mike777 Posted November 11, 2010 Report Share Posted November 11, 2010 When opp claim....with no discussion....can I make them play so i get one more trick at the table?....assume not insane...but....not perfect..... --------------- on bbo this is a real problem as.......opp will then keep playing we cann\ot call director.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted November 11, 2010 Report Share Posted November 11, 2010 When opp claim....with no discussion....can I make them play so i get one more trick at the table?....assume not insane...but....not perfect.....No you cannot. You call the TD and let them work it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 11, 2010 Report Share Posted November 11, 2010 True when there is a TD. But if you are playing online without a TD I understand a disputed claim is played out. Unsatisfactory, but there is no obvious alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted November 11, 2010 Report Share Posted November 11, 2010 Online, you can reject the claim (if you think they made a bad claim) and then play out the hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 And after a claim is rejected online, the non-claiming side gets to play double dummy. While this doesn't allow them to force the opponent's plays, it does give them a significant advantage after a bad claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 And after a claim is rejected online, the non-claiming side gets to play double dummy. While this doesn't allow them to force the opponent's plays, it does give them a significant advantage after a bad claim. On-line claim law may not be entirely satisfactory but is a considerable improvement on face-to-face laws. Face-to-face claim laws engender endless controversies here and on BLML. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 For every claim that is posted here (and other laws forums on the 'net) there are a hundred that no one ever hears about, because there is no problem with them. The method of handling claims online is neither lawful nor, IMO, an improvement, much less a considerable one, over the lawful way of dealing with them. Not when claimer's opponents get to play out the hand double dummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjj29 Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 On-line claim law may not be entirely satisfactory but is a considerable improvement on face-to-face laws. Face-to-face claim laws engender endless controversies here and on BLML.On the contrary, I think it can be worse. If declarer has forgotten about an outstanding card which it may be possible to pick up, the very act of rejecting the claim may tip him off, causing him to get it right, where he would have got it wrong. Having the director adjudicate claims, awarding such doubtful points against the claimer, protects against those cases. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Online claims are very unfortunate. The real life solution works extremely well, despite a very very small minority of claims that get to the forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Online claims are more like claims in rubber bridge rather than duplicate bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Even in rubber bridge, claimer's opps don't get to play on double dummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Even in rubber bridge, claimer's opps don't get to play on double dummy.We-e-e-e-ell. :lol: The play continues with declarer's hand face up on the table, and a defender has the right to show his hand to partner. Sounds pretty much like double dummy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 What if it's a defender's claim? Perhaps I should have said "don't always get to play double dummy". :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 If it is a defender's claim then play continues with the defender's hand face up on the table. Thus declarer is in effect playing double dummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 14, 2010 Report Share Posted November 14, 2010 Huh. I thought "double dummy" meant all four hands exposed. What I get for listening to The Bridge World, I suppose. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjj29 Posted November 14, 2010 Report Share Posted November 14, 2010 Huh. I thought "double dummy" meant all four hands exposed. What I get for listening to The Bridge World, I suppose. :PWell, if you can see three hands... Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 14, 2010 Report Share Posted November 14, 2010 What!? You want me to think?! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted November 14, 2010 Report Share Posted November 14, 2010 Hmm, we defend perfectly and the claimer follows the line of play he had in mind before making the false claim AND with no info as to which player rejected the claim. I've seen lots that automatically reject so they can see all the cards before deciding. He won't do anything insane (maybe) and a result is reached. Does this not follow the face to face procedure without the claimer arguing about a different line he might have taken after seeing ALL the cards? Seems like a HUGE improvement to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 Hmm, we defend perfectly and the claimer follows the line of play he had in mind before making the false claim AND with no info as to which player rejected the claim. I've seen lots that automatically reject so they can see all the cards before deciding. He won't do anything insane (maybe) and a result is reached. Does this not follow the face to face procedure without the claimer arguing about a different line he might have taken after seeing ALL the cards? Seems like a HUGE improvement to me.Why should claimer follow the line he originally stated? You think he is stupid? It is far worse because it is unfair, leads to more arguments and is inequitable. No, I prefer the duplicate rules which work extremely well in the vast majority of situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 A simple solution is to just have an option to disallow any claims at all when playing online. Of course you will in theory slow up the game, but practically this may not be the case. I'm not saying it's perfect, but does avoid the issues associated with rejected claims and no available TD... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 A simple solution is to just have an option to disallow any claims at all when playing online. Of course you will in theory slow up the game, but practically this may not be the case. I'm not saying it's perfect, but does avoid the issues associated with rejected claims and no available TD...As with face to face claims, I think this a terrible idea, and for the same reason. Most claims are accepted without question, and the slowing down of the game for such a minority problem seems a very poor solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 A simple solution is to just have an option to disallow any claims at all when playing online. Of course you will in theory slow up the game, but practically this may not be the case. I'm not saying it's perfect, but does avoid the issues associated with rejected claims and no available TD... I first played on-line in the 80's. In more than 20 years, I don't remember an on-line claim creating a problem. The BBO on-line rules seem an ideal compromise.They are easy to understand and apply.Justice is done and seen to be done.They don't depend on language skills or players speaking the same language.They encourage claims and speed up the game -- even when contested! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 Hmm, we defend perfectly and the claimer follows the line of play he had in mind before making the false claim AND with no info as to which player rejected the claim. I've seen lots that automatically reject so they can see all the cards before deciding.Why would anyone do that? I've never seen an online claim that doesn't show all the cards to the non-claimers, without the need for a reject. Auto-rejecting claims are one of the few things one can do (as opposed to things one can say) that will invoke my ire. Better yet, "reclaim" gets replied to by "defenders can claim, too". I feel I can tell the difference between "unclear" and "auto-reject", but defenders can claim, too.He won't do anything insane (maybe) and a result is reached. Does this not follow the face to face procedure without the claimer arguing about a different line he might have taken after seeing ALL the cards?No, it frequently follows the face to face procedure exactly - with the claimer following the different line he wouldn't have taken if the claim hadn't been rejected, not just arguing over it.Seems like a HUGE improvement to me.Why should claimer follow the line he originally stated? You think he is stupid? It is far worse because it is unfair, leads to more arguments and is inequitable. No, I prefer the duplicate rules which work extremely well in the vast majority of situations.And, of course, what if (as is frequent/usual online, and, in fact, frequent when there's a disputed claim FTF) the claimer doesn't present a statement? He thinks they're all good, when the claim is rejected, "oops, it must be a 4-0 split", and plays to handle it - yeah, it's the right play in any case, but how many people would get it wrong, at least sometimes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 You may have varying mileage on the speediness of claims, but in an online environment, I don't see it speeding things up that much. Nevertheless, I would prefer to play a game where you can claim online. But then I usually play (or usually did play) only with people I consider "friends" online. In that game, I would definitely prefer having the ability to claim. But then I don't worry about stupid rejected claim issues. However, if you put me in a situation where I'm playing in the MBC against randoms, I'm equally happy to be in an environment where you can't claim. It avoids any issues associated with rejected claims and the time it takes to play out a hand online is minimal. Hence the suggestion to make it an option to the table host. It's a choice. You can like it and select it (or choose to play at such a table) or you can dislike it and live with the consequences of having rejected claims. I cannot see what is wrong with having an added choice. It's not like either method follows the laws of duplicate bridge. I think people misinterpreted what I was suggesting, so feel the need to respond. Do you personally not want people to have the choice to set up tables with no claims allowed or do you just not want that choice for yourself? Why would you object to others having that choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 A simple solution is to just have an option to disallow any claims at all when playing online. Of course you will in theory slow up the game, but practically this may not be the case. I'm not saying it's perfect, but does avoid the issues associated with rejected claims and no available TD... I take the liberty to assert that any claim causing a call for the director slows up the game. Consequently there is a question whether claims should only be allowed when they are so obvious that no claim statement is needed? (At least when the purpose of claims is allegedly to spare time). 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.