[jeffford76]

This actually happened to friends in San Francisco. I'm curious how you would handle it.

A client passes a pro in a 3-level cue bid at matchpoints. Realizing the board is a zero regardless, the pro says, "Just score it as down 9" and puts his cards away. The other side acquiesces and puts their cards away too.

No one calls the director, but a director later notices the weird contract / score. Now what? And does it matter whether it is possible for the pro to lose all the tricks?

[blackshoe]

The pro is declarer. He has conceded all the tricks. His opponents agreed. The score stands, unless Law 71.2 applies.

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.

Irrelevant side note: Law 71 is the only law in the book whose first level sub parts aren't designated by letter.

[CamHenry]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-06, 17:57, said:

The pro is declarer. He has conceded all the tricks. His opponents agreed. The score stands, unless Law 71.2 applies.

An example of this would be when declarer (or dummy) did in fact have the trump A.

[RSliwinski]

A note on an irrelevant side note:

blackshoe, on 2012-December-06, 17:57, said:

Irrelevant side note: Law 71 is the only law in the book whose first level sub parts aren't designated by letter.

How about Law 35?

[aguahombre]

RSliwinski, on 2012-December-07, 06:46, said:

A note on an irrelevant side note:

How about Law 35?

Look again. 35 has all lettered components and no numbered ones.

[blackshoe]

CamHenry, on 2012-December-07, 03:11, said:

blackshoe, on 2012-December-06, 17:57, said:

The pro is declarer. He has conceded all the tricks. His opponents agreed. The score stands, unless Law 71.2 applies.

An example of this would be when declarer (or dummy) did in fact have the trump A.

Yep.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-07, 09:26, said:

Look again. 35 has all lettered components and no numbered ones.

Not the WBF version which can be seen at:

http://www.worldbrid...lcode/law35.asp

[blackshoe]

Yes, Law 35 in the WBF version is numbered. I missed that because I rarely need to look at that version, so I rarely do look at it.

[jeffford76]

The ruling was that the score was changed back to a "normal" result in the contract played, and both sides were penalized 10% of a top. I was surprised by the penalty for a side that accepted a concession. (I don't know whether there was an obvious trick like the trump ace that couldn't be lost.)

No one here seems to have mentioned any penalties for either side (but not that many people responded either).

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2012-December-10, 11:49, said:

The ruling was that the score was changed back to a "normal" result in the contract played, and both sides were penalized 10% of a top. I was surprised by the penalty for a side that accepted a concession. (I don't know whether there was an obvious trick like the trump ace that couldn't be lost.)

No one here seems to have mentioned any penalties for either side (but not that many people responded either).

I would like to know the legal basis for this ruling.

[RMB1]

jeffford76, on 2012-December-10, 11:49, said:

The ruling was that the score was changed back to a "normal" result in the contract played, and both sides were penalized 10% of a top. I was surprised by the penalty for a side that accepted a concession. (I don't know whether there was an obvious trick like the trump ace that couldn't be lost.)

No one here seems to have mentioned any penalties for either side (but not that many people responded either).

I wonder if the normal result in the contract was still a bottom.

As a TD I would check that the score was one that both sides agreed was the score at the table. The conceding side do not seem to have made any breach of procedure - it does not appear to be against the law to concede a trick you must win. The side that accepted the concession appear to have broken with the law that says they should not accept the concession of a trick that can not be lost. There is no penalty for breaches of that law, and I do not think a procedural penalty is appropriate. I would issue a warning in the form of reminding them that the law exists.

[axman]

jeffford76, on 2012-December-10, 11:49, said:

The ruling was that the score was changed back to a "normal" result in the contract played, and both sides were penalized 10% of a top. I was surprised by the penalty for a side that accepted a concession. (I don't know whether there was an obvious trick like the trump ace that couldn't be lost.)

No one here seems to have mentioned any penalties for either side (but not that many people responded either).

If the tournament staff is going to play the hands without the players then the players can stay home and avoid wasting their time and money.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2012-December-10, 12:48, said:

I wonder if the normal result in the contract was still a bottom.

As a TD I would check that the score was one that both sides agreed was the score at the table. The conceding side do not seem to have made any breach of procedure - it does not appear to be against the law to concede a trick you must win. The side that accepted the concession appear to have broken with the law that says they should not accept the concession of a trick that can not be lost. There is no penalty for breaches of that law, and I do not think a procedural penalty is appropriate. I would issue a warning in the form of reminding them that the law exists.

How are the conceding side supposed to know they are missing the Ace of trumps, if indeed they are (which is not, in fact, in evidence in this case)? They can't if they don't see it, and showing hands is not usual in a case like this.

Quote

Law 79A2: A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

Emphasis is mine. IMO this law has not been breached, unless one of the defenders knows that declarer has a trick he can't lose. On the evidence presented, neither defender knows.

[jeffford76]

RMB1, on 2012-December-10, 12:48, said:

I wonder if the normal result in the contract was still a bottom.

It was. So the pro actually achieved negative matchpoints on the board. And in his defense, he went to argue with the directors that my friends should not be penalized, but to no avail.

[mycroft]

I can't see that. I get penalized for not playing out a hand in case declarer has 2 tricks instead of none where everyone else is going down no more than one?

I think that the expert's behaviour could be due a PP, but not the concession. And if nobody's upset with the behaviour at the table, why should the law get involved?

I once scored a ticket that was 1♦xx+2, score -1000 NS. Please note that the score for 1♦xx+2 isn't -1000 (and they were NV, so it wasn't -2 and scored on the wrong side, either). I just pointed the ticket out to a fellow TD, computed the score, and typed it in, just like any other scoring error (and yeah, there was zero MP difference between -630 and -1000). Should I have penalized both pairs involved with that one?

[kevperk]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-10, 13:23, said:

How are the conceding side supposed to know they are missing the Ace of trumps, if indeed they are (which is not, in fact, in evidence in this case)? They can't if they don't see it, and showing hands is not usual in a case like this.


Emphasis is mine. IMO this law has not been breached, unless one of the defenders knows that declarer has a trick he can't lose. On the evidence presented, neither defender knows.

If my opponents conceded all the tricks, I sure would look to see if that is the case, and feel anyone who shrugs their shoulders and accepts deserves to be ruled against.
To say neither defender knows may be true, but that is a cop out.

I do know that the hand was scored with the declarer making only the tricks that would be made regardless on the play.

[jeffford76]

kevperk, on 2012-December-12, 21:23, said:

If my opponents conceded all the tricks, I sure would look to see if that is the case, and feel anyone who shrugs their shoulders and accepts deserves to be ruled against.
To say neither defender knows may be true, but that is a cop out.

Deserves to be ruled against under what law?

[kevperk]

jeffford76, on 2012-December-12, 22:01, said:

Deserves to be ruled against under what law?

Law 71(2) for the adjustment of tricks, and Law 72B(1) for not making any attempt to determine how many tricks were incorrectly conceded.

[blackshoe]

A ruling under Law 71.2 is not a ruling "against" anyone.

Your reading of Law 72B1 is just wrong. There is no law requiring a player to verify that his opponent has not conceded a trick he cannot lose, so no player can have intentionally infringed such a law.

If you, personally, feel you should always verify such a concession, well, that's up to you - but it's not required by law, and not doing so carries no penalty.

[barmar]

How about 79A2? This hinges on whether not even bothering to check counts as "knowingly" accepting an invalid concession. While you don't actually know for sure that declarer has a trick, you can be pretty confident that declarer doesn't know for sure how many tricks he's going to lose (he hasn't seen dummy yet).

It would help if the laws prohibited claiming or conceding prior to dummy being spread. But they probably felt this was unnecessary.