claiming

[blackest_k]

over in the general discussion there is a debate about claiming if the claim relies on a finese or cards being in a particular hand to make. knowing they are there makes it a certainty you will play that way.

 

Would it be better not to show the hands until everyone agree's to see the hands and allow the claim to be rejected without having the hand spoiled by the hands now being open.

 

hence this is a suggestion for the software,

warm regards

 

John

[Free]

the one that claims doesn't get to see all hands, so only the defense gets extra information (pretty normal imo). How else can they accept a claim if they don't see all hands? :)

[JRG]

As Free implied, what BBO currently does is about as close as practical to the spirit of face-to-face bridge. The significant difference is, of course, that in face-to-face bridge play is NOT allowed to continue after a claim (if the claim is disputed, the director must be called).

 

That is not really practical online, so allowing play to continue is how the disputed claim is resolved. The non-claiming side gets to see all the cards when the claim is made (as in face-to-face bridge). I don't think there is any dispute over this in the other thread you referred to. The dispute is over the unauthorized information (or inference, or whatever you want to call it) the claimer gets when the claim is rejected and he has to play on. [Well, there was also some "discussion" over whether it is incumbent on someone to claim if they can do so.]

[blackest_k]

what i am thinking is currently as soon as someone makes a claim the hands are placed face up on the table as soon as they intend to claim but if its still up in the air as to what the result should be it's quite unsatisfying for all concerned as the person who is declaring will obviously say they would play it to their advantage.

 

have you ever conceded a hand when your partners hand had winners or come close to it. much to your partners anoyance.

 

perhaps the sequence should be.

I wish to claim x tricks are you willing to let this hand go down.

if either of the other 2 players objects play should continue as normal

else then the hands go down as now.

 

because objecting to a claim doesnt identify who objected it should still allow a reasonable chance of a fair game to continue,

on the other hand if i put a claim in that was refused initially it still might be sign enough to know how the remaining cards lay.

 

I think a simple third option play on when a claim is in doubt could be implimented without too much trouble.

 

but is it desirable? it would be one more mouse click.

would it be open to abuse more or less than the current system?

now i will shut up and let everyone else speak :(

 

warm regards

 

John

[blackest_k]

[Well, there was also some "discussion" over whether it is incumbent on someone to claim if they can do so.]

there is always the option of conceding if your ops will not claim and its a forgone conclusion.

 

Warm regards

 

john

[JRG]

When you make a claim, you are supposed to state your line of play. This should hold for online bridge just as much as for face-to-face bridge. If you do not state your line of play, then any doubt is meant to be resolved in the non-claimer's favour (this is generally a problem for declarer's claim - defenders seem to be more careful about claimining or conceding).

 

The first, HUGE problem on BBO (and maybe on all online bridge sites, I don't know), is that people do NOT always make that statement. [Aside: I think that if many of the players at least thought about how to phrase their claim, they simply wouldn't make those poor claims.]

 

Now the second problem rears its ugly head when the claim is disputed. There is no director to call (well, maybe in tournaments), so the software makes you play on. In face-to-face bridge, declarer is presumed not to do anything irrational, but if he did not state a line of play, then he is assumed to believe there are no trumps out and that he is not going to take an unproven finesse.

 

If any line of play will cause him to have a "proven finesse", then he can take that. If an opponent ruffs, he can overruff. But playing additional rounds of trumps or taking an unproven finesse are out. [Obviously he can play trumps if he has nothing else left in one hand!]. So, how do we enforce this in the software? If we cannot, then how do we handle it?

 

That, I believe, is why we have a problem with claims on BBO.

[Free]

I think we're not talking about claims of declarers, but claims from defenders. With declarer claims, there's nothing wrong imo.

 

It's true that when one of the defenders concedes some tricks, partner doesn't agree with your claim. Therefor, if you'd say to partner "look, I want to concede X tricks", and then partner agrees and we concede the tricks to declarer, there shouldn't be much of these troubles anymore.

BUT!! That way gives new possibilities to cheaters! They can send any kind of information without declarer knowing it. Say you're in the beginning of a game, and suddenly they start claiming to eachother in code (like 0 tricks = return ♣, 1 trick = return ♦,...) declarer won't see that, and defenders will get advantages!!