BBO Rules after a Claim

[helene_t]

If you are disputing a claim (in a tournament) undoubtably the proper thing to do is call the TD immediately.

In some (free) tourneys, the TD is too bussy to take care of all disputed claims. In general I think the best way to handle this is to play on. The non-claimers will have full information, then, but if the claim was valid it should not matter, and if it was not valid I suppose that's the price you pay for an invalid claim. Of course it will sometimes lead to an unfair result. In that case you can call the TD afterwards.

 

Ideally, the host should specify the propper procedure for disputed claims, since it's not obvious how this should be dealt with online.

[Gerben42]

The correct way to counter a declined claim is for the defender to claim the correct number of tricks instead. If both sides cannot agree on the right number of tricks, call the TD.

[mycroft]

It's interesting - both Blackshoe and JDonn have it right - sort of.

 

Ed is right - JDonn can't do what he says legally in ACBL sanctioned competition, because that is all duplicate, and follows the "play ceases, claim statement, hands are faced, disputed claims go to the TD" - although most people will do one round of "what if" first - and if they don't do it aggressively, then there's no real problem. As usual, calling the TD before anyone gets upset will help - if nothing else, it'll mean that they get upset at the TD rather than the players.

 

However, Ed is also wrong - because in rubber bridge, the procedure is exactly as JD put it. Declarer makes statement and faces his cards - if not accepted, play continues, but defenders can face their hands without penalty for inspection and instruction; declarer is restricted in his play by the claim statement.

 

No TD, of course, to do the work for the players.

 

Having said that, claims do tend to mimic rubber bridge on BBO, except that many declarers don't feel obligated to follow the restrictions. Ah well.

 

Michael.

[barmar]

However, I suspect by "free TD" you mean that the TD is both SO and TD, so she can put on her SO hat and make supplementary regulations - as long as they don't conflict with the laws (that's in Law 80). In practice, there are many games played all over the world that resemble [Duplicate] Contract Bridge, but aren't because they don't in fact follow the laws. No harm in that, as far as I'm concerned, so long as the players are happy with it.

Errr no, I mean people on BBO running free games as opposed to pay games. :ph34r:

No requirement to follow laws of any kind.

Sure. They can do whatever they please. And their "customers" will do what they please, as well - including not playing in those games if they don't like whatever rules the TD comes up with.

So far, experience suggests that failure to follow the laws does NOT drive away customers. E.g. there are plenty of "no psyche" tourneys.

 

There are plenty of complaints about non-law-abiding tourneys in these forums, but we're a pretty small, select group of players. The overall BBO community is enormous, and many players are not such sticklers for the rules. They're happy to play in anything that approximates bridge. Minor differences like forbidding psyches or allowing play to continue after a claim is viewed by many of them as nice simplifications, not "not bridge".

[dogsbreath]

Hi

I've just played in ACBL speedball event and had a claim rejected 3 times by my opps in my 7NT contract.

I realise it not always obvious but i did have 2 top spades, 4 top hearts, 3 top clubs and a 8-3 diamond fit missing only Q and x surely 17 on top is a clear claim :)

 

Rgds Dog

[blackshoe]

It's interesting - both Blackshoe and JDonn have it right - sort of.

 

Ed is right - JDonn can't do what he says legally in ACBL sanctioned competition, because that is all duplicate, and follows the "play ceases, claim statement, hands are faced, disputed claims go to the TD" - although most people will do one round of "what if" first - and if they don't do it aggressively, then there's no real problem.  As usual, calling the TD before anyone gets upset will help - if nothing else, it'll mean that they get upset at the TD rather than the players.

 

However, Ed is also wrong - because in rubber bridge, the procedure is exactly as JD put it.

When JDonn said "in the ACBL", it seemed to me axiomatic that we were talking about duplicate, not rubber. On reflection, I suppose rubber might have been intended - if "in the ACBL" means "in North America, but not necessarily in an ACBL sanctioned Duplicate tournament". OTOH, if that's what Jdonn meant, he certainly could have been a lot clearer. :)

[mycroft]

I knew I had misexplained here.

 

The problem is that people remember the rubber laws, or laws from 1960, or whatever, and use them in the wrong spot. Then, because nobody knows any better, and don't call the TD, their opponents think that's right, and now they're the ones who explain that that's how you handle revokes, and...

 

So when JD remembered what he did, I wasn't surprised - because, as I said, he's right - in a way.

 

Michael.

[skjaeran]

Hi

I've just played in ACBL speedball event and had a claim rejected 3 times by my opps in my 7NT contract.

I realise it not always obvious but i did have 2 top spades, 4 top hearts, 3 top clubs and a 8-3 diamond fit missing only Q and x surely 17 on top is a clear claim :)

 

Rgds Dog

Oh no, playing 7NT you need 20 tricks on top to claim! :)

[jtfanclub]

No, you can't. The ACBL follows the same laws as everybody else. What those laws actually say is this (paraphrased): when a claim is made, play ceases. There is no "out" here - there can be no more play. If a player disputes the claim, he must calll the TD, who will require all four hands to be faced, and then hear objections. Then he makes a ruling.

That's actually not true.

 

First of all, if a defender makes a claim, the other defender can reject it immediately. At that point, play continues. (68B)

 

Second of all, if Declarer exposes his cards, it's not necessarily a claim. If both the defenders and the declarer agree this was not a claim, then it wasn't, and play continues without penalty (Laws 42B2 and 68A).

 

While defender claims are not according to the WBF rules, that's a mechanical issue. As it is, it's actually better than the rules: since the other defender doesn't even know a claim was made, no UI was passed to the other defender. We should probably get that codified.

 

As far as declarer claims, I would argue that IS according to the rules. If declarer wants to show his hand, he's allowed to. If the defenders want to refuse a claim and call the director, they absolutely have the right to do so- "playing it out" is not up to the person making the claim. But if both defenders and declarer want to play it out, whether with paper cards or on a computer, the rules allow them to do so. All they have to do is agree that it wasn't really a claim.

 

P.S. Last I heard, the ACBL sanctions club and district level rubber bridge games, and were considering sanctioning them at regional events.

[helene_t]

Second of all, if Declarer exposes his cards, it's not necessarily a claim. If both the defenders and the declarer agree this was not a claim, then it wasn't, and play continues without penalty (Laws 42B2 and 68A).

In civil law, certain actions which are refered to as "offers" in layman's language, are legally considered "an encouragement to the other party to make an offer".

 

By the same token, maybe it would help to say that a BBO "claim" is not legally a "claim", but rather the declarer shows his hand and encourages opps to claim. Or something like that.

[blackshoe]

That's actually not true.

 

First of all, if a defender makes a claim, the other defender can reject it immediately. At that point, play continues. (68B)

That's actually not true. Law 68B deals with concessions, not claims.

 

It is true that a claim of some, but not all, of the remaining tricks, is a concession of the remainder. In that case, per a minute of 28 October, 2001, the WBFLC has ruled that in such a case involving a defender, if his partner objects, then neither a claim nor a concession has occurred, and in that case play may continue.

 

Second of all, if Declarer exposes his cards, it's not necessarily a claim.  If both the defenders and the declarer agree this was not a claim, then it wasn't, and play continues without penalty (Laws 42B2 and 68A).

 

True, but irrelevant. I didn't say "if declarer exposes his cards", I said "when there is a claim".

 

While defender claims are not according to the WBF rules, that's a mechanical issue.  As it is, it's actually better than the rules: since the other defender doesn't even know a claim was made, no UI was passed to the other defender.  We should probably get that codified.

 

I presume you're speaking here of online play generally, or BBO in particular. Yes, that's a software issue.

 

As far as declarer claims, I would argue that IS according to the rules.  If declarer wants to show his hand, he's allowed to.  If the defenders want to refuse a claim and call the director, they absolutely have the right to do so- "playing it out" is not up to the person making the claim.  But if both defenders and declarer want to play it out, whether with paper cards or on a computer, the rules allow them to do so.  All they have to do is agree that it wasn't really a claim.

 

Pfui. "Mr. President, the Constitution doesn't allow you to do that." "Well, find me a way around it!"

 

P.S.  Last I heard, the ACBL sanctions club and district level rubber bridge games, and were considering sanctioning them at regional events.

 

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

[1eyedjack]

Pfui. "Mr. President, the Constitution doesn't allow you to do that." "Well, find me a way around it!"

I thought that this was standard practice among national laws and ethics committees anyway, until now:

 

"We don't like the laws as they appear to be enacted, so we shall 'interpret' them the way we would have liked them to have been enacted, and if you don't like it, well, you could appeal. Except that you would be appealing to us, so there is no point to that."

 

The way that the NBO's delegated to themselves the authority to regulate the psychic use of conventional calls is a case in point, I think.

 

The 2007 changes in the laws in many respects only codifies on paper what the L&E bodies were doing in spirit all the time.

 

I am not suggesting that their interpretations were less than sensible. But that they may have been sensible doesn't change their nature.

[jtfanclub]

True, but irrelevant. I didn't say "if declarer exposes his cards", I said "when there is a claim".

So? This is the whole paper vs. bits thing. If I want to display my hand as declarer without making a claim at the table, it's easy to do so. If I want to do so at the keyboard, I have to make a claim and then cancel it.

 

If BBO had identical functionality but instead of saying "Declarer claims 10 tricks" it said "Declarer shows you his hand but is demonstrably not making a claim", then would you agree that it was not a claim and play could continue? If yes, then why worry about the lawyer-speak?

 

In reply to One-Eye, I'm not talking about the Director here...if on line the defenders don't want to continue the hand, they shouldn't have to. I'm only talking about when declarer and defenders agree that the easiest and fairest way to finish the hand is to play it out. The "demonstrably" gives them an out, so that no rules were violated by finishing the hand.

[andy_h]

Hi

I've just played in ACBL speedball event and had a claim rejected 3 times by my opps in my 7NT contract.

I realise it not always obvious but i did have 2 top spades, 4 top hearts, 3 top clubs and a 8-3 diamond fit missing only Q and x surely 17 on top is a clear claim :P

 

Rgds Dog

I guess they thought hooking for a queen was a possible play.. Tell them you're a good sniffer.