1eyedjack Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 I don't expect this suggestion to be popular. Not sure that I have thought it through fully myself, and am nearing the bottom of the bottle now anyway: How about giving dummy the option to reject a claim (including a claim by declarer!)? This seems to be in keeping with the general feeling on this forum that we should simulate as far as possible the laws requiring that play ceases on a claim. Can dummy reject a claim in face to face? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Err.... no.... Dummy can see all four hands. He is not allowed to speak, and certainly should never be allowed to issue or reject claims. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerardo Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Face to face, dummy IS allowed to reject a claim, because play ceased, and he is not dummy anymore (discussed on bridgetalk forums not too much ago). Before giving dummy such rights, you have to be sure play cease as soon hand is claimed. About seeing cards, there are lines he could not suggest, but s/he could do it. However, would originate an endless number of discussions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Err.... no.... Dummy can see all four hands. He is not allowed to speak, and certainly should never be allowed to issue or reject claims. Ben Any player who currently has the right to accept or reject claims can see all 4 hands the moment a claim is made. I do not see this as a relevant point. I absolutely concur that dummy should never be allowed to issue a claim. That is not being suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 I think that central to this issue is: If defenders claim tricks, dummy can see that the claim is faulty but declarer cannot (without UI from dummy) should the defender's claim be allowed to succeed? Currently the claim succeeds because declarer (in above situation) would accept the claim and dummy is forced to remain silent on the issue (unless he speaks up publicly before declarer has clicked on accept). Now, I can understand the logic that says that if declarer is so incompetent as to fail to appreciate that the claim is flawed then he deserves what he gets by accepting the claim, and if he is alerted to the flaw by dummy's rejection of the claim (should it be permitted), following which the hand is played out, then the UI that he has received from dummy's rejection could contribute to his not receiving his "just deserts". On the other hand, if the opponents make a faulty claim then their own "just deserts" would counter this. Furthermore, my suggestion more closely follows the laws. Furthermore, under existing arrangements, if declarer claims and one defender accepts while the other rejects, and play continues, then the defender who accepted could be regarded as being in receipt of the same UI, yet this is permitted. The more I think about it, the more I think that all 3 players at the table (other than the claimant, who must not be dummy) should have the power to reject any claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdct Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 How about some automatic deep finesse analysis at the time of the claim? If a double-dummy play exists to enable the non-claiming side to take more tricks than the claiming side is offering them, then the software could automatically adjust the score to the maximum number of tricks that they can possibly take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 How about some automatic deep finesse analysis at the time of the claim? If a double-dummy play exists to enable the non-claiming side to take more tricks than the claiming side is offering them, then the software could automatically adjust the score to the maximum number of tricks that they can possibly take. That's quite silly, since someone can claim from trick one. If it's automaticly accepted because DF found a way by endplaying his lho twice and pull up a double squeeze in the end, people will use this too much. They don't need skill to play anymore, they just let DF play as good as possible, and get their result :huh: REALLY NOT a good idea!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 How about some automatic deep finesse analysis at the time of the claim? If a double-dummy play exists to enable the non-claiming side to take more tricks than the claiming side is offering them, then the software could automatically adjust the score to the maximum number of tricks that they can possibly take. If N/S claims (say) 9 tricks, and DF can find *no* way for N/S to take any other number of tricks than precisely 9 then the claim should be autoaccepted. If DF can fined *no* way for N/S to take precisely 9 tricks then the claim should be autorejected. I think that there is some mileage in that proposal. Any other combination and I don't think you should rely on DF, unless perhaps you can bolt on some AI module that is capable of applying some intelligence to the analysis. I think that most players would not want to place their trust in such a system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.