claim without stating line...

[PeterE]

Telling them to play on, unless the software requires they play on (in which case the error is in the software), is clearly director error [Law 68D]. Law 82C now requires an adjusted score, both sides being treated as non-offending. So defenders get their two tricks on their side of the score, and declarer gets them on his side - but it should be made clear the reason for ruling this way is the director error, and if he hadn't said "play on" declarer wouldn't get those tricks.

In another post you claim ( :D ) that TD should follow the laws. While this is an incredibly honest objective, you first have to read the laws. B)

 

If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose

So, if the TD mistakenly let play go on and judges this approach erronous afterwards, (s)he can allways solve this error afterwards by assigning a score on the basis of the cards left and need not consider both side as non-offending.

[epeeist]

I just looked at the help files someone mentioned up thread. They say "If either defender rejects the claim, it is treated as rejected and play continues with the defenders able to see all the hands."

 

This may be allowed by the software, but it is illegal according to the laws.

 

It may be faster to play it out, but that's not an option under the laws. I believe also that it is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the law to reject claims out of hand.

The software allows one to alert one's own bids. And explain one's own bids to the opponents (only) if necessary.

 

Do any TDs here seriously require the bidder's PARTNER to alert (by table chat) and explain (likewise) bids in BBO tournaments? If not, you're violating laws 20 and 75C, if I recall correctly...it would be easy to state in tournament rules e.g. "Do NOT alert your own bids; only alert your partner's bids, using chat to the entire table, and likewise explain the partner's bid to the entire table if requested. Before the opening lead, if there was any misexplanation by one's partner of one's own bid it must be corrected and the TD called as in f2f bridge." It would be easy to state, but the consequences -- in time, annoyance, etc. -- of disallowing players from alerting their own bids would be great. There are enough problems with failing to adequately explain one's own bids on BBO, imagine how much worse it would be with explaining partner's bids!

 

I see this as a somewhat similar situation, the software allowing a claim to be rejected and play to proceed is a matter of practicality. I'm sure there are other examples where, for practical or other good reasons, bridge as implemented on BBO arguably (or clearly?) violates the laws of bridge (and/or the laws of online bridge). Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the laws of bridge could suggest some...

 

My point is, since some violations of the laws of bridge on BBO are already widely accepted for what seems (to me) to be good reasons (e.g. the prospect of self-alerts and explanations which would be invisible/inaudible to partner were not in contemplation of the law-makers), is the fact that something on BBO violates the laws of bridge that didn't have this form of bridge in mind always determinative? Even the online bridge laws are fairly "primitive" in many respects (how do you manage to forbid online players from using memory aids?! People may have a pile of books and their Internet browser open to a bridge site while playing, for all you know).

 

As for it being contrary to the spirit (if not letter) of the rules to reject claims out of hand, isn't the point the laws are about the laws, not equity or the spirit of the laws? :P Glib remarks aside, I think it depends on the reason. I am comfortable with automatically rejecting claims from people who have in my personal experience deliberately (obviously, that's an inference) or negligently misclaimed against me frequently enough for me to make a profile note about it. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf, at some point you're justified in ignoring them, sure maybe eventually there really will be a wolf (valid claim), but they're just not trustworthy. I understand you may disagree.

[barmar]

I just looked at the help files someone mentioned up thread. They say "If either defender rejects the claim, it is treated as rejected and play continues with the defenders able to see all the hands."

 

This may be allowed by the software, but it is illegal according to the laws.

 

It may be faster to play it out, but that's not an option under the laws. I believe also that it is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the law to reject claims out of hand.

I believe the intent of that section of the help file is for playing in the MBC, not tournaments. There's no TD available in the MBC, so the only options would be to play on or redeal. I suggest you look at the laws of rubber bridge for inspiration, as the laws of duplicate bridge assume a more formal setting.

[blackshoe]

Telling them to play on, unless the software requires they play on (in which case the error is in the software), is clearly director error [Law 68D]. Law 82C now requires an adjusted score, both sides being treated as non-offending. So defenders get their two tricks on their side of the score, and declarer gets them on his side - but it should be made clear the reason for ruling this way is the director error, and if he hadn't said "play on" declarer wouldn't get those tricks.

In another post you claim ( :P ) that TD should follow the laws. While this is an incredibly honest objective, you first have to read the laws. B)

 

If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose

So, if the TD mistakenly let play go on and judges this approach erronous afterwards, (s)he can allways solve this error afterwards by assigning a score on the basis of the cards left and need not consider both side as non-offending.

If you think I haven't read the laws, you are mistaken.

 

You have a point regarding the hightlighted phrase in Law 82C, but I'm not so sure I agree with your conclusion.

[PeterE]

no ? That's a pity ... I think my conclusion is literally in the laws.

 

After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

[blackshoe]

We seem to be talking at cross purposes, so I suggest we just drop it.

[bid_em_up]

In an amusing side note:

 

In a tourny the other nite, my LHO was declarer in a 3 card ending with dummy holding:

 

♦A10

♣A

 

and played a club to dummy.

 

At this time, I'm holding:

 

♦Kx

♣x

 

and claimed one of the last 3 tricks. Declarer rejected this claim, told me I am not allowed to claim in mid-trick, and that I needed to read/learn the rules, that I could ask any director or yellow who would verify that he was correct.

 

Oh boy.

[mycroft]

It took me less than two minutes to google up

 

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/play.htm#law68

 

...and I'm the type to reply in just that way to Rules Lawyers - especially those who produce this kind of everybody knows, but it's not really true "rulings".

 

Michael ("um, I am a director - here's the Law. Feel free to show me where it says I can't claim")