[jhenrikj]

 barmar, on 2020-February-18, 10:37, said:

I think it does.

No, 69B applies when you assent to an opponents claim or consession. In this case you want to cancel your own side's concession so then 71 applies.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me proper procedure would have been for West to say "I object" and then immediately call the director. When the director arrives, West should say "my partner conceded, I objected" and let the director rule. I would rule the hand is not over, and West is on lead, and can lead whatever he likes.

Not sure a club lead is a logical alternative at this point. If it isn't, West can lead a heart. If it is…

[pescetom]

 jhenrikj, on 2020-February-18, 14:03, said:

No, 69B applies when you assent to an opponents claim or consession. In this case you want to cancel your own side's concession so then 71 applies.

So the score is corrected only "if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."
Thanks, makes sense.

[axman]

 pran, on 2020-February-17, 16:28, said:

No claim or concession has occurred, play continues, the ♥K is not a penalty card, but the knowledge that East has this card is UI to West.

Two questions must be considered by the Director:
1: Did West immediately object to the concession? (I tend to say "yes")
2: Is (for West) playing a Club a logical alternative to playing a heart? (I tend to say "yes")
so I would rule for the declarer.

An objection is declaratory. Is that what west did? No, west spoke an interrogatory seeking information. Thus, any objection made was not immediately.

[Vampyr]

 Vampyr, on 2020-February-18, 09:59, said:

That depends on whether the ♥K is a penalty card.

East’s concession creates an illusion. West objected to it, albeit improperly. Thus there was no actual concession, so let us look at the problem as if there were no attempt at a concession.

Is West allowed to ask his partner about the presence of a card in partner’s hand because it is something like a 4-card ending? What if there were 5 cards left? 7? 9?

I would really like someone who says the defence get a heart now to answer the above.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-February-18, 02:45, said:

There is no bug in 68B2:

Quote

Law 49 said:
Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.

so the term "exposed" here includes "naming" a card.

No. Law 49 just tells us that both "exposed" cards and "named" cards are penalty cards. It does not say that "named" cards are "exposed" cards. 68B2 tells us that an exposed card after a concession is cancelled is not a penalty card. It does not say anything about named cards. It says: "cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards". It should say, "cards exposed or named by a defender do not become penalty cards". There is no need for both "exposed" and "revealed" but there is need for "named".

And I agree that there are so many anomalies in the Laws that one just has to rule using what one thinks they should say!

[blackshoe]

Naming a card reveals it.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-February-19, 21:46, said:

Naming a card reveals it.

reveal v. To cause to be seen; show. This is the most frequent definition. How is that different in effect from "expose"?

And pran's argument was that "exposed" cards include "named" cards. More importantly, why include "named" cards in Law 49 but omit them from 62B? And why change "named" to "revealed" if the intention is that they mean the same thing?

[blackshoe]

Well, I wasn't involved in the drafting of the laws, so I can't answer those questions. I think it's too fine a point anyway.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2020-February-19, 21:50, said:

reveal v. To cause to be seen; show. This is the most frequent definition. How is that different in effect from "expose"?

And pran's argument was that "exposed" cards include "named" cards. More importantly, why include "named" cards in Law 49 but omit them from 62B? And why change "named" to "revealed" if the intention is that they mean the same thing?

reveal verb [with object] make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others.
Brenda was forced to reveal Robbie's whereabouts.

Why different language? Because not that much attention was put into ensuring consistency across laws.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2020-February-20, 09:55, said:

reveal verb [with object] make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others.
Brenda was forced to reveal Robbie's whereabouts.

I agree it is a fine point. But the use of "reveal" about a card, I think, means show. If you name a card you reveal the possession of that card. But who knows what the WBFLC intended.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-February-21, 14:09, said:

I agree it is a fine point. But the use of "reveal" about a card, I think, means show. If you name a card you reveal the possession of that card. But who knows what the WBFLC intended.

They obviously intend "getting premature information about a card" to be an irregularity which (on certain conditions) results in the card becoming a penalty card.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2020-February-21, 14:09, said:

I agree it is a fine point. But the use of "reveal" about a card, I think, means show. If you name a card you reveal the possession of that card. But who knows what the WBFLC intended.

It says "exposed or revealed". The definition of "reveal" you chose is essentially the same as "expose", and I don't think they intended to be redundant like that.

They didn't say "named" because there may be other ways to reveal a card than exposing it or naming it.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2020-February-23, 16:40, said:

It says "exposed or revealed". The definition of "reveal" you chose is essentially the same as "expose", and I don't think they intended to be redundant like that.

They didn't say "named" because there may be other ways to reveal a card than exposing it or naming it.

Indeed. One can get a member of the audience to "reveal" a card instead of exposing it or naming it. There are inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Laws, but if there had been an intention that a card named after a claim was not always a MPC, it should certainly say so in Law 49, and it does give situations where it is not (Laws 47E and 68B2), the latter where a defender objects to a concession. It went out of its way to only "exempt" that and when a defender makes a statement about an uncompleted trick.