[hokum]

I'm working on a director's exam and this question is interesting:



This is what I've come up with - first of all, is the ruling correct; secondly, have I missed a relevant law or quoted an irrelevant law?

i “It’s best to state a line of play when claiming, however, on this fortunate layout, any normal line of play will result in you taking all three tricks” (69A, 70C3, 70E1, 71.2. The agreement has not been established)
ii The board can still be re-scored as if declarer had taken the last three tricks (69B, 71.2, 79A2, 79C1-2. The agreement has been established but can be withdrawn)

Thank you very much

[billw55]

Personally, I think the defense should get a trick. If south believes he is losing a trump anyway, he might ruff with the ace. But I don't know what the actual law says about this.

[barmar]

I think ruffing with the ace is more than careless, I can't think of a rational reason for doing it, even if you think you're destined to lose a trump. If he's confused about the layout, that move could lead to losing 2 tricks, not just the one trick he conceded.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2014-September-03, 09:23, said:

I think ruffing with the ace is more than careless, I can't think of a rational reason for doing it, even if you think you're destined to lose a trump. If he's confused about the layout, that move could lead to losing 2 tricks, not just the one trick he conceded.

I'm not so sure. Let's say I am declarer, and (for whatever reason) I believe that the Jx of trumps is behind me. Under that belief, I think it would be entirely normal, and not careless at all, to cash the ♠A then ruff a club with the ♥A - just taking my two tricks as quickly as possible, so as to not unnecessarily prolong the play. In fact this is exactly what I do on BBO when my claim is rejected: I cash out directly.

So maybe it is just me that should lose a trick . In fact, if I made this concession, I would refuse to accept the third trick, in accordance with my own sense of ethics.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2014-September-03, 14:26, said:

I'm not so sure. Let's say I am declarer, and (for whatever reason) I believe that the Jx of trumps is behind me. Under that belief, I think it would be entirely normal, and not careless at all, to cash the ♠A then ruff a club with the ♥A - just taking my two tricks as quickly as possible, so as to not unnecessarily prolong the play. In fact this is exactly what I do on BBO when my claim is rejected: I cash out directly.

So maybe it is just me that should lose a trick . In fact, if I made this concession, I would refuse to accept the third trick, in accordance with my own sense of ethics.

Then you might run up against the ethics of the game, which prohibit the opponents from accepting the score for a trick they cannot win. You refuse to accept it, they refuse to accept it. Now what?

[TylerE]

3 tricks to declarer. There is no possible layout where ruffing high is *ever, ever*, right.

[hokum]

Does the calibre of the claimer come into it?

[TylerE]

I don't think so. I don't think even a novice will not only ruff a winner, but ruff HIGH.

[mamos]

At the risk of sounding grumpy and pedantic, might I suggest that the best approach is to read from the Law Book. Generally if you can identify the appropriate Law things will get easier.

Law 71 applies here, declarer has conceded a trick. Law 71 1 does not apply but we need to consider Law 71 2. Could a trick be lost by normal play. Normal play is referenced in a footnote and does include a reference to the "class of player involved" and also a reference to including "careless and inferior plays". I think that it is generally agreed that there is a class of play worse than this so bad, that it is beyond careless and inferior.

It's difficult to understand what was in declarer's mind here maybe he though one defender had both trumps. Would he lose a trick? Clearly he could. I can see only two ways - we could cash ♠A and ruff Club high, or play the Club first and still ruff high. Do we think this is normal? Well I do think it could be. A player who thinks he has a trump loser may be unconcerned about whether it's Trick 12 or 13 that he loses. Sure this is not best, but then conceding was careless and inferior too. I would take some convincing that the defence should not keep their trick

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-03, 15:25, said:

Then you might run up against the ethics of the game, which prohibit the opponents from accepting the score for a trick they cannot win. You refuse to accept it, they refuse to accept it. Now what?

But clearly, they can win the trick, at least from me.

Obviously, if director rules that I get all three tricks, I must accept that. But I would be quite clear to her that for me, losing a trick would be normal.

If it was logically impossible for ops to win a trick I conceded, then that would be a different situation.

[weejonnie]

You can lose two tricks.

Ruff a club with ♥A and then play ♥9 ditching the ♠A.

Now that would not be 'normal' play.

So from 1st principles.

1) Declarer cannot break the Agreement - under 69A -only the opponents
2) Declarer cannot withdraw the concession (71 header) and the opponents are under no obligation to do anything - although they can object to the concession on the grounds that declarer is likely to make all three tricks(79.2 means they are under no obligation to do so as declarer can lose a trick). However Declarer can call the Director and ask him to cancel the concession.
3) The Director can cancel a concession if Declarer has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play. (Up to Director to make a judgement, in conjunction with others) 71.2

Note that if the Director does think that a trick could be lost by any normal play he cannot cancel the concession - so, if a trick could be lost by any 'normal' play, in the second scenario the Defenders (once they agreed that they were entitled to the trick) are lumbered with the trick. (There are various minor points like - this is not rectification for an irregularity etc)