[Fluffy]

---

East is playing 4♠, with 2 tricks to go she leads ♦9 from dummy, my partner hesitates for a long time and trows away ♣A.

I dump my cards face down conceding, and 2 seconds later RHO pitches ♣8 on ♦9 , she admits later that she though ♦9 was good.

[RMB1]

It would be good to know what happened next.

Was abandonning your hand recognised as a concession? [Law 68B1]
Did declarer accept the concession? [Law 69]
Did partner immediately object to the concession? [Law 68B2]
Did you attempt to withdraw your concession? [Law 71]

There was a concession. Unless partner immediately objected play ceases. Declarer will accept the concession. If the defenders attempt to withdraw the concession, the TD will cancel the concession "if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards". [Law 71 2.]

The play of ♣8 occured after the concession but the TD "may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim". [Law 70D3]

This may mean that ♣8 is a normal play, but I think that ruffing is nevertheless also a normal play for declarer. In which case, there is a normal play by which the conceded tricks could be lost. The concession stands: two tricks to declarer.

[RMB1]

misclick

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2012-January-11, 07:36, said:

This may mean that ♣8 is a normal play, but I think that ruffing is nevertheless also a normal play for declarer. In which case, there is a normal play by which the conceded tricks could be lost. The concession stands: two tricks to declarer.

Ruffing isn't a normal play for a declarer who thinks ♦9 is good. Does that matter?

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2012-January-11, 08:03, said:

Ruffing isn't a normal play for a declarer who thinks ♦9 is good. Does that matter?

Yes. It would be possible to rule that ruffing is not a normal play. Some think that Law 70D3 should be used in this way. In which case the concession (of two tricks) is cancelled and the defence get one trick.

Perhaps because of its history/motivation, I think Law 70D3 should be used to widen the scope of normal plays for the claiming/conceding side but should not be used to narrow the scopre of normal plays for the other side. But there is nothing explicit in the law to support this.

[barmar]

I wonder if South conceding (without showing his cards) is what made declarer think the ♦9 was good. Does this change what's considered "normal"?

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2012-January-11, 14:41, said:

I wonder if South conceding (without showing his cards) is what made declarer think the ♦9 was good. Does this change what's considered "normal"?

+1. I wondered that too. I would have justed clicked "+" to up-vote if I could.

[blackshoe]

Can't up-vote or down-vote an admin's posts. BTW, Barry, congrats.

[iviehoff]

Edited to remove completely misconceived post.

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2012-January-12, 03:11