[lamford]

---

I don't have the exact hands, but have all relevant facts from this ruling in a local league. West led the queen of clubs against 3NT by South (I don't have the auction). Declarer won and ran the queen of spades, West winning and switching to a heart. East played the jack, and South ducked. East continued hearts to West's queen while South ducked, and West played the nine of hearts which South won, dummy pitching a club. Declarer now played a diamond to the king, cashed the spades, and then finessed the jack of diamonds. At this point, for some reason, East conceded the remainder, and South closed his hand, but West asked "Who has the master heart." and East responded "I do." West said "it is one off then," but declarer objected, saying "only if you play a heart".

How do you rule? Is it a UI case, or is the K♥ a major penalty card as it was "named" by East when he said "I do"?

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-February-17, 15:00, said:

---

I don't have the exact hands, but have all relevant facts from this ruling in a local league. West led the queen of clubs against 3NT by South (I don't have the auction). Declarer won and ran the queen of spades, West winning and switching to a heart. East played the jack, and South ducked. East continued hearts to West's queen while South ducked, and West played the nine of hearts which South won, dummy pitching a club. Declarer now played a diamond to the king, cashed the spades, and then finessed the jack of diamonds. At this point, for some reason, East conceded the remainder, and South closed his hand, but West asked "Who has the master heart." and East responded "I do." West said "it is one off then," but declarer objected, saying "only if you play a heart".

How do you rule? Is it a UI case, or is the K♥ a major penalty card as it was "named" by East when he said "I do"?

Law 68B2 said:

Regardless of B1, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects; neither a concession nor a claim 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 16C applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

No claim or concession has occurred, play continues, the ♥K is not a penalty card, but the knowledge that East has this card is UI to West.

Two questions must be considered by the Director:
1: Did West immediately object to the concession? (I tend to say "yes")
2: Is (for West) playing a Club a logical alternative to playing a heart? (I tend to say "yes")
so I would rule for the declarer.

[Cyberyeti]

I think "But who has ♥K" sounds like he was about to lead a heart to me, it is not credible that S ducked twice with AKxx.

[sfi]

pran, on 2020-February-17, 16:28, said:

2: Is (for West) playing a Club a logical alternative to playing a heart? (I tend to say "yes")
so I would rule for the declarer.

Seriously? You think West, who can count 9 tricks for declarer outside of hearts and who has already objected to the claim by querying who has the master heart, would lead anything else? I'm not sure West can be much more obvious about their lead.

[weejonnie]

Well we have to poll to find out if a Club is a LA - and maybe next time West will call the director before making such comments. i.e. immediately - not "at once" nor "forthwith".

[Cyberyeti]

weejonnie, on 2020-February-17, 17:16, said:

Well we have to poll to find out if a Club is a LA - and maybe next time West will call the director before making such comments. i.e. immediately - not "at once" nor "forthwith".

It's not a rule many people know at club level, if a poll suggests a club is a LA at your club, find another club

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2020-February-17, 17:16, said:

Well we have to poll to find out if a Club is a LA - and maybe next time West will call the director before making such comments. i.e. immediately - not "at once" nor "forthwith".

This was a match played privately, with only the eight players present. The Laws are not that good in this situation. I originally thought that the king of hearts might have been a major penalty card, because the concession was cancelled and it was named by a player. However, I think "exposed" in 68B2 means "exposed or named" and it is not an MPC.

I now think that playing a heart is the only logical alternative at this point, and I agree with the ruling of first instance which was 3NT-1.

And there is a bug in 68B2 which should say "Any card that has been exposed or named by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card <snip>" Although it is possible that the WBFLC intended a named card to be an MPC, but a card exposed in a concession not to be one. After all, attention is drawn to that card.

[pran]

sfi, on 2020-February-17, 17:01, said:

Seriously? You think West, who can count 9 tricks for declarer outside of hearts and who has already objected to the claim by querying who has the master heart, would lead anything else? I'm not sure West can be much more obvious about their lead.

Then why did West not just object to the concession and say "I play my heart"?
If the situation is so clear to him he should know that playing his heart is the only possibility to secure another trick to the defense (if there is one at all).

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-February-17, 17:45, said:

This was a match played privately, with only the eight players present. The Laws are not that good in this situation. I originally thought that the king of hearts might have been a major penalty card, because the concession was cancelled and it was named by a player. However, I think "exposed" in 68B2 means "exposed or named" and it is not an MPC.

I now think that playing a heart is the only logical alternative at this point, and I agree with the ruling of first instance which was 3NT-1.

And there is a bug in 68B2 which should say "Any card that has been exposed or named by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card <snip>" Although it is possible that the WBFLC intended a named card to be an MPC, but a card exposed in a concession not to be one. After all, attention is drawn to that card.

There is no bug in 68B2:

Law 49 said:

Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.

so the term "exposed" here includes "naming" a card.

[sfi]

pran, on 2020-February-18, 02:37, said:

Then why did West not just object to the concession and say "I play my heart"?
If the situation is so clear to him he should know that playing his heart is the only possibility to secure another trick to the defense (if there is one at all).

IMO West did say that - just using slightly different words. How else is the question about the master heart relevant?

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2020-February-18, 05:52, said:

IMO West did say that - just using slightly different words. How else is the question about the master heart relevant?

It may be relevant but it is highly improper.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2020-February-18, 05:58, said:

It may be relevant but it is highly improper.

I'll bite - why? Maybe on some other hand, sure. But here, if South has the HK the hand is well and truly over. If not, the defence is getting another trick.

It may not be the best way to proceed, it's not really a question that should have been asked at that point, and it creates UI for partner if there is any further play. But so what - the hand makes either 8 or 9 depending on the location of the HK. I'm all for the director having a word with West about how to properly object to a concession from partner, but that's a separate issue to the table result.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2020-February-17, 17:45, said:

I now think that playing a heart is the only logical alternative at this point, and I agree with the ruling of first instance which was 3NT-1.

Say that nobody objects to the concession by East and the score of 3NT making is recorded: then West sees that his partner did hold the King (as he originally thought) and argues that his side would likely have won the trick had the play continued. Would you rescore the board 3NT-1 ?

[lamford]

pran, on 2020-February-18, 02:45, said:

There is no bug in 68B2:

so the term "exposed" here includes "naming" a card.

Well, Law 49 includes "names a card", but Law 68B2 does not. I don't think it is at all clear.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2020-February-18, 07:49, said:

Say that nobody objects to the concession by East and the score of 3NT making is recorded: then West sees that his partner did hold the King (as he originally thought) and argues that his side would likely have won the trick had the play continued. Would you rescore the board 3NT-1 ?

Of course not. West cannot agree to a concession but then play on.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2020-February-18, 06:06, said:

I'll bite - why? Maybe on some other hand, sure. But here, if South has the HK the hand is well and truly over. If not, the defence is getting another trick.

That depends on whether the ♥K is a penalty card.

East’s concession creates an illusion. West objected to it, albeit improperly. Thus there was no actual concession, so let us look at the problem as if there were no attempt at a concession.

Is West allowed to ask his partner about the presence of a card in partner’s hand because it is something like a 4-card ending? What if there were 5 cards left? 7? 9?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2020-February-18, 09:59, said:

.................
Is West allowed to ask his partner about the presence of a card in partner’s hand because it is something like a 4-card ending? What if there were 5 cards left? 7? 9?

NO, NO and NO again!

If West does not object to the concession then the concession stands.

If West does object then he simply plays on. He is not allowed to ask any question or make any comment other than questions or comments permissible during normal play.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2020-February-18, 09:51, said:

Of course not. West cannot agree to a concession but then play on.

West did not play on in my hypothetical scenario. The concession was agreed by all, the cards replaced in the board, the board was scored 3NT. Only later at some time within the correction period did West note from the card diagram that they had another trick after all. Does 69B2 apply and if not, why not?

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2020-February-18, 10:30, said:

Does 69B2 apply and if not, why not?

I think it does.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2020-February-18, 10:24, said:

NO, NO and NO again!

If West does not object to the concession then the concession stands.

If West does object then he simply plays on. He is not allowed to ask any question or make any comment other than questions or comments permissible during normal play.

Yes, but I would like to hear from some of the people who think that in the case we are discussing it is OK.