Jump to content

concede all


arrows

Recommended Posts

The reason we allow the defenders to have a say in situations like this is to try to stop malicious declarers who are annoyed at their partners and/or contracts from purposely getting the worst result possible (and thereby poisoning the duplicate comparisons for that board).

 

Our hope is that at least one of the defenders will have enough sense of right and wrong to reject a claim like this.

 

I don't have any strong convictions that this was the right design decision, but at least you now know the reason why we made this decision.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the client code is closed-source, then you could use spare cycles on clients to compute how many tricks must be taken at a minimum by each side. Then you could refuse to accept claims that are impossible on the lie of the cards. You could also use this capability to short-circuit the play near the end of many boards where every possible line of play results in N or N-1 tricks. Of course, if the system didn't "auto-claim" for you then you would know that there must be some crucial decision left to be made somewhere that could affect the result.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason we allow the defenders to have a say in situations like this is to try to stop malicious declarers who are annoyed at their partners and/or contracts from purposely getting the worst result possible (and thereby poisoning the duplicate comparisons for that board).

 

Our hope is that at least one of the defenders will have enough sense of right and wrong to reject a claim like this.

This hasn't happened to me, but I have refused concessions when declarer thought he would loose all tricks, but was actually wrong about it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason we allow the defenders to have a say in situations like this is to try to stop malicious declarers who are annoyed at their partners and/or contracts from purposely getting the worst result possible (and thereby poisoning the duplicate comparisons for that board).

 

Our hope is that at least one of the defenders will have enough sense of right and wrong to reject a claim like this.

 

I don't have any strong convictions that this was the right design decision, but at least you now know the reason why we made this decision.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I have done precisely this during a tournament where my partnership was doing very badly in a Swiss, and our opps bid up to 7NTX on the final board "just for fun", and attempted to claim zero tricks. I summoned the director, and refused to accept the claim, and explained what was happening to the director. Eventually, the director blacklisted them, adjusted the board to avg +/-, and everyone was happy.

 

Without the option to reject the claim, it would have been difficult to get the director involved when necessary. I believe it is necessary to require opps to accept, even for a concession of all remaining tricks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...