[zenbiddist]

(This post edited to clarify the issues after some useful comments)

---

3NT North (matchpoints, Australia). The lead is the ♥9

West wins her ♥A, and says "Well I guess it's all over, red rover".
East says "Rubbish".
West now switches to a spade, setting the contract by two tricks, giving EW an outright top. Any other continuation gives declarer twelve tricks, which would land NS a shared top.

To further complicate matters, EW insist they play suit preference leads in partner's suit, so the spade switch was automatic (though as one commenter noted, ♥9 could be from T9, 97, or 974). However, they didn't bring a system card or pre-alert their unusual leads.

Is West's comment that all continuations are hopeless a defensive concession? If so, has East's rejection of the concession suggested a logical alternative? What is your ruling?

Although a spade switch might seem like the logical choice double-dummy, it's possible that:
1. East led from ♥KT9 (heart continuation required)
2. Declarer has AKxx,KQTx,xxx,xx (club switch stops dummy's clubs vanishing on declarer's hearts and spades)
3. West hadn't considered East's holding (♠AKT9x) likely until the U.I., due to the failure to overcall 1♠.

I'd be inclined to rule +690. Is this too harsh in a club game? Weighted score?

[Vampyr]

zenbiddist, on 2014-November-20, 00:27, said:

Is this too harsh in a club game?

Harsh to whom? One side is going to get less than they think they deserved, however you rule. This pair will not be a part of the "friendly atmosphere". You can't please everyone, when you have to make a ruling, so the setting doesn't really make a difference.

But... I believe that players like weighted rulings, since it feels like everyone gets something. So that could be considered, maybe giving West a 1/4 chance of leading each suit -- maybe less for the pointed suits.

[pran]

Law 68 B said:

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.

So I shall rule that West tried to concede all remaining tricks and that East immediately objected.

West now have UI and the question is to what extent this UI can affects West's lead to trick 2.

Seeing Dummy and knowing from the auction that Declarer probably have solid hearts I really do not see any LA for West (with or without the UI) other than to lead a spade in trick 2. However, West's concession reveals that he has not considered his continuation at all and might carelessly lead in any suit, even a heart. I would probably rule weighted score with 25% for returning each of the four suits.

"Suit preference leads"? This seems irrelevant here; West cannot know if the ♥9 is a singleton, low from 10-9 or high from 9-7(4).

[campboy]

25% for each suit looks like a Reverley ruling (so not legal) to me. If the comment suggests leading a spade over some logical alternative, no proportion of a spade lead can be given; if it doesn't, we shouldn't adjust at all.

[billw55]

West's comment indicates that he thought the situation was hopeless. In this state of mind, I consider that he might lead anything. East's comment surely alerted west that it was not hopeless, and it was only this that sent west searching for a lead that would work.

12 tricks to declarer, and hope that east learns something.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-20, 00:46, said:

Harsh to whom? One side is going to get less than they think they deserved, however you rule. This pair will not be a part of the "friendly atmosphere". You can't please everyone, when you have to make a ruling, so the setting doesn't really make a difference. But... I believe that players like weighted rulings, since it feels like everyone gets something. So that could be considered, maybe giving West a 1/4 chance of leading each suit -- maybe less for the pointed suits.

campboy, on 2014-November-20, 04:04, said:

25% for each suit looks like a Reverley ruling (so not legal) to me. If the comment suggests leading a spade over some logical alternative, no proportion of a spade lead can be given; if it doesn't, we shouldn't adjust at all.

billw55, on 2014-November-20, 08:05, said:

West's comment indicates that he thought the situation was hopeless. In this state of mind, I consider that he might lead anything. East's comment surely alerted west that it was not hopeless, and it was only this that sent west searching for a lead that would work. 12 tricks to declarer, and hope that east learns something.

I prefer Campboy's and Billw55's argument to Vampyr's.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-November-20, 08:39, said:

I prefer Campboy's and Billw55's argument to Vampyr's.

So do I.

There is at least one jurisdiction — the ACBL — in which weighted rulings are not legal. OTOH the OP is from Australia, and weighted rulings are legal there, but they're not required. TD should rule according to the law, not according to what players might like.

[mycroft]

I do not agree with Billw's last sentence (I can't say anything about the rest of the ruling). There is nothing for East to "learn", except perhaps some tact. It wasn't "by the book", but Pran's comment that "West attempted to concede the rest of the tricks, and East immediately objected" is completely accurate. East *has to* say something, by Law; the actual phrasing is relatively irrelevant, except for what UI was passed. I see no difference between "Rubbish" and "I object to the concession, partner. Please play on."

However, it is interesting; I hadn't understood the wording of Law 68B2 before. This is not a "contested concession", as it would be if dummy objected to declarer's concession (L68D). "No concession has occurred" is the quote. So both E and W have UI from extraneous information given to partner, and away we go. It's interesting - I'm not sure the UI suggests a switch (for -2) over declarer having a positional stopper (East has KT9 and out as mentioned above, 3NT+1), suit preference leads be damned. That would be a good discussion. If all the UI says is "we have another trick, partner, if you'd engage your brain for once", then I'm not sure what's suggested *by the UI* (reasonably, a minor suit isn't suggested by anything; if partner has the ♣A, she's getting it).

We don't get into whether saying "he thinks declarer has the rest, so 'play anything' is normal*", because normal* doesn't apply because there is no concession, disputed or otherwise. It's strictly a UI case.

As for the other question, I learned to direct while playing in a club that was "friendly" like the OP stated - and the rulings obviously were determined based on who wouldn't come back if they got a ruling they didn't like, rather than the Law. I saw what that did to the so-called "friendly club", particularly when it became possible to get your bridge fix at the computer rather than at "the only game for 80 km of any reasonable standard"; and I vowed never to do that myself. So, National Qualifier or master-novice "teams can be fun" game or anything in between, I rule the FLB. Now, *judgement* (and therefore the actual result) may be different in different places; and the way I deliver the ruling (as in, how much education comes with the bare "here's what to put down on your card", and the tone and patience with with I give that education) may be different in different places; but the ruling is the same. Served *me* well, at least.

[billw55]

To be clear, what I am hoping east will learn, is to not make comments during play that provide UI to partner. Objectively, I suppose west also needs to learn this.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-November-20, 08:39, said:

I prefer Campboy's and Billw55's argument to Vampyr's.

Unless a spade is suggested, I don't think that E/W should be punished for one objecting to the other's concession.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-20, 14:30, said:

Unless a spade is suggested, I don't think that E/W should be punished for one objecting to the other's concession.

I am not convinced that a concession was made. I would want some other factors to reach this conclusion, such as a gesture made with the cards (facing, dropping on table, putting back in board, etc). I don't think west's comment, by itself, is a concession; only an expression of pessimism.

[dburn]

On the surface: West has said "We don't have any more tricks" and East has said "Yes we do". This demonstrably suggests that East has ♥K or a black-suit ace. It does not, as far as I can see, demonstrably suggest which of these holdings East has, but it does demonstrably suggest that West should not play a diamond.

Since a West who thought that her side really did not have any more tricks might logically play anything, she might logically play a diamond, and I would rule on that basis.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2014-November-20, 13:15, said:

To be clear, what I am hoping east will learn, is to not make comments during play that provide UI to partner. Objectively, I suppose west also needs to learn this.

I think they both need to learn not to make any extraneous comments at all, whether they provide UI or not, from the time the hands come out of the first board until the hands from the last board of the round are put back in the board.

[gnasher]

I agree with Burn's ruling.

On the subject of educating EW, it's OK to hope that they learn something from the score adjustment, as long as that isn't part of the reason for assigning a particular score. The purpose of score adjustment is to redress damage, not to punish.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-November-21, 00:21, said:

I agree with Burn's ruling.

Hm. I was wondering whether the AI (from the auction) leaves West with no LA to a spade, but I guess it doesn't.

gnasher, on 2014-November-21, 00:21, said:

On the subject of educating EW, it's OK to hope that they learn something from the score adjustment, as long as that isn't part of the reason for assigning a particular score. The purpose of score adjustment is to redress damage, not to punish.

Well, the purpose of educating EW would be to educate, not to punish, but otherwise I agree. To educate in this case, it seems to me, the TD would have to find some way to explain what they need to learn without seeming to indicate that he gave them an adverse ruling because he wants to educate them.

I think the TD should present the ruling this way:

"West has conceded the remaining tricks, but East's objection voids that concession. This is Law 68B. West has UI from East's comment that East has a winner, probably either a black suit ace or the ♥K. This constrains him per Law Law 16B1 not to lead a black suit or a heart. Since West thinks they have no more tricks, he might lead anything, including a diamond. If he leads a diamond, North will make twelve tricks, so I adjust the score to 3NT making 6, +690 for NS, -690 for EW. This is Law 12C1." Specific education is a little harder, and might best be saved for another time, in the interest of keeping the game moving.

I don't think this is a case for a weighted score. It seems an either/or proposition — either declarer makes 12 tricks, or he makes 7 (EW taking the ♥A and five spades). You're ruling that West's spade lead cannot stand, so you can't include that possibility in a weighting — that would, as I understand it, be a Reveley ruling. So there's nothing to weight.

One last comment: TDs, particularly in North America, don't state rulings that way. They say "I'm adjusting the score to +690 for NS" and leave it at that. I think that's poor practice, in spite of the fact that most players don't care about the legal basis for a ruling (until they decide to appeal).

[barmar]

So when West made an incorrect concession, he essentially sealed his side's fate? As mycroft pointed out, any objection by East will provide UI to West, and thus constrain him from making the correct switch.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 10:42, said:

So when West made an incorrect concession, he essentially sealed his side's fate? As mycroft pointed out, any objection by East will provide UI to West, and thus constrain him from making the correct switch.

Pretty much, yeah. Reaching back to my childhood, West violated Davy Crockett's Rule: "be sure you're right, then go ahead".

West can make the correct switch if he has no LA. But yes, that will be rare.

[mycroft]

billw55, on 2014-November-20, 13:15, said:

To be clear, what I am hoping east will learn, is to not make comments during play that provide UI to partner. Objectively, I suppose west also needs to learn this.

But West's comment was logically equivalent to "I concede" - a perfectly valid and Lawful statement. Of course it passes UI - but there's nobody who can play 4 hands without passing UI to partner.

East's comment is even less extraneous, which is why I disagreed (and still disagree) with your statement. If she does not say anything - and her comment, while brusque, is logically equivalent to "I object to your concession" - then she loses her L68B2 right. Now, she *is* in normal* territory, and that is clearly "it is absolutely careless for someone who believes no more tricks are theirs to lead fourth-from-the-left". Quite literally, learning what you want East to learn is reducing her rights in Law.

I am not sure I agree with Blackshoe. Certainly, West has UI that East thinks that there's another trick somewhere. But I don't think necessarily that a minor suit is a LA: "[an action that] would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of [his peers], of whom it is judged some might select it" - I can't see any bridge player of any reasonable ability hearing this auction that would lead a minor, even if he were certain his play didn't matter (as I showed above). If the UI from the objection clearly suggested a spade over a heart, then I would force the heart lead; but I'm not sure it does - for one, you'd have to show me how, should East have had KT9, the spade lead would still have been suggested over a heart.

I do believe that if the two (UI and normal*) were equivalent, L68B2 would not exist, and this case would be treated identically to declarer's concession and dummy's immediate objection (where the concession has occurred, and the TD determines normal* lines of play).

[blackshoe]

Are you disagreeing with me, or are you disagreeing with David, who said that a player who thinks his side has no more tricks at trick two might lead any of his twelve cards? I suppose both, since I based my proposed ruling on his analysis.

[gnasher]

mycroft, on 2014-November-21, 18:18, said:

I am not sure I agree with Blackshoe. Certainly, West has UI that East thinks that there's another trick somewhere. But I don't think necessarily that a minor suit is a LA: "[an action that] would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of [his peers], of whom it is judged some might select it" - I can't see any bridge player of any reasonable ability hearing this auction that would lead a minor, even if he were certain his play didn't matter (as I showed above).

I can't see any bridge player of reasonable ability saying "Well I guess it's all over, red rover" in this position. From that I conclude that West is not a bridge player of reasonable ability.