[mycroft]

---

Contract: 3♠ S, with declarer having made 9 of the first 11.
Lead is in dummy, and everyone has shown out of diamonds two tricks earlier. South's hand is irrelevant and in particular has no more trump - but hasn't *shown* that he has no more trump.
Declarer calls for the ♦9, and West claims his one trick - by facing his cards [Edit: thanks RMB]
Both South and East suggest it should be both, before declarer (and West) suggest the TD be called to rule.

West suggests that it would be beyond careless to not play the ♠10 on the diamond, given that a) it's known to be high, and b) that T13 is going to be ♠K. South's suggestion is that she doesn't know until the claim that South doesn't have the ♠A and there just isn't a valid play.

So? Does it matter how strong East (or East vs. West, or East vs South) is?

[Cyberyeti]

E knows there is no point in keeping the 10 to go under the K, so it's beyond careless not to play it, it cannot be the losing play, it will make no difference if S has A♠.

[RMB1]

East objected to the implicit concession of one trick by West, so the TD should allow play to continue.
Did West expose any cards or name ♠A? But these are not penalty cards.
East has unauthorised information but there is no logical alternative to ♠10 at trick 12, ♠10 cannot win trick 13.

Play continues, East is allowed to play ♠10 and the defence take the last two tricks.

[weejonnie]

I wonder whether this applies:-

B. Concession Defined

1. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

So it becomes a question of : is there a LA to playing 10♠. Unless the players are total neophytes, I would say no.

NB - the term is "immediately objects" - If East only objects when he sees the A♠ in partner's hand, I do not think that comes down as being "immediately".

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2016-April-22, 10:56, said:

NB - the term is "immediately objects" - If East only objects when he sees the A♠ in partner's hand, I do not think that comes down as being "immediately".

Immediately is not defined by the Laws, so it is up to the TD to interpret it. For example:

"The Director may instruct that the shuffle and deal be performed at each table immediately before play starts."

Someone who insists on each board being shuffled and dealt immediately before play, rather than all 24 boards altogether as is usually the case in a match played privately, would get short shrift. "Immediately" is interpreted throughout the laws as "within a reasonable time". In any case, until he sees the ace of spades, he does not know what he is objecting to, so I don't buy your argument at all, and the preceding two posters seem right.

[sanst]

weejonnie, on 2016-April-22, 10:56, said:

I wonder whether this applies:-
[...]
2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects,
[...]
NB - the term is "immediately objects" - If East only objects when he sees the A♠ in partner's hand, I do not think that comes down as being "immediately".

From the OP I gather that the concession was made by W facing his cards. It doesn't state that E immediately objected, but that both S and E suggested, whatever that means in this situation, that EW would make both tricks. In the light of the remark by S it wouldn't make a difference whether the play continues or the director decides the claim, since no one in his or her right mind would not play the ten in trick 12.
I'm wondering how you think a player can object to the concession in a situation like this without having seen the cards that were faced? So yes, this applies.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2016-April-22, 09:57, said:

Contract: 3♠ S, Declarer calls for the ♦9, and West claims his one trick - by facing his cards

---

At trick 12, West seems to lose the place and he claims one trick. If West carelessly plays ♠A to trick 12, it doesn't matter that East is vigilant and careful. EW will make only one trick

[sanst]

nige1, on 2016-April-22, 22:00, said:

... it doesn't matter that East is vigilant and careful.

Based on what law?

[lamford]

nige1, on 2016-April-22, 22:00, said:

At trick 12, West seems to lose the place and he claims one trick. If West carelessly plays ♠A to trick 12, it doesn't matter that East is vigilant and careful. EW will make only one trick

West did not state he was winning trick 12, and it would be worse than careless to over-ruff his partner, especially with the ace of trumps which is guaranteed to win trick 13.

[blackshoe]

So East objects (Law 68B2), play continues, and East plays his ♠10. But West has faced his cards, and the fact that West has the ♠A is UI to East. So East cannot legitimately play ♠10 — he must discard ♣6. Now West gets his ♠A, and declarer gets the 13th trick.

Moral of the story: when you are conceding one or more tricks as a defender, do not face your hand.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-23, 06:44, said:

So East objects (Law 68B2), play continues, and East plays his ♠10. But West has faced his cards, and the fact that West has the ♠A is UI to East.

Agree so far.

blackshoe, on 2016-April-23, 06:44, said:

So East cannot legitimately play ♠10 — he must discard ♣6. Now West gets his ♠A, and declarer gets the 13th trick.

Someone who has UI does not need to defend misère. The only logical alternative at trick twelve is the ♠10. He cannot win trick thirteen with it! So the defenders get both tricks.

[barmar]

I agree with lamford. UI can only make you choose poorly among the LAs. But discarding a club was never an LA, so you're not forced to choose it.

[blackshoe]

Al right.

[nige1]

sanst, on 2016-April-23, 02:45, said:

Based on what law?

Boolean logic