[Vampyr]

I have recently been playing in the EBU lockdown league and the EBU tournaments. I realise that this is only online, but there should be some passing resemblance to the Laws of Bridge. Yet when my partner conceded as a defender, there was no way for me to contest it. These tournaments are under the aegis of the EBU, so this bug must be fixed immediately

[paulg]

Call the director, as you would at a f2f event. You can also shout "No!", as you ...

It's not a bug that the director has to adjust, not the players.

[barmar]

All our efforts are currently directed towards keeping the system running under the extra load. Redesigning the playing features is really low priority.

[Vampyr]

If Gordon is reading this, it is imperative that the EBU stop allowing BBO to host sanctioned games. Refusing your partner’s concession is a pretty important ability, and without it I am surprised that BBO has the temerity to call itself Bridge Base Online. It should at least include quote marks around the word bids.

I would be interested to know how this bug was introduced and why it hadn’t been taken care of years ago.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2020-April-04, 23:10, said:

If Gordon is reading this, it is imperative that the EBU stop allowing BBO to host sanctioned games.

BBO violates the Laws in several ways, and this is the one you want to throw yourself on a sword about?

[nige1]

BBO drastically simplifies some Bridge rules (e.g. Disclosure. Claims). this

• Reduces the need for a director,
• Makes rulings less subjective,
• Results in an improved, simpler more enjoyable game.

Not so long ago, when a defender claimed, face-to-face duplicate law transformed his partner's hand into penalty cards. That, too seemed a reasonable simplification.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2020-April-05, 13:21, said:

BBO violates the Laws in several ways, and this is the one you want to throw yourself on a sword about?

Yes, if nothing else because it should be easy to implement online. You can object to declarer’s claims after all. Also, it must have been possible once. BBO has been around, well I don’t exactly know, but I think at least ten years. Surely you are not going to say that no one has noticed it before, or that this law would have been ignored when the service was first set up.

Also, people in general probably don’t know about this bug. It is very unexpected, and matches can be lost over it. I realise that this is just online, but we are paying for the service and would like something at least resembling bridge.

And finally my regular partner thinks that everyone is as good a player as he is, and this is untrue 99.9% of the time. He will reason that declarer must have card X — otherwise he would not have bid Y or would not have played Z. Well, they can and they do, but at least he now knows never to claim as a defender.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2020-April-05, 13:45, said:

BBO drastically simplifies some Bridge rules (e.g. Disclosure. Claims). this

• Reduces the need for a director,
• Makes rulings less subjective,
• Results in an improved, simpler more enjoyable game.

Not so long ago, when a defender claimed, face-to-face duplicate law transformed his partner's hand into penalty cards. That, too seemed a reasonable simplification.

It’s not reasonable at all, but it is worse for a concession, because now if there is a choice the conceder can be forced not to play the winning line no matter how obvious it is. Yes, they made a mistake, but did not break a law or commit any sort of irregularity, so why should they be so severely punished?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2020-April-05, 15:22, said:

Yes, if nothing else because it should be easy to implement online. You can object to declarer’s claims after all. Also, it must have been possible once. BBO has been around, well I don’t exactly know, but I think at least ten years. Surely you are not going to say that no one has noticed it before, or that this law would have been ignored when the service was first set up.

BBO is almost 20 years old, actually. As far as I can tell, it has always been this way -- there's nothing in the change log related to this. There may have been complaints, but we ignored them.

Basically, the claim procedure in BBO has been modeled more on the rubber bridge than duplicate -- we don't have a different procedure for tournaments (which have a director) and regular tables (which don't). That's why we allow play to continue with declarer's cards exposed if a defender objects. I just checked the RB laws, they don't allow dummy to object.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2020-April-06, 08:10, said:

BBO is almost 20 years old, actually. As far as I can tell, it has always been this way -- there's nothing in the change log related to this. There may have been complaints, but we ignored them.

Surely not!

Quote

Basically, the claim procedure in BBO has been modeled more on the rubber bridge than duplicate -- we don't have a different procedure for tournaments (which have a director) and regular tables (which don't). That's why we allow play to continue with declarer's cards exposed if a defender objects. I just checked the RB laws, they don't allow dummy to object.

The trouble is that people are playing duplicate on the site here. Yes they have changed the law and you are permitted to play on, but all four players have to agree. This includes dummy. Perhaps you and the rest thought that this site would be used mainly for rubber bridge, but surely it has been some years since duplicate is more common, and there might have been a chance to rethink your approach. But maybe ignoring requests/complaints is a full-time job!

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2020-April-06, 23:15, said:

The trouble is that people are playing duplicate on the site here. Yes they have changed the law and you are permitted to play on, but all four players have to agree. This includes dummy. Perhaps you and the rest thought that this site would be used mainly for rubber bridge, but surely it has been some years since duplicate is more common, and there might have been a chance to rethink your approach. But maybe ignoring requests/complaints is a full-time job!

I can think of dozens upon dozens of features that I would prefer that BBO prioritize ahead of this

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2020-April-04, 23:10, said:

If Gordon is reading this, it is imperative that the EBU stop allowing BBO to host sanctioned games.

BBO is not running the games - we are, using BBO as the platform. We are extremely grateful to BBO for their incredible work in providing the opportunity for so many players who would otherwise be unable to play. There are differences between online bridge and face-to-face bridge, but for now the priority for them must be dealing with the massive expansion in capacity they have experienced, rather than making improvements. And as someone else has said, if I were looking for changes this would not be high on the list of priorities.

If you want to contest a claim after it has been accepted by your partner, ask the director who can make a ruling on it. After all, one of the great things about the software is that a record of the play will exist.