[paua]

3NT by South, South on lead

---

3NT by South, who has won 9 tricks and is on lead. South concedes the remaining two tricks. As we can see, West must win the spade and give a club to dummy.

My question is, can dummy get involved ? Can dummy speak up and point out that there is another sure trick ? Does this situation constitute an irregularity because the defenders are not allowed to gain a trick that they cannot make ? I guess also, is it ethical for E/W to accept the concession ?

thx

[aguahombre]

Once South has conceded, play stops. Dummy no longer is dummy.

The defenders cannot accept two tricks when they couldn't have won two tricks. Doesn't matter who points out that fact after South erroneously conceded.

[1eyedjack]

Dummy can certainly object. It says so expressly in law 68D.

It would be unethical to accept the concession. But by the same token I have little sympathy for South.

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2014-June-16, 23:57, said:

Dummy can certainly object. It says so expressly in law 68D.

It would be unethical to accept the concession. But by the same token I have little sympathy for South.

Your lack of sympathy may be misplaced - we have no idea how experienced or how competent this declarer is. As you say, Law 68D tells us that anyone, including the former dummy, can object, and that the Director must be summoned immediately. He will apply Laws 70 and 71. Since there is no way West can avoid winning the twelfth trick, and then no way he can avoid leading a club, and North will have the boss club at trick 13, declarer gets that trick. See Law 71C2.

Again as you say, Jack, the answer to "is it ethical" is no - Law 79A2 says "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." So if dummy doesn't object to the concession, West should do so - and call the Director. I know, I know. "What do we need the director for? We know what to do here." Maybe you do, but it's not your job, it's the director's job. What if you get it wrong? Maybe not this time, but some other time.

Note: In using "you" I'm not targeting anyone in particular, I'm using it as a general term.

[RMB1]

If the concession is accepted and the declaring side later want a trick the TD can apply Law 71.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2014-June-17, 01:19, said:

If the concession is accepted and the declaring side later want a trick the TD can apply Law 71.

Yes. In that event I would be asking West why he violated Law 79A2.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-17, 01:36, said:

Yes. In that event I would be asking West why he violated Law 79A2.

It is unlike you to ascribe malice where stupidity or thoughtlessness is enough, Ed. Is there any reason to suppose that West even realised that their ♠T would have to win, let alone go the next step of thinking about trick 13? If East shows their cards and West is still paying attention they should work out what is going on but how many defenders generally do that after a concession?

[1eyedjack]

The wording of the OP suggests that this it is a real life F2F scenario that we are considering, as is only sensible, the online scenario being rather of a mess not least because it is so dependent on software platform.

But I thought it worth mentioning that if it were possible to consider eithics as an analog continuum that varies by degree, rather than a binary on v off, then on BBO the act of accepting an invalid concession should be regarded as a *real* no-no, as the software denies dummy the opportunity to contest the concession, and it may not be possible to unwind the result once it has been entered into the ledger having been accepted by the opps. If you are in a TD-led tourney, it may be different.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2014-June-17, 04:25, said:

It is unlike you to ascribe malice where stupidity or thoughtlessness is enough, Ed. Is there any reason to suppose that West even realised that their ♠T would have to win, let alone go the next step of thinking about trick 13? If East shows their cards and West is still paying attention they should work out what is going on but how many defenders generally do that after a concession?

I should have known that wording would get me into trouble.

I wouldn't actually put it that way - it's too confrontational. But I would want to try to get a feel for what was going on in West's head.

[mycroft]

"I didn't realize I had the boss spade, I thought partner was taking it. Didn't look on the concession, sorry" :-)

[blackshoe]

Okay. But IMO this falls into "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." This is once.

[mycroft]

That was my implication as well, I would hope. I would also reference whether I've seen other "let's see if the TD is stupid or thinks I am" plays from this player in the past...

[Trinidad]

I can't understand how this case gets here.

I can understand that declarer doesn't see that he gets a trick.
I can understand that the defenders don't see that declarer gets a trick.
But when dummy points out that declarer, gets a trick, I expect everybody to say "Oh yeah, you're right!". The next board is played, everybody is embarrassed that they overlooked this and no one ever hears about this case.

Rik

[mr1303]

Apart from anything else, is it not possible that South just says you get the last two without showing his cards? I regularly concede like that...

[blackshoe]

In that case you're claiming one trick, and you have to say how you're going to win it (Law 70C). If you're conceding all the remaining tricks, you don't have to state a line of play, and you don't have to show your cards, but unless dummy was not paying attention at all during the play, it seems prudent to allow him the chance to point out that you should get a trick you've conceded. Not showing your hand may shut him out.

Hm. Can dummy object to his partner's concession or claim? Or does "(dummy included)" in Law 68D only apply to claims or concessions by defenders? Law 68D says if a claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies, and Law 69 says agreement is established "when a contestant assents to an opponent's (my emphasis) claim or concession…" Confusing, this is.

[weejonnie]

Law 71C allows the director to cancel a concession (during the correction period 79C when the director can re-apply 69B) - so dummy can speak then.

[RMB1]

weejonnie, on 2014-July-15, 15:02, said:

Law 71C allows the director to cancel a concession ...

Wasn't Law 71C in the previous law book?
The current Law 71 has no lettered parts but does have numbered parts.