Claiming (again)

[1eyedjack]

I think(/hope), from previous threads, that there is a general consensus that the user interface for claiming can be improved, but I just wanted to add an example that happened to me today.

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=shjdcq7&w=s8hk7dc&e=sh65dc9&s=shat8dc]399|300|Scoring: IMP

♠ = trumps

Lead is with East (declarer)

East leads ♥

South rises with ♥A[/hv]

I was South, and being the impatient sort I submitted a claim for 1 out of 3 tricks as soon as I tabled the Ace, ie mid-trick, the trick on which I played the Ace being that one trick.

Before RHO (declarer) accepted the claim, the trick completed. As soon as my partner followed with ♥J my claim was auto-adjusted by the software to 1 out of 2 tricks (ie one of tricks 12 and 13).

I would not be surprised if declarer thought I was pulling a fast one.

 

Anyway, until the software is updated in this area I recommend:

 

Do not claim mid-trick. But if you must claim mid-trick, ensure that it is before you play to the trick. And then wait for the claim to be accepted or rejected before playing to that trick.

[Free]

I never had problems with that! If I claim X tricks, and this trick holds, the claim dialogue says "X-1 tricks" :D

[McBruce]

This is even a potentially worse problem then: when a claim is made play ceases no matter what (Law 68D). Once again, we need to consider that the current claiming structure was probably written for casual play and needs to be updated for tournaments. See my post in DrTodd's thread for a suggestion which will work both for serious and casual tournaments, and in MBC.

[1eyedjack]

I have a lot of sympathy with Dr Todd's position. But I think that the perceived unethical benefits of the current regime, while they undoubtedly exist and while examples will continue to arise, are a sufficient minority of cases that to dispel with the ability to play on altogether would be a cure worse than the disease.

 

I like your suggestion of accept, reject or play on, but this does not require any software change: If choosing the "reject" option you simply refuse to play on. All it requires for to prevent the completion of the play of the hand is for one player to refuse to play a card. Then all it requires is for the host/TD to sanction this possibility without penalising the player who refuses to play. That will require some education of players and TDs alike if to avoid some major confrontations.

[McBruce]

No, doesn't work. The bane of any TD is players refusing to play on: it slows things down (and 90% or more of the time the players refusing to play are wrong anyhow!). Let the TD deal with the situation when they have time to do so. That's the best solution.

[mink]

Deleted immediately - was nonsense - Karl

[1eyedjack]

No, doesn't work. The bane of any TD is players refusing to play on: it slows things down (and 90% or more of the time the players refusing to play are wrong anyhow!). Let the TD deal with the situation when they have time to do so. That's the best solution.

OK, but I don't understand how your suggestion of "reject and cease play" as an additional option to "play on" will avoid the same slow play problem, when the "reject and cease play" option is exercised. I suppose it could save a fraction of a moment because the reason for the discontinued play becomes immediately apparent without any chat required.

[McBruce]

Reject and cease play scores the board as per the claim, but notifies the TD that a disputed claim needs to be decided one way or the other. The players continue playing the next board. The TD, at his leisure, looks at the board, including the claim statements and the objections of the defense, and decides the final result. Once the TD makes a decision, the players get a message in the same way they do when the TD adjusts a score on a board.

 

In most cases this will take less than a minute. Defenders who reject every claim without typing a reason can be ignored with one click. Declarers who claim too many will be corrected and sometimes harshly if a defense exists to beat the contract. In a very few cases (like the one in the other thread) the TD will have to minimize the lin file and consider it when he has time, possibly after the tournament ends. But the effect is that the Laws regarding claims are upheld.

 

Note that I only advocate this as an option for TDs. In Main Bridge Club, or in team games, no need. The current claim mechanism is a reasonable procedure for non-tournament play.

[1eyedjack]

Yup understood now. I support that idea.

[DrTodd13]

How about this as an option. Once a claim is rejected, statements are collected from all parties involved and are saved. Then, play of the board continues. At the end of the board, all parties are asked if they are satisfied with the result. If they are then the record of the rejected claim is not sent to the director. If they are not satisfied then the original claim situation along with statements are sent to the director. I'm not sure about sending the rest of the hand...what do others think?

 

I think that McBruce's suggestion is ideal but I just worry about TD overload and the potentially large number of rejected claims to be dealt with most of which will be routine. My suggestion was an attempt to filter out some of the simpler cases.

 

Todd

[McBruce]

Seems OK to me but I don't think there would be Director overload. I run SAYC-only tourneys of 25-30 tables singlehanded and I often adjust boards when the slowest table has reached the point where all roads lead to x tricks and nobody knows it, or when someone is damaged because an opponent has gained from a non-SAYC call. Once you are adept at adjusting, they take 30 seconds to do. The actual decision about whether or not to adjust may take a minute or two, but most Directors have lots of time in mid-game.

 

Any Director who didn't want to adjudicate claims could simply use the old method.