New levels of anger.

[Gerardo]

No, the line MUST be stated at the moment you make the claim, in any case BEFORE opps reject it.

 

Can't state your line AFTER opps reject it, as it could not be the original one.

 

If no line is stated, and claim is wrong, or depends on something not said, it should be ruled against claimer.

[dogsbreath]

Hi .. I have nothing to add other than to agree that some infringment occured. A better claim mechanism would be useful .. i was berated by a p in a tourney recently for rejecting a declarer claim .. different situation tho .. declarer 'claimed' one off in a 4Major contract , thinking defenders had trump winner. Although we did have trumps left, it was impossible on any play for us to score a trick - so I rejected the claim as I believe it is not within either the rules or the ethics of the game to accept a false claim in this situation , even tho is in your favour, simply because the software allows it. The proposed improved 'claim' mechanism earlier in this thread would be nice for teams/good quality tourneys but I fear it will only delay other events even more - I was going to say 'friendly' tourneys but it seems we have few of these nowdays :blink:

 

Rgds Dog :D

 

furnulum pani nolo

[nikos59]

Some useful lessons from the thread:

a. The claim mechanism must be modified; however, the proposed

cumbersome procedures will prove unworkable; I propose a very

minor change that will probably work well:

"The software should make it impossible to claim unless claimant

(or dummy if claimant is declarer) has the lead"

 

b. There are some bridge players whose lawyer skills are

much greater than their bridge playing skills.

 

n.

[Dwayne]

Nikos said:

If I were a member of an appeal committee on this,

I would suggest retaining the deposit.

 

I can find no better quote in this entire thread that encapsulates the injustices committed to Dr Todd and his partner in this sorry saga.

 

Dwayne

[Fluffy]

I have heard many times that the laws should be aplied, and many links to NABC or another NBO wich has not to be applied at all over the net.

 

If there are any laws that havbe to be applied it has to be fred, sheri or uday to tell about them (or so I think), or to let the torunament directors stablish them before tourney starts.

 

Bridge base online has a software that lets you play after a claim rejection, why?, jsut because the software was planed to be made for the main bridge club, ,where there aren´t any tournament directors.

 

It has a point to have the claims being autoruled by players: directors don´t have many time to waste on such appeals.

 

The fact the way I think about the claims is against 'the law' (wich law?) doesn´t mean I am wrong at all, I still think you should claim as fast as possible to save everyone´s time, and that includes not writing a bunch of lines.

 

PD: I am sorry DrTodd, I said before you losed nothing by losing an online trick, losing the qualification for another or jsut continue on a survvor/ko tournament is probably the only thing you can, by now, lose playing online. I can understand your anger, but still think you are wrong.

[inquiry]

If there are any laws that havbe to be applied it has to be fred, sheri or uday to tell about them (or so I think), or to let the torunament directors stablish them before tourney starts.

 

(snip). I can understand your anger, but still think you are wrong.

Hi Fluffy,

 

Dr. Todd is wrong if the tourneyment was run in funfishy. Gweny has the right to establish whatever laws she wants to use there.

 

The larger issue here, however, is for tournments that follow the laws. Especially the ACBL ones, which have to follow ACBL guidelines and use ACBL certified directors. There, my reading of the laws suggest that if a claim is contested (as this one was), play can not continue, and a director has to adjucate the result. The director may, say making, or may say down one. It is a director's decision. None of us should tell the director how to rule. But what can't happen is what happened here, play continued. At least, that is my reading/understanding of the rules. And BTW, playing in these tournments, PLEASE BE SURE to state your line when claiming... you can type "see private chat" on the claim button text place, and then explain away in private (or publci) chat...since play stops anyway.

 

Ben

[DrTodd13]

I believe Gweny says in her conditions of contest that the worldwide laws of bridge apply. Even if she doesn't, that has to be the assumption. If you don't want to use those laws then you should have to explicitly say they are not in force.

 

I would say that I'm more a stickler for the philosophy behind the rules than the rules themselves. I don't think it is unreasonable to establish an online rule that says play can continue after a rejected claim. However, the philosophy behind the current rules is good and I think would dictate that declarer now has potential UI after a rejected claim. At a minimum, he must make an honest attempt to make the number of tricks that he claimed. If everyone explained when they claimed then most of the miscounts and misclicks would be taken care of by the explanation. However, without an explanation, we must believe that they meant what they said when they clicked the number of tricks. In some cases, I believe that UI may enter into the mix just with a defender's request for an explanation or a rejected claim. Explanations after the fact are subject to an analysis for how self-serving they are.

 

Whatever we end up doing with the rules for online claiming, there has to be a punishment mechanism for the unethical abuse of said system. Sure, in most cases there is absolutely nothing at stake...no masterpoints are awarded and there are no ratings but that actually causes a problem because there is no way to punish people for bad behavior. What upset me so is that the only thing resembling punishment is an admonition from a TD and that wasn't forthcoming. If the case was fuzzy then I wouldn't have pressed the issue but I believe that those skilled in the law and the philosophy of the laws would get the right answer to this one. I think most people would be really upset if they thought their opponent behaved unethically and the director dismissed it. I think we need an ethics committee that can review suggestions from TD's for punishment and can also handles appeals from non-TDs. This committee would have the power to ban a player from BBO for some numbers of days as punishment or maybe a temporary scarlet letter.

[guggie]

Well it just occurred to me that the online claim reject machinery has different pro's and cons than in real life. rejecting and ensuing continue to play could yield UI, but if you cannot work out the consequences of a 5-1 split it will not help you very much.

On the other hand, after a rejected claim defense is double dummy. That huge disadvantage for the decllarer would discourage unjust claims. And just claims will not be disturbed by them. Actually, a neat feature of online bridge and quite a penalty for unjust claiming.

[McBruce]

The defense being allowed to play seeing all the cards after a claim is in fact no advantage at all. It is their right according to the Laws. They have the right to any extra tricks coming to them that can be gotten by any line of play except for an irrational play by declarer. The Laws specify that hands are faced so that disputed claims can be adjudicated. There is no advantage in being given something that is rightfully yours.

 

I still advocate an OPTION for tournaments to disallow all play after a claim. You make the claim and if rejected, the hand ends and the TD looks at the play and the claim statement and the objections of the defense when he has a moment. If the declarer makes no statement, it had better be obvious. If the defense makes no statement and the TD sees no way to beat it, he allows the claim.

 

There is no reason this would cost any more time for a TD than, say, the common scenario where a player has claimed the wrong number of tricks and wants an adjustment. You look at a .lin file, or minimize it on your screen until you have time, and deal with it when you can. It takes less than a minute usually.

[mpefritz]

Back to the original problem:

 

I am going to make several claims, each of which is a variation of what happened/could have happened. How are these different/same?

 

"Claim 7 Tricks"

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 2S+1C+1D+3H"

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 1C+3H+1D+2S"

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 3H+1C+1D+2S"

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 2S+1C+1D+2H"

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 2H+1C+1D+2S"

 

"Claim 6 tricks"

 

"Claim 6 tricks: 2S+1D+1C+3H"

 

"Claim 6 tricks: 3H+1D+1C+2S"

 

"Claim 6 tricks: 2H+1D+1C+2S"

 

fritz

[DrTodd13]

Back to the original problem:

 

I am going to make several claims, each of which is a variation of what happened/could have happened. How are these different/same?

 

For all of these, defense at least gets the benefit of the doubt in assuming that clubs will be led next.

 

"Claim 7 Tricks"

 

The case already described. Adjust to -1.

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 2S+1C+1D+3H"

 

On the club lead declarer must cash hearts first before going to dummy so it is the same as above, adjust to -1.

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 1C+3H+1D+2S"

 

Do people assume that the order implies something? I've never assumed or believed that. Therefore, this case is the same as the above 2.

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 3H+1C+1D+2S"

 

Same as above.

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 2S+1C+1D+2H"

 

Here I believe he has misclicked 7 instead of 6 and he gets awarded 6 more tricks.

There is the remote possibility that he intended to say "3H" rather than 2H but especially since only 2 hearts are good I think the most likely case is that the 7 was the misclick.

 

"Claim 7 tricks: 2H+1C+1D+2S"

 

Same as above. Appears to be a misclick. Declarer gets 6 tricks.

 

"Claim 6 tricks"

 

He gets 6 tricks.

 

"Claim 6 tricks: 2S+1D+1C+3H"

 

This is a tough one. I would tend to think that the explicit statement of what tricks are going to be taken takes precedence over the sum of the number of said tricks. Either he misclicked 6 when he meant 7 (in which down 1 is in order) or he can't add (explicit list takes precedence) or he misclicked the "3H." Maybe a question is in order to ask the declarer to rectify his claim...saying...hey...one part is inconsistent with the other...what did you mean? If he rectifies to 7 tricks then he is down 1 if he says he only meant 2H then he gets his 6 tricks. I don't think asking the inconsistency to be resolved would create UI.

 

"Claim 6 tricks: 3H+1D+1C+2S"

 

Order to me is not important so same as above.

 

"Claim 6 tricks: 2H+1D+1C+2S"

 

Finally, the correct claim. He gets 6 tricks.

[Fluffy]

I think we need an ethics committee that can review suggestions from TD's for punishment and can also handles appeals from non-TDs. This committee would have the power to ban a player from BBO for some numbers of days as punishment or maybe a temporary scarlet letter.

There is enough trouble with cheaters to take care about subjective issues, in my opinion unethic play (I don´t talk about unethic behaviour, people that insult others should be banned forever), is an insignificant problem compared to cheaters.

[McBruce]

I assume mpefritz is trying to poke holes in my suggested option to include a 'reject and call TD' option. His point seems to be that the TD, by himself (the players are on to the next board) with the claim statement and the opponent's objection(s), may not have a clear idea of what declarer actually meant by his claim statement, whereas a TD at the table would be able to ask declarer to clarify.

 

Or would he?

 

Nothing in the Laws allows declarer to clarify his original statement. The TD is supposed to ask him to repeat it. Similarly, online with my suggested revision of the claim mechanism, if a claimer claims and the order of tricks is vital, he risks his result if he does not mention the order specifically.

 

I agree with DrTodd that statements like "6 tricks: 2H+3C+1D" do NOT imply an order. If the order is important the claimer should say 'hearts first' or something. Quite often, as in the specific case we are discussing, the order will be relevant but only one sequence will allow declarer to win all the tricks he is claiming: in that case I think declarer deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

In cases where declarer claims 7 tricks and lists only 6 or 8, I think the whole statement is discarded and the claim is a claim for seven without a statement. I don't like the idea of the TD re-asking, since there are inferences to be had when this happens.

 

The general effects of my revised procedure will be far closer to the real world and to the Laws than the current situation:

 

--no play will be allowed after a claim is rejected

--anytime the claim statement is complicated, claimers will learn to play on before claiming until it is easily explained

--I still think that, especially mid-trick, claiming x more tricks is confusing, and the software should display the intended result: "I claim 5 more tricks, making four."

[mpefritz]

My post was with the intent to probe into whether order COULD be implied from a claim statement.

 

As I understand it, then, DrTodd would make me go down 1 if I stated "Claim 7 tricks 2S+1D+1C+3H" THAT would likely lead me to an even newer level of anger than DrTodd experienced. A ruling like that, in my mind, would be much more offensive than what happened to DrTodd.

 

I would likely decide that "Claim 7 tricks " or "Claim 7 tricks: 1C+3H+2S+1D" would lead to cashing the hearts before cashing the other winners, leading to the loss of 4 more tricks -- (depending on the pitches of the defense).

 

2S+1C+3H+1D would lead to the loss of only 2 more tricks

 

2S+1D+1C+3H would lead to taking 6 of the last 7 tricks.

 

I would consider a 3H+1D+1C+2S to be nonsensical and rule for only 3 of the remaining 7 tricks.

 

The reason I think order is important is that it CAN be used to imply order of taking tricks, else just use S,H,D,C order if total trick order is not important.

 

Just a thought.

 

fritz

 

McBruce: Sorry about the Flames. Condolences from a long-suffering Cubs fan.

[the hog]

I agree with you mpefritz. Certainly in ftf bridge here in Oz 2H 3S and 1C means that I am cashing them in that order. I think the same thing can and should be applied in on line bridge.

[McBruce]

I think it is nearly a moot point. Anyone who claims when the order of the remaining tricks is important (by which I mean not completely obvious and can be screwed up) without elaborately stating the line of play is taking a risk-he'd be well advised to continue playing, especially if in order to claim he had to type in a lengthy, careful statement.

 

[hv=n=shdkj6ckjt52&w=sh872d87ca98&e=s64hdat532c6&s=sh653dq9cq73]399|300|North on lead, declarer (having apparently not noticed that hearts were 5-1) claims seven tricks without a statement before North leads.[/hv]

 

In this case, with the opponents on lead, I don't think the Director can possibly infer an order of tricks from declarer's inventory, when his line of play may well depend on the lead. If the opponents lead a club, it would be silly to force declarer to win in hand and then immediately abandon all of his hearts to cash spades as soon as possible, only because spades was mentioned first. However, claiming all the rest does clearly imply that he thinks all of his hearts are good, and this leads to only three more tricks for declarer on a club lead (A♣ and two hearts).

 

So my principles here are:

--the number of tricks takes precedence over the statement if there is a mismatch

--the order in which declarer can take his tricks can be specified, but a simple count of tricks does NOT necessarily imply an order if it is quite clear that careful handling of entries is required.

 

(Hey, I'm from Vancouver. The Flames beat the locals in the opening round. I was only cheering for the Flames because it has been eleven years since a Canadian team won. Next season--whenever that may be with a hockey strike/lockout looming--the Flames are dead meat...) ;)

[mpefritz]

I am trying to pick through the statements. Perhaps this case is not so easy as NORTH has not led.

 

If NORTH had led a diamond, and then "CLAIM 7 tricks" had shown up, then you could accept that 6 tricks would be taken (the only order that makes sense).

 

If NORTH led a club, then "CLAIM 7 tricks" had shown up, West would be getting only 3 more tricks.

 

If declarer wrote "CLAIM 7 tricks:1C+2H+2S+1D" (only 2H listed in his sum) before the lead, I think you'd give him 6 more tricks?

 

The other question is, in general, whether there is a different standard for irrational play at IMPs and MPs. I could see in this case that down 1 at IMPs might be a little more irrational play than at MPs (but I can also see that if he thinks his hearts are good, we likely wouldn't abandon the extra overtrick even at IMPs).

 

I do suggest that in other cases, when there is a card on the table OR declarer is about to lead, order should matter is settling disputes of claiming. Especially online where people are trying to save time, and often abbreviate what they are trying to say.

 

fritz

[DrTodd13]

West can't logically put any order to the suits unless he knew what North would lead but West claimed before he saw the lead. If North leads a diamond then declarer can save the ♥2 until last. If North leads a club then hearts must be taken before diamonds or spades. It is interesting that people are assuming that the order of cards listed is explicitly listing a line of play. If I want to state a line of play I'll describe very specifically the tricks I'll take along with entry descriptions, etc.

 

On the question of different standards for IMPs or MPs, I think in certain cases it may be useful to use a different standard but when you're in a 20pt 3N with no club lead and a 2nd heart being covered and spades splitting and have a guaranteed 3N+1 (assuredly a near top) then it doesn't make any sense to risk the contract for what will likely be a meaningless extra 30 points with 3N+2.

 

There are definitely differences of opinion here so we have to get everyone on the same page that 1C+2H+2S+1D is specifying an order. What would you say if you didn't want to specify an order? Are you saying I can't either claim a fixed number of tricks or specify the extra order and number of tricks but there is no middle ground?

[the hog]

"What would you say if you didn't want to specify an order? Are you saying I can't either claim a fixed number of tricks or specify the extra order and number of tricks but there is no middle ground? "

 

Basically I think you should always state an order unless you can make an abvious statement like "dummy is high" or "crossing to hand and conceding the losing ? at the end" - but even that is specifying an order I guess.

[mink]

Hi McBruce,

 

I like to answer to your suggestion that the playing should end if a claim is rejected.

 

What we are talking about here - declarer following a different line of play than his claim (with or without statement) implies and using UI that way - does occur very seldom. My observation is the most rejections are made because of not seeing the line of play of a failsafe claim. Far fewer rejections are correct, and the claimer follows an obvoius line of play and thereby gets the number of tricks he should have got anyway. Even if there are several lines of play, in some of these cases the claimer will find an unlucky line, so no reason for opps to call the director.

 

If software would really disallow the playing to continue after an rejected claim, the vast majority of cases that now would have to be handled by the director would be trivial ones, and only a small minority of cases are such where the director is really needed.

 

I consider a minute of director's time to be a lot in a tourney. And I have no idea how in surviver tourney the software should handle such pending claims when deciding on who has to leave.

 

Therefore I suggest the following: The software should add the claim statement and the time of the claim to the .lin file, so that it pops up in the chat area, e.g. "Player xyz claimed all remaining tricks after card 2 of trick 7, saying: 'crossruff'". Players are encouraged to play on after a rejected claim without calling the director. If, after the board is finished, a player thinks that the claimer chose a superior line of play when several possible lines of play were available, he can call the director, who will handle the case as if the play had ended after the claim and disregard what was actually played after the claim.

 

This is essentially that the playing in fact ends after the claim as required by the laws, but the directors relieved of the majority of cases where a correct result can be achieved by just playing on.

 

Karl

[McBruce]

Mink's point seems to be that we should let players claim, record the claim statement they made and the position at the time, and then allow the defenders to reject and for play to continue. If declarer takes a line inconsistent with his statement, the defenders can call the Director and ask the TD to have a look.

 

Seems fine to me. I would suggest though, that the procedure include a stern warning to declarer (in whatever language he has chosen) urging him to make at least some statement. There might even be buttons for common statements like "Dummy is good," "My hand is good," etc.

 

If declarer disregards the warning and makes no statement at all, I think ANY line of play could reasonably be said to be based on the fact that the claim was rejected. So ANY normal line of play that leads to the least total tricks is what the result is. In that case only, declarer should NOT be allowed to play further and the TD should decide.

[bearmum]

Mink's point seems to be that we should let players claim, record the claim statement they made and the position at the time, and then allow the defenders to reject and for play to continue.  If declarer takes a line inconsistent with his statement, the defenders can call the Director and ask the TD to have a look.

 

Seems fine to me.  I would suggest though, that the procedure include a stern warning to declarer (in whatever language he has chosen) urging him to make at least some statement.  There might even be buttons for common statements like "Dummy is good," "My hand is good," etc.

 

If declarer disregards the warning and makes no statement at all, I think ANY line of play could reasonably be said to be based on the fact that the claim was rejected.  So ANY normal line of play that leads to the least total tricks is what the result is.  In that case only, declarer should NOT be allowed to play further and the TD should decide.

HI all - I haven't read ALL this thread ---- but IMHO maybe claims should be disallowed in tournaments on BBO ( UNLESS the director ALLOWS claims{even without stating line of play} --- in which case THEY(the directors :P ) can deal with ambigious claims

 

That way the declarer just plays ALL the cards :) --- this means that the 'line of play' does NOT have to be stated and ------ NO director needs to be called ( I HOPE all you wonderful folks who VOLUNTEER to direct agree with me :D ) so they are free to attend OTHER calls which seem to be NUMEROUS :P

 

AND IMHO this would be considerable shorter in LOTS of cases that the problems an 'ambigious' claim (without telling opps HOW declarer intends to continue) than actually PLAYING the hand

[1eyedjack]

Mink's point seems to be that we should let players claim, record the claim statement they made and the position at the time, and then allow the defenders to reject and for play to continue. If declarer takes a line inconsistent with his statement, the defenders can call the Director and ask the TD to have a look.

Strikes me that this will prolong matters. If declarer goes to the trouble (as he should) of explaining his line in sufficient detail that a subsequent play continuation can possibly be judged to be at odds with that explanation, then there seems little point in letting play continue at all.

[inquiry]

On line bridge is different, we all agree. One big difference not discussed is we can see that minute clock ticking off. A problem we all recongnize is intentional slow play by one side or the other to gain in computer assigned score. Average or Average minus might be better than what they get if they play it out. So claims should be a natural part of the game towards the end of the hand as time is ticking away. Say with two minutes left, we should encourage claims. So we need to keep the claim issue alive here. I think a claim, with a "protested accepted" to allow the TD to adjucate the final result would be a fine option. In other words, the defenders accept with a message to the TD that they accepted to end the hand, but the claim was faulty and the result should be x or y. Also declarer could do the same. We usually do this at the table by rejecting the claim, and making a counter claim (This happens when someone claims one less or one more than they will get). This speeds things up nicely... no fuss no muss.

 

Ben