[Lanor Fow]

---

South was declarer in 5♥X doubled

Tricks went:
7♠, A, 2, 3♣
K♥, 4, 2,9
6♥, Q, A, J
5♣, A, 7, 2
6♣, K, 4, 2♦
K♦, 9, 3, 6

At this point declarer lead the 3♦ and when north showed out, showed his hand and said I have to give you two diamonds. Defenders put their hands away, as did declarer, when Dummy points out that declarer only has to give up 1 diamond.

Director is called at this point. How do you rule?

[WellSpyder]

Who called the TD? Dummy is not expected to acquiesce or dispute a claim, so unless declarer himself is now arguing that he would only lose one diamond trick then as TD I think I would say that I have nothing to rule on and that the result agreed by the declarer and defenders is the one that stands.

In any case, declarer appears to have made a clear statement of how he intends to play the hand, involving giving up two diamond tricks. It seems clear therefore that he has not noticed the possibility of ruffing one of the diamond losers. It is, of course, possible that if he played out the hand then he would notice that when the time came. But it is also possible that he would play out a number of trumps first in the hope that the defence would discard a diamond. I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, and would rule two diamond tricks to the defence.

[aguahombre]

Play has ceased at the point of the claim/concession, so Dummy restrictions have ceased. When the hand is no longer being played, it naturally follows that he can't be influencing the play of the hand. But, Dummy is specifically given the right to dispute a claim anyway.

However, 69B2 which applies to concession of a trick which (WBF) "would likely have been won" or (ACBL) would have been won with "normal" play suggest that the two tricks were conceded and should be ruled lost. I don't know how the EBU treats 69B2, however.

I would rule that a player of any alleged class who conceeds two tricks when he could have trumped one of them might not have done so, has not met the exception in 69B2, and loses the two tricks.

[RMB1]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-30, 07:01, said:

However, 69B2 which applies to concession of a trick which (WBF) "would likely have been won" or (ACBL) would have been won with "normal" play suggest that the two tricks were conceded and should be ruled lost. I don't know how the EBU treats 69B2, however.

The appropriate law is Law 71.2 "Concession Cancelled" and the wording is the same in WBF and ACBL laws "... if a player has conceded a trick that could not be
lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards."

Law 69B2 applies to the other side withdrawing their agreement to trick claimed by the opponents.

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2014-January-30, 07:45, said:

The appropriate law is Law 71.2 "Concession Cancelled" and the wording is the same in WBF and ACBL laws "... if a player has conceded a trick that could not be
lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards."

Law 69B2 applies to the other side withdrawing their agreement to trick claimed by the opponents.

Yep. Also, the wording of the first sentence of Law 69B2 is identical in both versions of the laws: "if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued." The only difference is that the second sentence is, in the WBF version, in a new paragraph.

[aguahombre]

Yes, the distinction between agreeing to the loss of tricks (69) and conceding the loss of tricks (71) escaped me. My bad. Same ruling, different reference.