[VixTD]

A correspondent sent me the following problem:

North is declarer in 4♥, and at this point has made eight tricks. East is on lead, and is thinking hard.

..........♠4
..........♥A
..........♦-
..........♣-
♠J....................♠-
♥-....................♥5
♦10..................♦-
♣-....................♣2
..........♠-
..........♥9
..........♦6
..........♣-

After a heavy sigh from East, North says helpfully: "Oh, yes, you can't lead a diamond or a spade". (East has discarded on a diamond and ruffed a spade.) East packs up his cards and the board is scored as 4♥(N)=.

Before starting the next board, EW realise that if East leads a trump and West discards a diamond the contract will fail. They call the director. West admits that he cannot remember if North's remaining trump is higher than the nine or not.

Has North claimed? Has East conceded? How should the TD sort this out?

[billw55]

What a curiously vague situation. Admittedly this does not seem like exactly a claim or a concession.

I am inclined to say result stands. Partly because both sides agreed at the table, without bothering to call the director. For EW to win a trick here would require a correct play from both players, when evidently neither knows what the correct play is.

[nige1]

I don't know the answer to VixTD's interesting problem. FWIW, IMO

• North didn't claim;
• East conceded; but
• North could have known that his gratuitous and unhelpful remark might interrupt and confuse East's thought processes.
• If the director allows East to lead a trump, West's honest admission that he might discard wrongly should not be a reason to deprive East-West of their likely trick.

[Bbradley62]

Since this is EBU, not ACBL, isn't the possibility of a weighted score on the table?

[RMB1]

 VixTD, on 2014-July-21, 07:39, said:

Has North claimed? Has East conceded? How should the TD sort this out?

North should not have said what he said if he was not claiming, and East appears to think it was a claim.

If it was a concession by East, then declarer gets two tricks: Law 71 does not apply, there are normal plays by defenders which concede both tricks.

If it is a claim by North, then EW are in time to dispute the claim under Law 70. Declarer gets one trick because there is a successful defensive line.

I prefer to rule that where a statements by one side induces an apparent concession by the other side, then the statement is a claim.

[pran]

The facts are quite clear:

As described there was no claim, but there was an extraneous remark from North followed by a concession (of both tricks) by East. West did not object to the concession so Law 68B2 does not apply.

The only question that needs consideration is whether the extraneous remark by North has damaged East/West sufficiently to warrant an adjusted score. I should be very reluctant to rule along such lines, especially since West did not object to the concession.

[Lanor Fow]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-July-21, 08:41, said:

Since this is EBU, not ACBL, isn't the possibility of a weighted score on the table?

It isn't. After a claim the director is adjudicating whether the claim is successful, and if not how many tricks would be made under the claim, rather than giving an assigned score.

The white book says:

"Interpretation of Law 70A
The TD is required to simply use their bridge judgement after consultation to decide the outcome of the deal, any doubt going against the claimer, with no opportunity for split or weighted scores. A suitable definition of ‘doubtful’ is ‘within the margins of reasonable doubt’."

[RMB1]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-July-21, 08:41, said:

Since this is EBU, not ACBL, isn't the possibility of a weighted score on the table?

Not for claims. The claim law talks about awarding tricks not assigning scores - there is no reference to Law 12 - so no "route" to the weighted scores of Law 12C1(c).

For the EBU, the White Book is explicit (if not dogmatic):

Quote

When a TD has to decide a contested claim under Law 70, the TD is not assigning a score. Thus none of this section applies: the TD may not give a split or weighted score, but must rule an actual number of tricks, the same for both sides. The same applies to a ruling on a withdrawn agreement in a claim under Law 69B2.

[VixTD]

My initial (perhaps too hasty) response was that North's comment suggested curtailing play, and should be treated as a claim. I'm less sure about that now, but still leaving the option open.

If it's not a claim, East has definitely conceded the last two tricks. As East took the initiative in claiming / conceding he only gets back any tricks he conceded if they were tricks he had in fact won, or tricks that he could not lose by any normal play of the cards (law 71). (The other side can withdraw their agreement if they do so in time, but the claiming / conceding side cannot go back and have another go.)

If we rule that North's comment was a claim, a weighted score is not allowed, as Lanor Fow and Robin say. One trick should be awarded to the defence. (We're not sure which cards East would have led and West would have discarded, and doubtful points are awarded against the claimer.)

If North's comment is not considered a claim, then is it possible to rule, as Pran suggests, that it induced East to concede? Then law 73F allows us to apply law 12C and award an adjusted score to redress any damage. Now a weighted score is allowed, and we could suppose that East would lead a trump some of the time, and West would discard the right card some of the time.

My latest thoughts on this were that I might apply these laws if EW were impressionable and inexperienced, but not if they were experts, and that I would take a dim view of an expert North who made such a comment and accepted the concession if playing against much weaker players.

I have since been told by my correspondent that all were strong players.

[weejonnie]

This is a concession - 68B1 (part of) A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons the hand.

Now 71 kicks in "A concession must stand once made except if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal (careless or inferior) play of the remaining cards. - the time limit is OK (correction period). Since playing a club leads to the loss of both tricks and would be regarded as 'careless' then the concession stands.

That being said - can EW claim recourse under 73D2 (A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark) and 73F (COULD have known at the time of the action that the action could work to his benefit) - note the word 'COULD' - it does not mean DID. If North could (he is a strong player) have known that his statement to east could work to his benefit (by preventing east from finding the right defence) then an adjusted score can be made.

Certainly in terms of Equity I would like to apply this.

The TD should of course impose a procedural penalty on NS due to breach of bridge etiquette (inconveniences other contestants by making gratuitous remarks)

[pran]

 weejonnie, on 2014-July-21, 12:58, said:

[...]
That being said - can EW claim recourse under 73D2 (A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark) and 73F (COULD have known at the time of the action that the action could work to his benefit) - note the word 'COULD' - it does not mean DID. If North could (he is a strong player) have known that his statement to east could work to his benefit (by preventing east from finding the right defence) then an adjusted score can be made.

Certainly in terms of Equity I would like to apply this.

The TD should of course impose a procedural penalty on NS due to breach of bridge etiquette (inconveniences other contestants by making gratuitous remarks)

The only problem with this is that North has a good case if he states that he in no way tried to mislead East, on the contrary he tried to make life easier for him.

Apparently North as well as both defenders overlooked the winning lead of a trump from East.

And I am not so sure about imposing a PP (except possibly a warning) on North who for all we know just tried to be helpful.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 68, first paragraph: For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*.

* If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Authorized and Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.

North did not claim.

Quote

Law 68B1, last sentence: A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

East conceded the last two tricks. His partner did not immediately object (Law 68B2).

Quote

Law 71: A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:
1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. 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.

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

Result stands. Caution North against making extraneous comments.

I do not think 73F applies here. For one thing, which earlier part of law 73 has North violated?

[Bbradley62]

 VixTD, on 2014-July-21, 11:28, said:

I have since been told by my correspondent that all were strong players.

Although not strong enough to know that the trump A was outstanding
Edit: Nor strong enough to know, as partner is thinking, that both of his remaining cards are high in their suits.

[weejonnie]

73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture . . . or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

Said procedure being a breach of law 74 B2 - As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from making gratuitous comments during the auction or play. (As well as 74C3 - indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed)

[pran]

 weejonnie, on 2014-July-21, 16:02, said:

73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture . . . or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

Did North really attempt to mislead East?

[blackshoe]

I'm with Pran. It doesn't look to me like there's been a breach of Law 73D2 here, so 73F does not apply. Even if there's been a breach of 74B2 or 74C3, that does not lead to 73F. I don't think 74C3 applies at all, and while I grant 74B2 does, the only thing that law suggests is that the infraction is a breach of procedure, of a kind which is "not often penalized".

[barmar]

 pran, on 2014-July-21, 13:56, said:

The only problem with this is that North has a good case if he states that he in no way tried to mislead East, on the contrary he tried to make life easier for him.

Apparently North as well as both defenders overlooked the winning lead of a trump from East.

And I am not so sure about imposing a PP (except possibly a warning) on North who for all we know just tried to be helpful.

How is North's comment helpful? East can see that he has no diamonds or spades, he knows he can't lead them.

It seems like the point of a comment like this is to suggest that it doesn't matter whether he leads a club or heart. He's not giving information to East, it seems like a "thinking out loud" comment coincident to a claim, e.g. "Since you can't lead a diamond or spade, I get the rest." He just never actually voiced the second part of that sentence.

If it does matter which card he leads, the comment seems misleading.

[blackshoe]

Whatever you think he might have said, he didn't say it. So there is no claim here.

As to the comment, he made a statement of fact. IMO, any inferences drawn from that are drawn at the inferrer's own risk. Particularly since he can see that the statement is true just by looking at his hand.

[biggerclub]

When I played poker, I often jokingly lobbied for a no talking at the table rule.

Now that I am back to serious bridge, I do find that opponent's seemingly innocuous comments, questions and commentary distract me ever so subtly and lead to some fairly ridiculous errors by me that I would never make with clear concentration. A most recent example: Partner opens 1MAJ. LHO asks me a question about (I believe) another hand. I need to think to answer her question. I see RHO extract a card from the front of the bidding box and place it on the table. As I answer LHO's question, I place my 3C bid on the table (Bergen). Then I see that RHO didn't pass, but instead x'd. Now even though I can correct my bid (same motion rule), I can't . . . really . . . because partner has UI.

All of which is pretty irrelevant to the current question . . . .except, I wish no one would talk to me while I am playing cards.

FWIW.

[blackshoe]

"Same motion rule"? Never heard of it.

If you find annoying or disconcerting opponents' questions or comments about things extraneous to the current hand, tell your opponents that up front, at the beginning of the round. If they don't honor that, call the director.