[weejonnie]

Suppose your partner is on lead with a couple of cards left to play and tries to concede the remaining tricks.

Now suppose you actually hold a trick if he leads one of his cards (but not the other one) and you immediately object (as you are entitled to do so under law 68).

Then

a) No concession has occurred
b) Unauthorised information may exist so the Director is called immediately
c) Play continues

Any problems? No?

Well unfortunately partner now knows that you believe that the defence can win one (or) more trick - this is unauthorised information. So

When a player has available to him unauthorised information... he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information.

Therefore your partner cannot choose the lead that could take an extra trick!

Thus even if you forestall partner's concession it would appear that the concession is to all intents and purposes irrevocable.

Is this fair?

[PhantomSac]

Why would this not be fair? Is it also not fair if your partner does not concede but makes the wrong play and drops a trick? That is the equivalent of what happens if someone concedes, and why should that be wrong? Yeah if you have a trick that cannot go away then you can stop the concession, just as when declarer concedes if they have a trick that they cannot reasonably lose they also get it, but if there are multiple plays possible and one is winning the person who concedes does not get to make it, he tried to concede! Is it fair if he then gets to make the right play? I mean even when you claim all the tricks and miscount your tricks you cannot take a finesse later. This one is even more obviously fair.

[Vampyr]

The basic principle is that if a player makes a mistake both partners have to pay for it. This is normal.

[ggwhiz]

Anyone that thought they had no more tricks coming would be deemed to play the wrong card. Fair? Oh yeah.

[ggwhiz]

Anyone that thought they had no more tricks coming would be deemed to play the wrong card. Fair? Oh yeah.

[neilkaz]

I conceded a bit early trying to speed things up in the GR pairs at the regional here last week. We were at least a board behind due to a combination of slow players ahead of us, one of whom was nearly blind and had to have the cards and bids called out to him (but he played OK) and another ahead of us who'd just had back surgery and was a slow player and also slow to move due to her back.

It was very clear from the bidding and play that partner couldn't have anything real left in his hand. However, I forgot that PD might have Jxxx in their side suit (I was void). Thus PD disputed my concession and I appologized, " Very sorry, partner, I already conceded lets move on, please". Of course declarer said,"I'll play to my AQ in hand and then take the marked finesse to dummy's KT and when I said,"of course you'd play it that way as then you can still pick up the Jack regardless of which one of us shows void", finally it ended the discussion.

So can PD dispute my concession in ACBL face to face play? I don't think PD can dispute a concession on BBO play or am I wrong?

[blackshoe]

On that bit in the OP about conceding in a two card ending, I do not see how, if the leader (your partner) thinks you don't have any more tricks coming, your objection could demonstrably suggest any particular lead. So while you may be screwed, you perhaps shouldn't be.

Neil: your partner is permitted to object to your concession. See Law 68B2.

One might ask whether, if a defender's objection to his partner's concession tells declarer how to play the hand, is that legal? Is it fair? The answer to these questions seems to me to be "yes" and "no". I suppose "no" is debatable.

[PhantomSac]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-14, 22:44, said:

On that bit in the OP about conceding in a two card ending, I do not see how, if the leader (your partner) thinks you don't have any more tricks coming, your objection could demonstrably suggest any particular lead. So while you may be screwed, you perhaps shouldn't be.

Imagine a world where one defender, on lead, said out loud: "My play does not matter, declarer is going to get the rest of the tricks. I am just going to play any card." The partner of that player said, "Actually your play does matter. We get one more trick if you make the right play."

The defender on lead, now knowing that one of his plays will beat the hand, goes into a long think and figures out the layout where it matters, and plays the correct card.

Do you think that is OK? That is what happens if one guy concedes and his partner objects on the basis that his partner has a winning play. The UI is that the defender who is on lead has a winning play. He did not know that, in fact he thought all his plays were the same and that declarer was making the rest no matter what. He was willing to play anything as it didn't matter; he conceded. His partner telling him that his play matters makes him re-think this and after a lot of thought he realizes why it matters and finds the winning play. The UI has impacted the defender.

I cannot believe anyone would really think my first 2 paragraphs are ok. If that were ok then any time I thought my play did not matter and I was playing with a strong player, I could just concede. If it does not matter my partner will accept and I won't have to spend time thinking (in a situation where I think it really doesn't matter), but on the off chance it did matter my partner would say something and I could reconsider. That is a very efficient use of my time and brain power in situations where I think declarer has the rest of the tricks.

[steve2005]

on bbo, when a partner concedes you don't get a chance to object thru the software. If the opponents accept the concessions that ends the hand.

Now you can complain to the director if in a tournament, but unless the trick is for sure you'll run into the same problems as in over the table bridge.