[Phil]

bluejak, on 2012-September-06, 17:28, said:

The legalities are clear, and we are arguing about bridge judgement.

David, what 'bridge judgment' is involved with 'you get a heart'?

How would you (adjudicate), btw?

[iviehoff]

Phil, on 2012-September-06, 19:00, said:

David, what 'bridge judgment' is involved with 'you get a heart'?

The application of Law 71 is a "judgment ruling". The TD has to decide what is a "normal play", which can only be decided by application of bride judgment rather than binary logic.

[RMB1]

Phil, on 2012-September-06, 19:00, said:

..., what 'bridge judgment' is involved with 'you get a heart'?

The judegement is whether the play of HQ or HJ before HA is normal (including careless or inferior) or is beyond "careless or inferior".

No one has tackled the technicalities - although they are clear.

Declarer claimed 3 tricks and conceded 1. Presumably the defence agreed. (I know that some here who would not agree and would concede all the tricks - I respect them, but I do not think the laws require it.)

At some point later the declaring side discover that HK was singleton and withdraw the concession, this is now Law 71.

Quote

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.

Then we are back to whether ducking a heart is normal.

[Phil]

Thanks Robin for the concise answer and also addressing the ethical nature of the matter from a directors POV.

Is playing a low heart from AQJ 'careless or inferior'? I would say yes, regardless of the statement. This seems to fall into the same genre as conceding a trick with AKT / xxx or AKQ8x / x when the QJ or JT9 fall in two or three rounds.

I thought I remembered some ACBL director's guidelines that declarer is allowed to play top-down, which seems far from unreasonable.

[iviehoff]

Phil, on 2012-September-07, 05:14, said:

Is playing a low heart from AQJ 'careless or inferior'?

This rather glides over the actual judgment that has to be made, as in fact it in practice it is about gradations of carelessness and inferiority. We are told that "normal" plays include the "careless or inferior" (footnote 22 to law 70). Any play worse than best play is "inferior". Therefore, for this to be meaningful, ie for there to be any plays that are not "normal", there must exist plays that are so bad as to be beyond mere "careless(ness) or inferior(ity)", and thus not be "normal". Where that line might be between merely or ordinarily "careless or inferior" and worse than that, is very hard to discern, and that is why there is usually so little agreement on the judgment element of claims rulings. Bluejak says he thinks it is usually obvious, but this forum is full of cases that test that assertion.

[iviehoff]

Phil, on 2012-September-07, 05:14, said:

I thought I remembered some ACBL director's guidelines that declarer is allowed to play top-down, which seems far from unreasonable.

It is explicit in the laws that there may be regs of that nature. But regs on assuming play to be top-down wouldn't usually apply to a broken holding.

[ahydra]

RMB1/Phil's argument seems good to me, and I'd buy it. But at the time of the claim, declarer (very carelessly IMO) didn't realise the HK could be singleton. Is it too much effort to play the HA?

If he's careless enough to not realise the possibility of the singleton king when he claimed, we might argue he'd be careless enough to do so again in the putative "play of the remaining cards" in Law 71. Given the Laws' (and their usual interpretation's) strong emphasis on clear and accurate claim statements, I feel it's wrong to allow declarer to retract the concession of a heart when he sees the hand records. He should either play the HA then claim, or say "you get a heart unless the king is singleton".

ahydra

[billw55]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-07, 05:36, said:

This rather glides over the actual judgment that has to be made, as in fact it in practice it is about gradations of carelessness and inferiority. We are told that "normal" plays include the "careless or inferior" (footnote 22 to law 70). Any play worse than best play is "inferior". Therefore, for this to be meaningful, ie for there to be any plays that are not "normal", there must exist plays that are so bad as to be beyond mere "careless(ness) or inferior(ity)", and thus not be "normal". Where that line might be between merely or ordinarily "careless or inferior" and worse than that, is very hard to discern, and that is why there is usually so little agreement on the judgment element of claims rulings. Bluejak says he thinks it is usually obvious, but this forum is full of cases that test that assertion.

In this specific case at least, I find it easy to discern. Playing a low heart is careless. Cashing the trump and then playing a low heart is irrational. So for me, one trick to the defense is acceptable, but three is not.

That said, as the defender, I would not object to a ruling of zero tricks. At least it makes sense, in a way.

And lastly, as declarer, I would never under any circumstance attempt to withdraw a concession I had made.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-07, 05:36, said:

Bluejak says he thinks it is usually obvious, but this forum is full of cases that test that assertion.

Sure. Let us say that there are a million claims a day, of which 0.2 are posted to this forum. I do not think that challenges the view that it is "usually obvious".

[iviehoff]

billw55, on 2012-September-07, 06:16, said:

In this specific case at least, I find it easy to discern. Playing a low heart is careless. Cashing the trump and then playing a low heart is irrational. So for me, one trick to the defense is acceptable, but three is not.

Let's be a little careful, what you mean is that playing the low heart is (ordinarily) "careless" but not worse than that, hence "normal"; playing a trump would be worse than "careless".

I agree with you, but most of the early posters on the thread argued that playing a low heart was worse than careless.

billw55, on 2012-September-07, 06:16, said:

And lastly, as declarer, I would never under any circumstance attempt to withdraw a concession I had made.

You may find your team pressures you into withdrawing a concession in a very clear case if it helps their cause. Doing it after the hand when you are no longer have the opposition in your face to embarrass you may be easier. Though having had the embarrassing experience of trying to withdraw an impossible concession and failing to get a favourable ruling from the TD, I tend to agree with you.

[gnasher]

billw55, on 2012-September-07, 06:16, said:

And lastly, as declarer, I would never under any circumstance attempt to withdraw a concession I had made.

Withdrawing a concession is perfectly normal and reasonable under some circumstances. For example, suppose that you claim saying "I'll take the two top hearts and dummy's diamonds, then give you the last three tricks", when in fact this would leave the defenders with only two tricks. Why shouldn't you withdraw your concession once you realise your mistake?

[billw55]

gnasher, on 2012-September-07, 10:05, said:

Withdrawing a concession is perfectly normal and reasonable under some circumstances. For example, suppose that you claim saying "I'll take the two top hearts and dummy's diamonds, then give you the last three tricks", when in fact this would leave the defenders with only two tricks. Why shouldn't you withdraw your concession once you realise your mistake?

Because mistakes count. Even this one. At least, for me they do.

I am probably biased about this. I grew up playing chess, in youth events and later regular tournaments, until I gave it up. So my game attitudes mostly come from chess culture, where the taboo against any kind of "undo" is absolute.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-07, 05:36, said:

Bluejak says he thinks it is usually obvious, but this forum is full of cases that test that assertion.

Bluejak has been directing and serving on ACs for considerably longer than most posters here.

[Fluffy]

Phil, on 2012-September-07, 05:14, said:

Is playing a low heart from AQJ 'careless or inferior'? I would say yes, regardless of the statement. This seems to fall into the same genre as conceding a trick with AKT / xxx or AKQ8x / x when the QJ or JT9 fall in two or three rounds.

I don't think conceding a trick with AK10 xxx its related, conceding a trick there you are not promoting any trick for your side, it has no sense to play the 10 early.

Maybe to many posters playing the queen from AQJ is nonsense, this goes into the very basic of how we think of this game perhaps, for me it is reasonable way of thinking.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2012-September-07, 12:20, said:

I grew up playing chess, in youth events and later regular tournaments, until I gave it up. So my game attitudes mostly come from chess culture, where the taboo against any kind of "undo" is absolute.

True story. At school I was the captain of the chess team. We were playing one of the local public (posh) schools and it was all down to the last table where the opponent was messing about with something like 2 queens and a bunch of other pieces against a lone king. With everyone looking on this was obviously incredibly embarassing for our player and he had just had enough and was about to resign when I stepped in and announced stalemate, thus rescuing a half point for our side. This was not technically an undo since I got to the board faster than our team mate managed to turn his king over. Nonetheless this would have been a clear case where an undo was allowed since checkmate or stalemate ends the game (thus making the resignation illegal). The same is true of a mistaken concession where the defence cannot win the allotted number of tricks.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-10, 07:51, said:

True story. At school I was the captain of the chess team. We were playing one of the local public (posh) schools and it was all down to the last table where the opponent was messing about with something like 2 queens and a bunch of other pieces against a lone king. With everyone looking on this was obviously incredibly embarassing for our player and he had just had enough and was about to resign when I stepped in and announced stalemate, thus rescuing a half point for our side. This was not technically an undo since I got to the board faster than our team mate managed to turn his king over. Nonetheless this would have been a clear case where an undo was allowed since checkmate or stalemate ends the game (thus making the resignation illegal). The same is true of a mistaken concession where the defence cannot win the allotted number of tricks.

Hmmm interesting. Personally I would expect the resignation to stand, despite the position on the board. As I understood, the player at the board must always make his own claims.

More interesting is that the rules allowed your intervention in this way at all. When I was playing scholastic team matches (and later US Amateur Teams), the only input allowed from captain was to whether to accept a draw.

[Zelandakh]

The rule that checkmate/stalemate ends the game is a fundamental one. There is no input from the Captain in the game since it is already over. This rule tends to be more relevant in blitz games where, for example, you do not lose if your flag falls after the checkmate/stalemate position is reached. I wondered if this analogy might help you to be more open to the idea that a false concession (at least where it is impossible to lose one or more of the conceded tricks) not only can be withdrawn but in truth often should be (the defenders may have violated 79A2).

[phil_20686]

Fluffy, on 2012-September-08, 08:02, said:

Maybe to many posters playing the queen from AQJ is nonsense, this goes into the very basic of how we think of this game perhaps, for me it is reasonable way of thinking.

It seems beyond careless to attempt to swindle the opposition by hoping they duck from kx, by first showing them your cards.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-11, 01:36, said:

The rule that checkmate/stalemate ends the game is a fundamental one. There is no input from the Captain in the game since it is already over. This rule tends to be more relevant in blitz games where, for example, you do not lose if your flag falls after the checkmate/stalemate position is reached. I wondered if this analogy might help you to be more open to the idea that a false concession (at least where it is impossible to lose one or more of the conceded tricks) not only can be withdrawn but in truth often should be (the defenders may have violated 79A2).

I acknowledge that the attitudes I hold are not always appropriate for bridge, which after all is not chess. This is why I always accept director rulings cheerfully even though they may conflict with my own preconceptions about competition.

But in my own mind, I doubt I will ever stop believing that saying "you get a heart" verbally, out loud, with full intent of ops hearing it, is functionally identical to placing the ♥J on the table. To me, the proper chess analogy would be claiming a difference between speaking the words "I resign" and laying down one's king.

It gets worse too. I don't think much of allowances for mechanical error. "Oops, I pushed my g-pawn but I meant to push my f-pawn. Mechanical error, I can retract and substitute." It wouldn't fly in any chess event I ever heard of. But I know that in bridge this is allowed, so I don't fuss when ops do it. But I have never once corrected a mechanical error of my own, nor will I ever. That's just me.

And don't get me started about providing written defenses. "Sorry Mr. Nimzovitch, you cannot play your new line without providing a suggested defense to your opponent in advance, in writing." LMAO.

[iviehoff]

billw55, on 2012-September-11, 06:12, said:

I acknowledge that the attitudes I hold are not always appropriate for bridge, which after all is not chess.
...
I don't think much of allowances for mechanical error. "Oops, I pushed my g-pawn but I meant to push my f-pawn. Mechanical error, I can retract and substitute." It wouldn't fly in any chess event I ever heard of.

On the other hand, if you were a backgammon player, you might have a different attitude. Backgammon explicitly allows players to touch and move pieces without commitment until the player signals the end of his turn by picking his dice up. (Yes, you do have to keep an eye on your opponent to ensure pieces are properly replaced.) It would be entirely feasible in chess to have rules that say your move isn't made until you stop your clock; or provided you don't release a piece on a different square, you can put it back and move something else. It is arguably merely a matter of tradition that chess players decided they didn't like opponents fiddling with the pieces and decided to have a touch-it-move-it rule instead.