Who is required to accept a claim/concession?
#1
Posted 2020-April-19, 16:47
2. Declarer claims zero (concedes the rest)
3. Defender claims 1 or more tricks
4. Defender claims zero tricks (concedes the rest)
Who from the opposing side needs to agree in these cases for the claim to go through, thereby proceeding to the next board?
On a defender claim, can defender’s partner object? (I saw one recently where a defender conceded all and his partner had the trump ace.)
#2
Posted 2020-April-19, 16:58
If a defender claims, declarer must agree. Defenders partner never even sees the claim.
#3
Posted 2020-April-19, 16:58
BudH, on 2020-April-19, 16:47, said:
On a defender claim, can defender’s partner object? (I saw one recently where a defender conceded all and his partner had the trump ace.)
Yes in bridge, not on BBO.
#5
Posted 2020-April-20, 03:08
pescetom, on 2020-April-20, 02:29, said:
There was a set of Online Bridge Laws produced in 2001 but they gave the impression of having been written by people who had not really played online bridge and so were never used much.
I had a conversation about this recently with someone of influence in the sphere, about the fact that with online bridge having currently assumed such importance, the need for something to regulate it was being felt. We concluded that probably what is needed is some supplementary regulations to cover online bridge, rather than a separate set of laws, because many of the differences are to do with matters not covered directly by the laws themselves - eg alerting - or infractions that simply don't exist online. So we may yet see something appear to help with rulings in online bridge.
London UK
#6
Posted 2020-April-20, 04:08
gordontd, on 2020-April-20, 03:08, said:
I had a conversation about this recently with someone of influence in the sphere, about the fact with online bridge having currently assumed such importance, the need for something to regulate it was being felt. We concluded that probably what is needed is some supplementary regulations to cover online bridge, rather than a separate set of laws, because many of the differences are to do with matters not covered directly by the laws themselves - eg alerting - or infractions that simply don't exist online. So we may yet see something appear to help with rulings in online bridge.
Glad to hear that the problem is at least recognised - things need to move fast now that the covid crisis is melting down all things face to face, including bridge. As you say, not only do many infractions cease to exist but new ones arise and new possibilities arise too including the possibility to reduce information leakage between partners.
I also agree that merely updating the current monolithic laws would be impractical, but I suggest a modular redesign which separates the rules of the game from all aspects particular to a certain method of play. So I would prefer a core of game definition and principles and then distinct modules for different types of play: face to face, screens and one or more online modules (might be useful to define how to play traditional physical location tournaments but with tablets, as distinct from generic online play). These play modules could be sufficiently well defined to eliminate discretionality for RAs and closely define it for software designers and service providers like BBO.
#7
Posted 2020-April-20, 05:44
pescetom, on 2020-April-20, 04:08, said:
I also agree that merely updating the current monolithic laws would be impractical, but I suggest a modular redesign which separates the rules of the game from all aspects particular to a certain method of play. So I would prefer a core of game definition and principles and then distinct modules for different types of play: face to face, screens and one or more online modules (might be useful to define how to play traditional physical location tournaments but with tablets, as distinct from generic online play). These play modules could be sufficiently well defined to eliminate discretionality for RAs and closely define it for software designers and service providers like BBO.
I think that even if this were thought to be a good idea, it would be to large a change to be considered before the next revision of the laws, expected in about seven years, which is why a supplementary document might provide more immediate solution.
London UK
#8
Posted 2020-April-22, 12:47
gordontd, on 2020-April-20, 05:44, said:
Perhaps.
My gut feeling is that if the WBF does not move with more decision than that, it might not be around in seven years.
#9
Posted 2020-April-22, 13:22
pescetom, on 2020-April-20, 02:29, said:
Reasonable to not allow a defender to object to his partner’s concession? Yes, if “reasonable” means ”totally unacceptable”. Is that how you were defining it?
#10
Posted 2020-April-22, 14:47
pescetom, on 2020-April-20, 02:29, said:
The problem with a single defender conceding tricks that can't be lost has been know for years, if not decades. As a software developer, I don't think I am going out on a limb in saying that requiring both defenders to concede would be trivial programming. The excuses from BBO why there is no fix to the concession problem have never impressed me as remotely convincing.
#11
Posted 2020-April-22, 15:52
johnu, on 2020-April-22, 14:47, said:
The problem is not a technical one. If both players are required to agree, that means they get to see the cards. At that point if either objects there's really no way to play on. Else you'd have one defender conceding at trick 1, revealing their cards and then they get to defend double dummy.
#12
Posted 2020-April-22, 20:05
TylerE, on 2020-April-22, 15:52, said:
Why would they see the cards? Have you never faced this situation in real life?
#13
Posted 2020-April-23, 01:02
TylerE, on 2020-April-22, 15:52, said:
If you let a bad concession go through, how are you expecting to fix the score unless a director can adjust the score.
Why would the defenders get to defend double dummy or even guess right? They are the ones who made a faulty concession. Read the section of the Laws about contested claims and concessions.
#14
Posted 2020-April-23, 12:55
I'm talking about how it does work, not how it should.
#15
Posted 2020-April-23, 14:28
TylerE, on 2020-April-23, 12:55, said:
I'm talking about how it does work, not how it should.
I will note that sometimes there are directors in the online tournaments.
If the non-conceding partner has a sure trump trick, or a high card that is always going to win a trick, would you say it would be trivial for the players at the table to agree that was the case and simply adjust the number of tricks for each side? I think it should and would be the case in almost every instance. That way you can get the correct result on the board. If you let an impossible concession happen, the board is over and if there is no director to adjust the score, that's the final result. Isn't it better to not let that bad concession happen in the first place?
#16
Posted 2020-April-24, 06:20
johnu, on 2020-April-23, 14:28, said:
If the non-conceding partner has a sure trump trick, or a high card that is always going to win a trick, would you say it would be trivial for the players at the table to agree that was the case and simply adjust the number of tricks for each side? I think it should and would be the case in almost every instance. That way you can get the correct result on the board. If you let an impossible concession happen, the board is over and if there is no director to adjust the score, that's the final result. Isn't it better to not let that bad concession happen in the first place?
It would be between gentlemen of decent playing level, both face to face and online.
Unfortunately it often doesn't work out that way, even in top level competition (see many examples related on BridgeWinners).
Nor are the current f2f laws 68B and 70 particularly easy to enforce or absent of criticism.
It seems reasonable to rethink them for online.
#17
Posted 2020-April-24, 07:13
#18
Posted 2020-April-24, 09:28
johnu, on 2020-April-22, 14:47, said:
If BBO are unwilling to fix the problem, the only alternative solution is to disable concessions by a defender altogether.
I have made my partners aware of the issue, so we know not to concede as defenders, but others will not know. Particularly because it seems, as you say, a trivial matter to eliminate the bug (or to have not introduced it in the first place) few people will suspect that there is a problem.