[Chris3875]

How much sympathy would you have as a director with the following scenario which I heard about today? With 4 cards remaining to be played one of the defenders conceded the rest of the tricks - his partner immediately objected and asked that play continue. No-one called the director. Play proceeded and the defenders took 2 of the last 4 tricks. At the completion of the hand the declaring side called the director and said that they had become "confused" with the concession/objection.

[RMB1]

Chris3875, on 2012-August-03, 01:05, said:

How much sympathy would you have as a director with the following scenario ...

Not much.

The law says "Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately." When the TD is called he should deal with the use of unauthorised information, but otherwise the play to the last tricks should stand.

[ahydra]

Agree with RMB1. ALWAYS call the TD!

Law 68B2 says "Play continues" (is that the "Jesus wept" of the Law Book?), so result stands.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

Agree with the above, but let me put up a scenario that could happen.

A pair agree that in situations where a 2 way finesse might be happening that the person WITH the card will concede and partner will object. They never concede in defence otherwise, and unsurprisingly, declarer gets this wrong 99% of the time. Has an offence been committed ?

[Zelandakh]

I think 73F covers that, no?

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-03, 07:30, said:

Agree with the above, but let me put up a scenario that could happen.

A pair agree that in situations where a 2 way finesse might be happening that the person WITH the card will concede and partner will object. They never concede in defence otherwise, and unsurprisingly, declarer gets this wrong 99% of the time. Has an offence been committed ?

Absolutely!

Quote

Law 73B2: The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.

[blackshoe]

Zel: No, 73F just tells the TD when he can adjust the score.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-03, 07:38, said:

Absolutely!

Of course you're right, I hadn't considered the imparting of info, merely the deliberate deception, what if they simply agreed never to accept partner's concessions so no info is imparted but the same deceptive intent is available.

[blackshoe]

Look at laws 73D2 and 74B4.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-03, 17:32, said:

Look at laws 73D2 and 74B4.

I did, and didn't think the letter of either quite applied (although only because they're not phrased for this type of thing, the intent is clear).

[RMB1]

What about Law 73B2 - although claims and concessions are not mentioned in 73B1 this does not mean that defense claims can be used for communicating with partner - and certainly not if the information is not disclosed.

[blackshoe]

73B2 is about exchanging information. Cyber posited a situation in which no information is exchanged.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-04, 08:51, said:

73B2 is about exchanging information. Cyber posited a situation in which no information is exchanged.

Are you sure about that? In Cyber's situation, the defender who concedes is telling partner there is a key defensive card, and that he holds it.

If you mean 2-way communication is necessary to meet the word "exchange", then we have a problem with improper communication issues as a whole.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-04, 10:16, said:

Are you sure about that? In Cyber's situation, the defender who concedes is telling partner there is a key defensive card, and that he holds it.

If you mean 2-way communication is necessary to meet the word "exchange", then we have a problem with improper communication issues as a whole.

No, I don't mean 2-way communication is necessary.

Cyber said "what if they simply agreed never to accept partner's concessions so no info is imparted but the same deceptive intent is available." I don't see how you get to "the defender who concedes is telling partner there is a key defensive card, and that he holds it" from that.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-03, 07:30, said:

A pair agree that in situations where a 2 way finesse might be happening that the person WITH the card will concede and partner will object. They never concede in defence otherwise

blackshoe, on 2012-August-04, 10:35, said:

I don't see how you get to "the defender who concedes is telling partner there is a key defensive card, and that he holds it" from that.

I got it from Cyber's first post of the scenario. The one who concedes is moving from "a two-way finesse might be happening" to a guarantee that it is happening and communication to partner confirming that fact. Otherwise he never concedes.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-03, 07:38, said:

Absolutely!

It is my understanding that such 'communication' is, to the contrary, enshrined in the law as L68B authorizes the partner to object and when it is done immediately play proceeds without hindrence of a concession. This state of affairs has existed for many decades with the WBFLC knowing full well the L73B2 ramifications described in this thread.

Actually, I experienced the events of this thread some ten years ago when I was called to settle a claim of improper deception:

The play was without trump and Dummy [N] held CAKJ. S led Cx and W put his cards in the board and E objected immediately knowing full well E could never win a trick [holding all hearts]. I ruled that play continue as prescribed by L68B. W indeed held CQxx where the CQ took T13.

The assertion was then made that given the action of W, that the only valid reason for the objection of E was that E must hold the CQ, and since in fact E knew she could not win any trick, that E's objection was improper deception causing the damage of luring declarer to play E for the CQ [as by not considering finessing W]. I ruled that the table result be recorded subject to my consulting on the claim of improper deception. The outcome of the consultation was that there was absolutely no basis for the claim of improper deception.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2012-August-04, 12:13, said:

It is my understanding that such 'communication' is, to the contrary, enshrined in the law as L68B authorizes the partner to object and when it is done immediately play proceeds without hindrence of a concession. This state of affairs has existed for many decades with the WBFLC knowing full well the L73B2 ramifications described in this thread.

Assumption. How do you know what the WBFLC knows full well?

axman, on 2012-August-04, 12:13, said:

The outcome of the consultation was that there was absolutely no basis for the claim of improper deception.

Uh, huh. With whom did you consult?

It is not the concession, nor the rejection of the concession, that is the problem here. It is the postulated prior agreement by this pair that one player will concede with the missing card in a "two way finesse" situation and his partner will immediately object. If that's not a violation of Law 73B2 then we might as well throw the law book in the trash. All TD rulings will then become very simple: "sorry, there's nothing I can do. There are no rules in this game."

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-03, 15:29, said:

Zel: No, 73F just tells the TD when he can adjust the score.

How does adjusting the score so that Declarer gets the 2-way finesse right not solve the problem? If you want to get them for a DP then you can probably do it through them having a concealed (and illegal) partnership understanding.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say adjusting the score doesn't solve the problem, I said that 73F doesn't describe the offense. 73F starts with "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage…" so you have to find another part of Law 73 that describes the offense, which in this case is Law 73B2. You can't just skip over that and say "73F says to adjust the score".

[bluejak]

Chris3875, on 2012-August-03, 01:05, said:

How much sympathy would you have as a director with the following scenario which I heard about today? With 4 cards remaining to be played one of the defenders conceded the rest of the tricks - his partner immediately objected and asked that play continue. No-one called the director. Play proceeded and the defenders took 2 of the last 4 tricks. At the completion of the hand the declaring side called the director and said that they had become "confused" with the concession/objection.

No sympathy.

We tell players to call the TD. They don't. We shall never persuade them if we try to get back the effects of their mistakes.

If I can find a legal way of taking tricks off the defence but not giving them to declarer, I might do it.

What do they really think the TD is for? Have they ever seen a football match where the players make the decisions and let the referee sit on the sidelines drinking coffee?

Ok, ok, there is one situation: if the defence were strong characters of more experience than declarer now I might do something. But even so I would start by giving declarer a short lecture.