could be wrong but this seems like a no-brainer. East gets 2 tricks. Forcing him to pitch his king of hearts on the spade is beyond silly, it would be completely irrational.

Agree, normal play ALWAYS gives East 2 tricks. South can't play anything else than ♠K overtaking, and return ♥ to the KJ. So even if he conceded, the opponents can't claim their tricks because the laws say so. Very simple

Logically East should get 2 tricks, but don't we have to apply the laws even if the result is not logic?
Before I knew the laws I had following situation in a competition game with no TD available:
I played 3NT and opps take first 4 tricks in clubs and then: RHO plays ♥A, I follow ♥, LHO plays a ♠. Some tricks later I claim and it appears that LHO had ♥'s. At that time I did not know the laws and we noted 3NT-1. But according to the laws I make 3NT. Not logic - but this is the law.