[Bbradley62]

---

Maybe the rules have changed on this, but I thought this was odd. Playing in a free (unsanctioned, etc) tournament on BBO... With diamonds trump, I got to this point in the hand and claimed. Opponents rejected my claim. I claimed again, saying "cross-ruff" and they rejected again. I called the director, including "rejected claim" in the explanation field, since it's my understanding that this is the correct action after a rejected claim. The director came to the table and this was the exchange:

→Table: claim crossruff
liz32→Table: play!!!

Isn't the director supposed to determine whether my claim is valid and make a ruling? Why would she ask -- no, insist with three exclamation points -- that I continue to play?

[jjbrr]

Bbradley62, on Mar 30 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

Playing in a free (unsanctioned, etc) tournament on BBO...

I stopped there. You get what you pay for.

[jdonn]

Why wouldn't you just continue to play? In what way would it cost or harm you?

In cases like this I usually play all the way through the first card at trick 13 then claim before playing the last card. That gets my point across. It probably makes me a jerk too but I can't help myself.

[Bbradley62]

jdonn, on Mar 30 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

Why wouldn't you just continue to play? In what way would it cost or harm you?

In cases like this I usually play all the way through the first card at trick 13 then claim before playing the last card. That gets my point across. It probably makes me a jerk too but I can't help myself.

I didn't just continue to play because the tournament rules, which the director repeats into the chat area at the beginning of every tournament, say to stop play and call the director. Clearly, when she insisted that I play, I did so. If I had been playing in the club/pickup room, I would have continued playing, stating "cross-ruff" at the beginning of each trick. But, when I play a tournament, I have this funny habit of trying to play in accordance with the rules. Too many years in Catholic schools, I guess...

[Bbradley62]

jjbrr, on Mar 30 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

Bbradley62, on Mar 30 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

Playing in a free (unsanctioned, etc) tournament on BBO...

I stopped there. You get what you pay for.

I believe in, and practice, full disclosure whenever possible.

[straube]

jdonn said:

Why wouldn't you just continue to play? In what way would it cost or harm you?

I agree. I think there's a wide range of abilities on BBO. I've made a lot of claims that I thought were obvious and I just played them out when they were rejected.

[mycroft]

I claim, with a statement if it isn't screamingly obvious; if it gets rejected, I just follow the line until they claim. I have seen claim w/statement rejected, and then immediately I get a concession from an opponent - that's always amusing.

Of course, in ACBL BBO tournaments, I don't do that; but barring full-on sanctioned Laws Compliance, it seems to be the least offensive way to do it.

[Bbradley62]

Being fairly new to BBO, I'm still feeling my way around... maybe I was being an ass, but I really thought I was simply following the rules...

I thought the opponents were just pissed because they had let me make 6♦Dbled when they held three aces. (Two were cashable.)

And no one (except maybe jjbrr) thought that the director did anything odd?

Ok. So, if I play an ACBL-sanctioned event, I'll follow Law 68... will treat free tournaments as pickup games, regardless of the posted "rules"... what about BBO-masterpoint events?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Mar 30 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

Why wouldn't you just continue to play? In what way would it cost or harm you?

In cases like this I usually play all the way through the first card at trick 13 then claim before playing the last card. That gets my point across. It probably makes me a jerk too but I can't help myself.

This weekend, I ran into some idiot "play it out" folks. On one deal, with Kx opposite Ax in the same suit, last two cards, they asked my partner how he was playing the hand. (I complimented partner when he worked it out.)

So, when I later declared, my last four cards were the AQJx in hand opposite Kx in dummy (and two scrub cards). I won the King, hooked the Jack, and cashed the Ace, making LHO go into the tank, trying desperately to decide what meaningless card was critical to save. (For good humor, the two scrub cards in dummy were in different suits, and her cards in these same suits beat either one of the dummy cards.)

When she eventually pitched the one, I ditched the meaningless card in dummy in the other suit, played my Queen, and commented to RHO that there was nothing her partner could do to avoid the squeeze.

That made both RHO and LHO feel better.

[Mbodell]

Bbradley62, on Mar 31 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

Ok. So, if I play an ACBL-sanctioned event, I'll follow Law 68... will treat free tournaments as pickup games, regardless of the posted "rules"... what about BBO-masterpoint events?

Most ACBL tournaments don't do director claim adjustments either. The speedball doesn't give enough time and people are used to just playing it out.

[kenberg]

After a claim, play stops. Well, yes, according to the rules. I have always felt that the point of the rule is that after a rejection, declarer might in fact rethink the hand and see something he has overlooked. Acbl tournaments have been mentioned and I sometimes play in those. I do claim hands there, but only after they have reached such an obvious point that no sensible person could possibly claim that the rejection of my claim has given me information. And then, if the claim is rejected, I play it out. With my cards available for them to see, the hand goes quickly.


This may not be completely kosher, but it works. I think you will see that you need to make some compromises for online play to go well. The tourneys are timed, often the director is busy finding subs for disconnected players or solving other problems, and it's best to take a practical view.

In the case you describe, claiming on a cross-ruff, I assume that that was all there was to it. No transportation issues, no nothing. You claim, they reject, you cross-rufr, next hand.

And yes, as mentioned, you might well find one of your opps immediately conceding the hand. Or telling you to reclaim and telling his partner to please accept.

[JoAnneM]

Online bridge is a different game from ftf bridge. Once you accept that, things like rejected claims cease being irritating, and are just part of the game. Play it out, next hand please.

[nige1]

Bbradley62, on Mar 30 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

→Table: claim crossruff
liz32→Table: play!!!
Isn't the director supposed to determine whether my claim is valid and make a ruling?  Why would she ask -- no, insist with three exclamation points -- that I continue to play?

On-line rules are different from face-to-face rules. For example on-line software prevents insufficient and illegal calls, revokes and illegal plays, and so on. This seems a distinct improvement because you can concentrate on the game proper. I think on-line disclosure and claim rules are also an improvement, especially the latter.

On-line claim rules don't need a common language, are better at encouraging claims, and save more time. Opponents dispute a claim by playing on double-dummy. What can be simpler, fairer, or faster than that?

Face-to-face claim laws give rise to many inconsistent rulings about which there is no consensus among top directors, even after prolonged dispute.

[vuroth]

I applaud the OP for his sensible action, and sensible complaint. I think he'll do well on BBO.

[olliebol]

When i play in a generally weak field i tend to work my way down to end positions where i have only trumps left and the opps dont have any. Only then do i claim. This works most of the time.