[xviolist]

There seems to be an inconsistancy among the TDs concerning procedure after a claim has been made. According to the ACBL, once a claim has been made, declarer can not draw trump, unless declarer has only trump remaining in hand, nor take a finesse without stating such a plan in the claim. BBO is doing a disservice to its members if it allows otherwise. What is worse, when I broght the TD to the table to rule in such a situation, he/she completely ignored me, refused to say anything one way or another.

So, BBO, take a stand. Either post a policy for procedures once a claim has been made, or follow the rules already set up by the ACBL. Let the inexperienced players play with special rules in junior games, or let them abide by standard rules in regular games. and please tell your TDs to answer sincere questions posed by players, even if they cannot answer because of ignorance.

[jillybean]

The laws regarding contested claims are not as clear-cut as many believe. Law 70 inlcudes a footnote that states the play, after a contested claim “includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational”.
It is incorrect to state that declarer could not take a finesse (that was already marked) or that any outstanding trump are awarded to defenders etc

Each case needs to be reviewed following Law70 and that is the job of the TD.

[xviolist]

Thank you, Jill. What you say makes sense. If only the TD in question had taken the time to answer as concisely, it would have saved a lot of grief.



Xviolist

[helene_t]

Golfacer has written a TD Script in which he refers to what the laws say about disputed claims but also says that it is uncommon for BBO players to call the TD, as prescribed by the laws.

The latter is because some circumstances are different on BBO than IRL. In particular, a BBO declarer just gets the message that the claim was rejected, not by whom. Also, defenders get to see each other's hands so it is easier for them to reject a claim on the basis of each other's holding than it would be IRL. So a BBO declarer has less UI than a real-life declarer would have if he continued the play after the claim was rejected.

Therefore it is logical that BBO software allows the play to continue after a rejected claim, something that cannot happen IRL. But this means that the situation in which the defenders call the TD and say that declarer might have taken advantage of UI from the rejection of a claim can occur on BBO, something that cannot happen IRL.

I agree with you that there is a need for clear guidelines for how to deal with this. While each tourney organizer on BBO makes his own laws, few have sufficient knowledge to do so, while the laws of bridge are not so well suited for online play. So there is a need for some (be it only recommendatory) BBO laws on such issues.

[vang]

i won't comment the rules about claiming. i accept any claim which is based on an obvious play (like drawing trumps and discarding losers on an estabilished suit etc) which takes into account possible bad breaks.

i just want to propose an improvment for software. if one player concede all tricks (claim 0 tricks), opps should not be allowed to reject this claim. it happened to me more than once (wtf?).

[helene_t]

vang, on Oct 14 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

i won't comment the rules about claiming. i accept any claim which is based on an obvious play (like drawing trumps and discarding losers on an estabilished suit etc) which takes into account possible bad breaks.

i just want to propose an improvment for software. if one player concede all tricks (claim 0 tricks), opps should not be allowed to reject this claim. it happened to me more than once (wtf?).

Yesterday, in a tourney, declarer conceded all twelve tricks in 6Nx vul (astonishingly they didn't redouble, nor bid 7). My p and I accepted, then both "expert" opps went red (and black on my future lobby lists).

My point is that it's probably illegal to accept a dumping claim. We should have called the TD. Since time was running out and since it was matchpoints so it probably didn't matter what it would have been adjusted to, I thought it was ok to accept, but on occasion I have refused such claims.

[paulg]

vang, on Oct 14 2007, 09:11 AM, said:

i won't comment the rules about claiming. i accept any claim which is based on an obvious play (like drawing trumps and discarding losers on an estabilished suit etc) which takes into account possible bad breaks.

i just want to propose an improvment for software. if one player concede all tricks (claim 0 tricks), opps should not be allowed to reject this claim. it happened to me more than once (wtf?).

If a defender concedes the rest of the tricks, then defender's partner is permitted to contest the concession. This is done most easily by declarer refusing the concession.

I guess Dummy is also permitted to contest declarer's concession too, as technically play has ceased upon a claim. This may happen when declarer cannot possibly lose on of the tricks, even if unaware of it! This is done most easily by a defender refusing the concession.

Paul

[jillybean]

Having said all this, remember that there is no obligation whatsoever for free TD's to follow the laws of D.C.B - they can make up any rules they like for their game.

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Oct 14 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

If a defender concedes the rest of the tricks, then defender's partner is permitted to contest the concession. This is done most easily by declarer refusing the concession.

I guess Dummy is also permitted to contest declarer's concession too, as technically play has ceased upon a claim. This may happen when declarer cannot possibly lose on of the tricks, even if unaware of it! This is done most easily by a defender refusing the concession.

Right. So this is another example of BBO software not following the laws. As a defender you cannot contest your partner's claim/concession. Nor can the dummy.

I suppose Fred and Uday made the right choice since following the laws would defeat the purpose of the claim feature, namely to speed up the play.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Oct 14 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

I suppose Fred and Uday made the right choice since following the laws would defeat the purpose of the claim feature, namely to speed up the play.

Right, and in fact one of the nice features of this aspect is that sometimes when you are playing a hand, one defender won't accept a totally obvious claim, but his partner will just make the same claim so YOU can accept it.

[blackshoe]

Several comments.

1. The claims laws (Laws 68-71) aren't 'the ACBL's rules", they're the WBF's rules. They apply everywhere.
2. It is true that anyone can set up a bridge game - in a home, any other f2f venue, or online - and, so long as that game doesn't give out the masterpoints of some bridge organization, make whatever rules they like for that game.
3. It is also true that if the Laws are not followed the game is not, strictly speaking, Contract Bridge.
4. Jilly is right about finesses.
5. Helene suggests it is logical to allow play to continue after a claim online, since the declarer will have less UI than he would f2f. She overlooks the UI the defenders will have, since they may have seen each other's hands.
6. I'm not going to address the question whether allowing play to continue online is the right choice, since right or wrong, I doubt very much if it would be changed even if the WBF said it should be. See items 2 and 3 above.
7. IMO, there are three reasons claims slow down play. First, claimers don't provide a clear statement of their proposed line of play. Second, players don't understand the claim laws. Third, some players are simply incapable of seeing what will happen, even when they can see all four hands. Either that, or they're unwilling to make the effort.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Oct 14 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

5. Helene suggests it is logical to allow play to continue after a claim online, since the declarer will have less UI than he would f2f. She overlooks the UI the defenders will have, since they may have seen each other's hands.

Why is that relevant? If the claim was correct then the number of tricks the declarer makes do no depend on defenders' line. Hence they can do nothing with that information. Btw it is not clear if that information is UI or AI.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Oct 14 2007, 12:13 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 14 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

5. Helene suggests it is logical to allow play to continue after a claim online, since the declarer will have less UI than he would f2f. She overlooks the UI the defenders will have, since they may have seen each other's hands.

Why is that relevant? If the claim was correct then the number of tricks the declarer makes do no depend on defenders' line. Hence they can do nothing with that information. Btw it is not clear if that information is UI or AI.

I believe that information is AI not UI. In real life (at least in the ACBL) if declarer claims, the defenders can look at each others hand and, for example, I can say to my partner "lead the 9 of diamonds" and ask declarer what he would do. I believe this is allowed anywhere but I have no evidence to back that up.

[zasanya]

I have said it in the past and I will say it again.The bridge authorities shud just disallow claims or concessions.Might save more time and will certainly reduce some of directors headaches.

[Gerardo]

Declarer may still get UI after a rejected claim, usually a bad break.

[Codo]

zasanya, on Oct 15 2007, 03:10 AM, said:

I have said it in the past and I will say it again.The bridge authorities shud just disallow claims or concessions.Might save more time and will certainly reduce some of directors headaches.

And whenever I hear you say this, I will say: NO NO NEVER!.

We need more claims not less and claims surely do safe time.

[Trumpace]

zasanya, on Oct 14 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

I have said it in the past and I will say it again.The bridge authorities shud just disallow claims or concessions.Might save more time and will certainly reduce some of directors headaches.

Unless ridiculous claims and rejects are very very frequent, I don't think we should remove claims altogether.

Statistically speaking (though I have no data to back it up), I think allowing claims is saving time much more time than not having them would...

As for director headaches, there are always other sources for that. I suggest a good headache medicine instead of trying to abolish things which might be the cause of them.

[Fluffy]

I just click on yes whenever I see a claim, it saves time. You can see the full hand later.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

In real life (at least in the ACBL) if declarer claims, the defenders can look at each others hand and, for example, I can say to my partner "lead the 9 of diamonds" and ask declarer what he would do. I believe this is allowed anywhere but I have no evidence to back that up.

No, you can't. The ACBL follows the same laws as everybody else. What those laws actually say is this (paraphrased): when a claim is made, play ceases. There is no "out" here - there can be no more play. If a player disputes the claim, he must calll the TD, who will require all four hands to be faced, and then hear objections. Then he makes a ruling.

What people do in the ACBL (and elsewhere, probably) is completely ignore the law, and do what they think they're supposed to do, or what they feel like doing. It ain't legal. They get away with it because either the TD never hears about it, or if he does hear about it, he doesn't bother to smack 'em upside the head.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Oct 14 2007, 09:49 AM, said:

Having said all this, remember that there is no obligation whatsoever for free TD's to follow the laws of D.C.B - they can make up any rules they like for their game.

Um.

Quote

he Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organization.

That's Law 81B2. However, I suspect by "free TD" you mean that the TD is both SO and TD, so she can put on her SO hat and make supplementary regulations - as long as they don't conflict with the laws (that's in Law 80). In practice, there are many games played all over the world that resemble [Duplicate] Contract Bridge, but aren't because they don't in fact follow the laws. No harm in that, as far as I'm concerned, so long as the players are happy with it.

What really irks me is to be told, after the fact, that I have violated some rule that was not published beforehand. I had that happen at a club here a couple years ago. Haven't played there since.