[Hanoi5]

On the 6th trick one of the players of the defense says: 'I concede the rest'. Declarer accepts, they enter the result and start discussing the hand and the realize they could make a trick more, 'normally'. Declarer objects as he had some ways to make 'the rest'. At the other table, declarer played till the end and made 'the rest' when one of the defenders misdefended. How would you rule?

[mgoetze]

Declarer gets the rest... shouldn't this be in Simple Rulings?

[blackshoe]

The relevant law is Law 71, which says that a concession must stand, once made, unless a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. It sounds like the first criterion doesn't apply, and we can't rule on the second without seeing all four hands. I will say that it sounds from what you say like the ruling should probably be that the concession stands.

What happened at the other table is not relevant.

Edit: crossposted. Yes, this should be in Simple Rulings. I'll move it. However, I think my esteemed colleague has been a little premature.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2014-December-13, 00:53
Reason for edit: cross posted

[Hanoi5]

---

At this point South said '6 made', North slammed her cards on the table and they started to discuss. At some point they asked West if he held a spade to which he answered truthfully, yes I did. North acknowledged she didn't think her partner had the missing spade when declarer dropped the 10 on the first trick (that's why she didn't cash it) and it was North at the other table who discarded all the spades.

[RMB1]

What are declarer's ways of making 'the rest'?

[mgoetze]

RMB1, on 2014-December-13, 11:57, said:

What are declarer's ways of making 'the rest'?

Run ♦10 (South doesn't) cover, ruff a club, discard a spade on ♦A, ruff a diamond, lead another diamond out of turn discarding the second spade, ruff two spades in dummy. Easy.

[blackshoe]

Heh. One more trick to the defense.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-13, 00:50, said:

What happened at the other table is not relevant.

Hanoi5, on 2014-December-13, 11:00, said:

At this point South said '6 made', North slammed her cards on the table and they started to discuss. At some point they asked West if he held a ♠ to which he answered truthfully. North acknowledged she didn't think her partner had the missing ♠ when declarer dropped the 10 on the 1st trick (that's why she didn't cash it) and it was North at the other table who discarded all the ♠s.

---

IMO what happened at another table may help the director judge what is normal for the players in this event. Declarer might win ♣A, cash ♦A, ruff a ♦, return to hand with ♥T, and ruff a 4th ♦. If North is convinced that Declarer has no more ♠s, he could discard down to ♣s, in the 3-card ending. You may judge this to be stupidly careless but presumably something similar happened at the other table. Should South's concession save North from making the mistake that was made at the other table?

[blackshoe]

If the auction was identical at the other table, including systemic meanings, and then the play was identical up to the decision point, then perhaps it is valid to use what happened at the other table as an aid to judgment. How is the TD to know that the auction and play were identical though?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-13, 18:34, said:

If the auction was identical at the other table, including systemic meanings, and then the play was identical up to the decision point, then perhaps it is valid to use what happened at the other table as an aid to judgment. How is the TD to know that the auction and play were identical though?

The director should be allowed to ask or at least to listen if told. IMO, similar auction and play would usually be sufficient.

[barmar]

"could not be lost by any normal line of play" is not the same as "could be won by some normal line of play". The point of that line in the Law is that it the conceding side would have to try really hard to lose the trick. Just realizing that you could defend a trick better than you assumed in the concession is not sufficient grounds for cancelling it.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-December-13, 19:33, said:

"could not be lost by any normal line of play" is not the same as "could be won by some normal line of play". The point of that line in the Law is that it the conceding side would have to try really hard to lose the trick. Just realizing that you could defend a trick better than you assumed in the concession is not sufficient grounds for cancelling it.

True.

[Hanoi5]

North's last card was a club and the Spade 6 made the last trick. Although I agree the play is bad, North's comment that she thought her partner held the missing spade made me leave the concession standing.

[mycroft]

And remember, as in all of these cases, it's "normal*" - the dreaded footnote applies.

In a previous thread, we were discussing whether it was normal*, irrational, and/or a logical alternative to "lead anything" when you know all the tricks are theirs, even though if you were ever forced to lead, you would have led only one suit.

Oddly enough, if declarer had claimed, and that claim had been accepted, "normal*" does not apply to the "oh wait, you had a spade?" it's "a trick his side would likely have won" in L69B2.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2014-December-15, 12:18, said:

Oddly enough, if declarer had claimed, and that claim had been accepted, "normal*" does not apply to the "oh wait, you had a spade?" it's "a trick his side would likely have won" in L69B2.

The general rule is that the benefit of the doubt goes against the side that claims/concedes.