[VixTD]

The following happened at our club championship pairs game. I wasn't present, and the director wasn't called, but I was asked about it afterwards.

South was playing in a spade contract. West was on lead at trick 12. She had lost track of the trumps (she thought they had all gone), but knew that declarer had the ♣K.

..........(irrelevant)
♣AQ................♠9 ♥J
............♣K5

West played ♣A and when all had played to the trick faced ♣Q. South assumed he had won the last trick, but East protested that she had ruffed her partner's ace (she had done this - West hadn't noticed) and would take the last trick with the ♥J.

South said no, West had led ♣Q out of turn at trick 13 so he would win that trick.

West said not so, she hadn't led it, when she showed the card she was intending to concede the last trick, as she knew the ♣K was in the South hand and was unaware of any outstanding trumps.

How many of the last two tricks do EW get?

[campboy]

I don't think "concession at trick 13" is a thing.

Law 68 said:

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.

Even if it is possible to concede at this point, I think the onus is on the defender to make it clear that it is a concession, not a play. I would rule that the ♣Q has been led.

[barmar]

I can't believe there's no law that says that trick 13 is automatically played in proper sequence, somewhat analogous to the law that says that a revoke on trick 12 is automatically corrected when trick 13 establishes it. It's not like players have any choice in what to do on trick 13, and it seems ridiculous that a LOOT could be accepted.

But there isn't, so I guess a SB could pull off this coup.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-November-20, 09:57, said:

I guess a SB could pull off this coup.

Not with a sane director at the table.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-20, 10:01, said:

Not with a sane director at the table.

So what law does this sane director use to justify not ruling as campboy said?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-November-20, 07:41, said:

The following happened at our club championship pairs game. I wasn't present, and the director wasn't called, but I was asked about it afterwards.

South was playing in a spade contract. West was on lead at trick 12. She had lost track of the trumps (she thought they had all gone), but knew that declarer had the ♣K.

..........(irrelevant)
♣AQ................♠9 ♥J
............♣K5

West played ♣A and when all had played to the trick faced ♣Q. South assumed he had won the last trick, but East protested that she had ruffed her partner's ace (she had done this - West hadn't noticed) and would take the last trick with the ♥J.

South said no, West had led ♣Q out of turn at trick 13 so he would win that trick.

West said not so, she hadn't led it, when she showed the card she was intending to concede the last trick, as she knew the ♣K was in the South hand and was unaware of any outstanding trumps.

How many of the last two tricks do EW get?

We can choose between two alternatives:
1: West has led the ♣Q out of turn. East called attention to the irregularity and the ♣Q becomes a major penalty card.
2: West has conceeded the last trick. East objected, no concession has taken place.

In either case East leads his ♥J to the last trick and wins this. WTP?

(A curious point is that if East just discards his ♥J on the ♣A then no problem exists at all)

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-November-20, 10:11, said:

We can choose between two alternatives:
1: West has led the ♣Q out of turn. East called attention to the irregularity and the ♣Q becomes a major penalty card.

Law 53A says that declarer can choose to accept the LOOT. In that case, it doesn't become a penalty card.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-November-20, 10:11, said:

So what law does this sane director use to justify not ruling as campboy said?

Never mind. The words "Secretary Bird" caused me to misread the situation.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-November-20, 10:13, said:

Law 53A says that declarer can choose to accept the LOOT. In that case, it doesn't become a penalty card.

On second thought I assume that East called attention to the irregularity by leading his ♥J simultaneously (within the understanding of Law 58A) with the illegal lead by West.

[Aardv]

Did West face the queen of clubs while holding onto it, or did he lay it down on the table? That affects my ruling, following Law 45A.

[pran]

Did East play (lead) his ♥J in tempo after winning trick 12 with his trump?

We are talking about the last trick on the Board. I have never seen anybody hesitating before leading their last card, usually they just show it.

So if East acted "normally" his lead of ♥J will satisfy the condition in Law 58A and shall be ruled to having occurred before any "lead out of turn" by West to this trick.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2014-November-21, 01:15, said:

Did East play (lead) his ♥J in tempo after winning trick 12 with his trump?

Since this wasn't mentioned, and it would have been mentioned had it happened, assume it didn't happen.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-November-21, 01:15, said:

Did East play (lead) his ♥J in tempo after winning trick 12 with his trump?

VixTD, on 2014-November-21, 07:38, said:

Since this wasn't mentioned, and it would have been mentioned had it happened, assume it didn't happen.

On the contrary "hesitating" before leading the last card is so unusual (to me) that I believe the reason it was not mentioned is that West made the LOOT maybe a split second faster and nobody thought of Law 58A.

(My experience is that more often than not all four players expose their cards simultaneously to the last trick?)

[blackshoe]

Well, many players around here, if they think they're not winning the last trick, or last couple of tricks, simply toss their cards on the table face down and immediately mix their cards.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 09:38, said:

Well, many players around here, if they think they're not winning the last trick, or last couple of tricks, simply toss their cards on the table face down and immediately mix their cards.

Or he might show his last two trick, maybe saying something like "I'm end-played".

Although if he concedes like this on trick 12, his partner can object to the concession. And unlike the other thread about a defensive concession, I don't think there's any UI problem here.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-21, 09:38, said:

Well, many players around here, if they think they're not winning the last trick, or last couple of tricks, simply toss their cards on the table face down and immediately mix their cards.

My point is that they don't hesitate to lead their last card if they think they lead the winning card?

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-November-21, 10:58, said:

My point is that they don't hesitate to lead their last card if they think they lead the winning card?

I think what blackshoe is suggesting is that West may have played tricks 12 and 13 in rapid succession, never actually giving East a chance to lead to trick 13.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 11:24, said:

I think what blackshoe is suggesting is that West may have played tricks 12 and 13 in rapid succession, never actually giving East a chance to lead to trick 13.

Well, in that case her action seems more like claiming than playing it out. And in that case the Director, when resolving the claim, may not accept any line of play involving illegal play(s) whether suggested by the claimer or an opponent.

However, according to OP West knew that her last card was not a winner so the facts seem in favour of a ruling that she indeed tried to concede the last trick, an action to which East objected in time.

I still feel (from what we have been told) that it takes a SB to give South the last trick.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 10:57, said:

Or he might show his last two trick, maybe saying something like "I'm end-played".

I've done that. Did it yesterday, in fact.

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 11:24, said:

I think what blackshoe is suggesting is that West may have played tricks 12 and 13 in rapid succession, never actually giving East a chance to lead to trick 13.

Actually, the one I was envisioning was where I led to trick 12, my partner played a high card, and declarer just tossed his last two cards in face down. Technically a concession, I suppose.