[kevperk]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-13, 10:21, said:

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.

There is a difference between verifying and accepting a concession of ALL of the tricks. In the case at hand, surely no one would believe that declarer would not take a single trick.

[jeffford76]

kevperk, on 2012-December-13, 14:01, said:

In the case at hand, surely no one would believe that declarer would not take a single trick.

I think that depends on his motivation level. I know someone who tried to concede all the tricks and when it was refused played very carefully to lose them all. (Yes, I realize there are legal issues with this, but it was funny to hear about.)

I also think there's a social aspect to this. The one time this happened at my table, declarer was very agitated. I think it's expecting a lot of random people to expect them to engage this person about the difference between one score that's going to be a bottom and a different score that's going to be a bottom. (Although I did put in a reasonable score after looking at partner's hand rather than down everything which he then signed for.)

[blackshoe]

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.

I see nothing in there that would require a player to verify that a concession of all the tricks is not invalid.

[kevperk]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-13, 15:41, said:

I see nothing in there that would require a player to verify that a concession of all the tricks is not invalid.

Then let's agree to disagree.

[blackshoe]

Fine with me, although you might persuade me to your position if you explain your logic.

[kevperk]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-14, 08:58, said:

Fine with me, although you might persuade me to your position if you explain your logic.

The say one did not knowingly accept the concession all of tricks is like someone says they did not knowingly buy stolen property, when the merchandise is being sold out of the back of a van,at a price 10% of retail, in a dark alley, by someone looking over their shoulder. Again, anyone who accepts ALL of the tricks "knows" that they are not due ALL of them, come on. The declaring side was the one that was bidding. They have to have a majority of the values, even if not a majority of the trumps. They were passed in a cuebid, so were trying for slam. Again, I am not saying that one is required to check every claim/concession. I am saying, in a case like this, I think it is totally appropriate to adjust the score and access a procedural penalty. I have sympathy for the person in this situation, we have all be there. And I have sympathy for the other side, not wanting to say anything, knowing the state of mind of the declarer. But I don't think this is appropriate behavior by the declarer, and I think the other side has a responsibility to not condone it.

[blackshoe]

You seem to be expressing more passion than logic.

You can only adjust the score when the laws say you can, and you can only award a procedure penalty when correct procedure has been violated. You have not, so far, demonstrated that either is the case.

[lalldonn]

I can't locate this so maybe I'm crazy, but I could swear the ACBL had some regulation or propriety or bylaw that said essentially you always have to try, ie you can't just concede the tricks because you are sad and pouty.

[blackshoe]

Is this what you mean?

Quote

ACBL General CoC, under "Play": 5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest.

I suppose this might justify a PP against the pro who conceded. It doesn't justify one against the other side, nor does it justify a score adjustment.

Is conceding all the tricks for a bottom you're going to get anyway "dumping"?

[lalldonn]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-14, 11:49, said:

Is this what you mean?



I suppose this might justify a PP against the pro who conceded. It doesn't justify one against the other side, nor does it justify a score adjustment.

Is conceding all the tricks for a bottom you're going to get anyway "dumping"?

I certainly don't think it's "playing the hand to win". How do you know you're going to get a bottom?

[RMB1]

But the Pro did not get a worse score by conceding all the tricks - the OP tells us the tricks he might have won would give him the same zero match points. Or are we going to prosecute the Pro's pair for deliberately playing in a cue bid?

[jeffford76]

kevperk, on 2012-December-14, 10:57, said:

The say one did not knowingly accept the concession all of tricks is like someone says they did not knowingly buy stolen property, when the merchandise is being sold out of the back of a van,at a price 10% of retail, in a dark alley, by someone looking over their shoulder. Again, anyone who accepts ALL of the tricks "knows" that they are not due ALL of them, come on. The declaring side was the one that was bidding. They have to have a majority of the values, even if not a majority of the trumps. They were passed in a cuebid, so were trying for slam. Again, I am not saying that one is required to check every claim/concession. I am saying, in a case like this, I think it is totally appropriate to adjust the score and access a procedural penalty. I have sympathy for the person in this situation, we have all be there. And I have sympathy for the other side, not wanting to say anything, knowing the state of mind of the declarer. But I don't think this is appropriate behavior by the declarer, and I think the other side has a responsibility to not condone it.

Thanks, Kevin - I can see this argument for why it is legal to penalize the side accepting the concession, but I would still disagree that it is appropriate to do so. I don't think I should have to choose between escalating a bad situation and getting penalized, especially here where the matchpoint score is completely unaffected. Would it have sufficed to speak to a director away from the table after the round about what happened to avoid the penalty, or do you believe the actual concession must be immediately contested?

[axman]

lalldonn, on 2012-December-14, 12:08, said:

.....How do you know you're going to get a bottom?

Some years ago I brought home 5H on a dummy reversal and grand coup [trumps were 5-3]. Fortunately, 14 tricks were easy in two other strains.

That’s how.

[kevperk]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-14, 11:34, said:

You seem to be expressing more passion than logic.

You can only adjust the score when the laws say you can, and you can only award a procedure penalty when correct procedure has been violated. You have not, so far, demonstrated that either is the case.

I was directing in the same room at the time. I saw the hand. Declarer had 4 "sure" tricks. Do you think that the score cannot be adjusted in this case? And I also know from the conversation that was relayed by the table director that both sides knew that declarer would not lose all of the tricks.

[blackshoe]

When you introduce facts that were not originally in evidence, you change the scenario, and quite possibly the ruling.

You may be using "adjust" in the sense of "rescore" as used in Law 71.2.

Given the new facts presented, I would agree with canceling the concession and re-scoring the board under 71.2*. I would also agree with a PP to the defending side for violation of 79A2. I'm sure the argument for a PP for the declaring side depends on the "play to win" regulation in the CoC, but I'm not sure under which law that regulation falls. The wording of that regulation ("is expected to") doesn't fit the guidelines in the Introduction to the laws, so I don't know whether a PP is appropriate or legal for violation of it. I suppose it could fit under "failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations" (Law 90B8).

* I would not agree that this is a score adjustment, as Law 12 is in no way involved.

[bluejak]

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.

The idea of alternate numbers and letters was introduced a couple of Law books ago. At the last Law book I think the principle was just forgotten [or ignored]. Pity. I think you will find that both cases are ones where the laws were changed last time.



I think the TDs acted with a total lack of humanity here. If this is their idea of when to give a PP it is time they were doing other jobs.

[barmar]

When I was in grade school and we were taught how to create outlines, it was always alternating numbers and letters (with the outermost level usually being Roman numerals).