[661_Pete]

This has been nagging at me for several weeks now. What do others think?

In no-trumps, sitting as RH defender, I am on lead with just two cards left: ♠Ax. I know that ♠KQx are still out, along with a winner in another suit (I forget which). Dummy's cards were irrelevant. Clearly, not knowing how the cards lay, I had a dilemma as to which spade to lead, so I must have hesitated a bit.

At this point, declarer says "I'll give you the last two" and tables his cards. But dummy responds (illegally, I think - in Law dummy has no right to question declarer's claim or concession, surely?) "wait a moment - it depends what is led..."

This put me in a quandary. I could see at once that declarer was left with ♠Qx so my partner must have stiff ♠K and the other winner, so I must lead low! But logically, it would be safer, statistically, for me to lead the ♠A since that guarantees at least one of the last two tricks! So I had now gained some UI unwittingly thanks to declarer's clumsiness. I was afraid that if I took advantage of this, it might lead to a bit of a row, so I summoned the TD at this point.

The TD was perfectly fair about this. He looked at my cards and then asked "what would you have led Peter?". I had little hesitation in replying "the Ace". He said "very well: play your Ace" - so I did so and of course declarer got the last trick.

I did not want to cause trouble so I said nothing about dummy's conduct at this point - nor did anyone else. I'm reasonably content with the outcome (and so was my partner). At least my conscience is clear - at the cost of a trick.

Should it be?

[PrecisionL]

Law 43 A. Dummy's Limitations

Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Edit: Apparently dummy can participate in the claim by agreeing or objecting.

[Gerardo]

Dummy intervention is not illegal, Law 68 (Claims or Concession of Tricks) D (Suspension of Play) states:

Quote

2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included);..........

but said intervention is irrelevant here.
You have no UI, you have AI (information came from opponents, not your partner), and dummy's comment does not cancel the concession.
You are also allowed to take your time, as you had a legitimate bridge problem.

So you can:

1. Accept the concession OR
2. Describe the line leading to two tricks to your side. OR
3. Continue playing, and lead the low ♠.
All leading to two tricks to your side.

[weejonnie]

regarding dummy, Law 68D covers this

D. Suspension of Play
After any claim or concession, play is suspended.
1. If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies.
2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included); either
(a) the Director may immediately be summoned and no action should be taken pending his arrival, Law 70 applies; or
(b) upon the request of the non‐claiming or non‐conceding side, play may continue subject to the following:
(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above.
(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.

From what you say

Dummy has cast doubt on the concession (2) and 2(a) has been applied so the director is summoned - and will apply law 70A

A. General Objective
In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows.

...


and finally Law 71

LAW 71 ‐ CONCESSION CANCELLED
A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:
A. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
B. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

I would therefore expect the concession (of two tricks) to stand since playing a small spade by you is a 'normal play'.

Please note that you have no UI from declarer's statement and can do what you please.

(Note that if a defender concedes tricks and his partner objects then neither a concession nor claim has been made (68B1). This protection is not afforded to declarer).

[axman]

661_Pete, on 2018-July-14, 08:23, said:

This has been nagging at me for several weeks now. What do others think?


The TD was perfectly fair about this. He looked at my cards and then asked "what would you have led Peter?". I had little hesitation in replying "the Ace". He said "very well: play your Ace" - so I did so and of course declarer got the last trick.

It is dubious to believe that the TD was fair, perfectly or otherwise. A concession was made and objected. To be fair the TD must satisfy L71 as well as the rest of TFLB- he did not.

[The_Badger]

+1 for your honesty, Peter. I'm sure other players would have taken advantage of the situation.

[gordontd]

The fact that you had not yet led the Ace of Spades suggests to me that there was still some doubt in your mind as to what to do. That's enough for the director to give you the benefit of it.

[blackshoe]

I am not at all sure that the intent of the law's provision in (dummy included) was to allow dummy to "doubt" his partner's claim or concession.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2018-July-14, 12:28, said:

I am not at all sure that the intent of the law's provision in (dummy included) was to allow dummy to "doubt" his partner's claim or concession.

What is your basis for thinking this?

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2018-July-14, 10:08, said:

The fact that you had not yet led the Ace of Spades suggests to me that there was still some doubt in your mind as to what to do. That's enough for the director to give you the benefit of it.

Even if he had little hesitation in replying "the Ace" ?

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2018-July-14, 14:20, said:

Even if he had little hesitation in replying "the Ace" ?

“not knowing how the cards lay, I had a dilemma as to which spade to lead”.

[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2018-July-14, 12:28, said:

I am not at all sure that the intent of the law's provision in (dummy included) was to allow dummy to "doubt" his partner's claim or concession.

The law pretty much says dummy can object. It can't be much clearer.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2018-July-14, 13:35, said:

What is your basis for thinking this?

Good question. It seems to me that in consonance with dummy not participating in the play, he shouldn't be able to participate here, either. OTOH, it is certainly true that a defender can object to his partner's claim or concession. Maybe I'm wrong.

steve2005, on 2018-July-14, 16:36, said:

The law pretty much says dummy can object. It can't be much clearer.

I know that. But is what they said what they intended to say? That I don't know, and cannot know unless they clarify it.

IAC, I think we have to rule on the basis of the law as written.

[661_Pete]

Thanks for all the replies. I should explain that all this happened at friendly local club level. If it had been a more high-powered event (fat chance, at my ability!), I might have stood my ground differently!

[661_Pete]

Oh - and another thing. When playing on BBO, sitting as dummy (when of course I can see declarer's hand), I often notice that partner has an obvious claim, whilst they still obstinately continue to play out. But if I type "claim, partner?" on the chatline, I often get an earful! So I've taken to remaining silent. Perhaps being the 'silent dummy' is the best course, etiquette-wise... French-speaking players call Dummy "le mort" which makes some sense!

[Gerardo]

661_Pete, on 2018-July-15, 02:43, said:

Oh - and another thing. When playing on BBO, sitting as dummy (when of course I can see declarer's hand), I often notice that partner has an obvious claim, whilst they still obstinately continue to play out. But if I type "claim, partner?" on the chatline, I often get an earful! So I've taken to remaining silent. Perhaps being the 'silent dummy' is the best course, etiquette-wise... French-speaking players call Dummy "le mort" which makes some sense!

The problem with that is, even if it is obvious to you, it may not be obvious to declarer (because there is no claim yet), and it may be construed as dummy giving information to declarer.

[pescetom]

Gerardo, on 2018-July-15, 06:52, said:

The problem with that is, even if it is obvious to you, it may not be obvious to declarer (because there is no claim yet), and it may be construed as dummy giving information to declarer.

Also because when dummy on BBO (IIRC) you can see the defenders hands, not just declarer's.

[pran]

Gerardo, on 2018-July-15, 06:52, said:

The problem with that is, even if it is obvious to you, it may not be obvious to declarer (because there is no claim yet), and it may be construed as dummy giving information to declarer.

Law 68A/B: Declarer facing his remaining cards is by definition a claim and/or a concession (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim) after which Law 68D immediately applies.

[weejonnie]

It seems to me that though dummy CAN object to declarer's claim or concession, he can't do anything to increase the number of tricks that declarer can claim - other than through law 71 (and the barrier is very high - ANY normal play of the cards).

[blackshoe]

True. Dummy can "doubt" the concession, but he shouldn't say anything about why he doubts it until the director is called and comes to the table. At that point there can be no further play, and the director must rule on the outcome.

In general, I don't like the director looking in a player's hand before making a ruling, but since there can be no further play, I suppose it doesn't matter in this case. And before somebody objects, yes, the director told the defender "play your ace", but again, that doesn't really matter. He's in effect ruling that the defender would play his ace and declarer would get one trick.