[Siegmund]

This morning I had a rather disturbing experience at a money bridge table.

Four tricks into a hand -- a game for my side which I looked very likely to make, but I didn't know if I might make 4 or 5 yet -- my opponent (defending) claimed 8 of the remaining 9 tricks for minus 500.

I got lucky; my mouse was busy clicking the next card, and the claim got more or less auto-rejected. One trick later he reclaimed one trick and gave me +680, then declined the next deal and left.

IMO my opponent was hoping to trick me into accepting the claim without looking carefully at it, and stealing $6 from me (half-cent table.)

I will refrain from naming names on a public message board, and there is a (tiny) chance it was a legitimate accident and the opp meant to concede the hand and didn't care about the extra overtrick and just misclaimed (I've never seen an opp do this in a cash game, but at imp tables it happens), but I do want to ask: is this a known/common scam at the money bridge tables? To whom should I be reporting this username? Is there recourse for someone who is unlucky and accidentally accepts such a bogus claim?

[uday]

support@bridgebase.com accepts all input, even issues like this, and will reroute them to abuse or whoever.

Let us know who it was. We'll find out if there are patterns over time.

This doesn't come up a lot. Once, we refunded the careless acceptor of the claim. Once we contacted the other side ( it was an honest mistake ) and both sides agreed to let us transfer the $.

it is not hard to make a mistake on the claim screen....

Uday

[Old York]

It is unfortunate that dummy cannot reject a claim by oppo

A claim by declarer can be rejected by either opponent, but declarer is on his own. Dummy has rights to point out "irregularities" so the right to refuse a claim could be a logical addition for online play

Tony

[barmar]

Dummy is NOT allowed to point out irregularities until after the play is completed. See Laws 42B3 and 43A1b. However, a contested claim is not an irregularity, and Law 68D says that Dummy is allowed to contest a claim.

But in money bridge, if the human is declaring, dummy is a bot.

[Old York]

barmar, on Jan 18 2010, 06:57 AM, said:

Dummy is NOT allowed to point out irregularities until after the play is completed. See Laws 42B3 and 43A1b.  However, a contested claim is not an irregularity, and Law 68D says that Dummy is allowed to contest a claim.

But in money bridge, if the human is declaring, dummy is a bot.

I suspected that this may be the case, never having played at these tables. Thanks for the info.
Maybe bots should have rights, too?

I have often wondered, however, why human dummys were not allowed to reject claims at any table, if Law 68D allows it. I have also seen one opponent concede when partner has a winner

Tony

[helene_t]

Old York, on Jan 18 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

I have often wondered, however, why human dummys were not allowed to reject claims at any table, if Law 68D allows it.

In real life, a claim is accepted if declarer accepts and dummy does not object.

On BBO, both partners have to actively accept a claim. But dummy might have gone to toilet or be checking email or something.