Claims

[Baronscarp]

Two suggestions -

 

1) The number of claims rejected may be reduced by changing the message to indicate the number of tricks being conceded, rather than the number of tricks being claimed, when declarer makes the claim for fewer than the number of tricks remaining. I think some people may reflexively react to claims on the presumption that declarer is claiming ALL tricks.

 

2) PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE identify the player who rejects a claim.

[Vampyr]

2) PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE identify the player who rejects a claim.

 

This may help a declarer who misclaims, since the person who rejects will have been concentrating on her own hand, and will more readily appreciate that she has some tricks to (potentially) take.

[RMB1]

This may help a declarer who misclaims, ...

 

Nevertheless, the table could be told at the end of the hand who rejected any claims.

[barmar]

Nevertheless, the table could be told at the end of the hand who rejected any claims.

It seems like the only point of this would be to embarass the player who couldn't see the obvious line.

[nige1]

2) PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE identify the player who rejects a claim.

I agre with Vampyr and Barmar that would be a retrograde step. Claim protocol on BBO is simple, and speeds up play a lot. Usually opponents accept claims. When they don't, they can simply play on double-dummy, which is usually much quicker. I see no reason to identify or stigmatise players who reject claims. Especially as they are so often right.

[Baronscarp]

As far as I can tell it's the only action which occurs at the table with anonymity. Why?

 

If I'm partnering someone who rejects a claim in error, I don't want to be suspected of being the one who rejects it. The purpose of this change would not to embarrass the person who doesn't see the line of play to a claim. It would be to protect the person who DOES see the line and accepts the claim.

 

And I stand by my assertion that identifying the number of tricks being conceded (if not claiming all tricks), rather than the number claimed, would reduce the number of incorrect rejections of claims.

[1eyedjack]

As far as I can tell it's the only action which occurs at the table with anonymity.

I don't think that statement is accurate. If during an auction you click on an opponent's bid to request an explanation for the bid, the bidder does not know which opponent issued the request.That said, whether a mechanism is or is not sensible should not I think be measured according to whether it is unique.

[mycroft]

The other reason declarer should not know who rejected the claim is that it certainly makes finding the two-way guess for the Queen, or the 5=0 trump break (which declarer hadn't thought of before the rejected claim) easier.

 

I do agree that there should be something visually different between claims of all the tricks and claims of fewer than all. It should be immediately obvious that the claim is not "the rest"; most of my claims that are auto-rejected are "I get my ace, why is he claiming?" when if they read it, they'd see I'm giving it up.

 

And I'm not terribly thrilled with the possible communication around asking for explanations of bids, but that's another story I've brought up before.

[Vampyr]

It would be to protect the person who DOES see the line and accepts the claim.

 

Protection from what?

[1eyedjack]

The other reason declarer should not know who rejected the claim is that it certainly makes finding the two-way guess for the Queen, or the 5=0 trump break (which declarer hadn't thought of before the rejected claim) easier.

 

This is more of an issue in F2F games, where often only the claimant's hand is faced and each defender is left to divine partner's hand (not necessary, I know, but often the case nevertheless). In online games all 4 hands are simultaneously exposed to the non-claimer's side on the instant of claim. In such circumstances I am just as capable of being the defender to reject declarer's claim on the basis of my partner's 5 trumps or Queen as is my partner.

 

I should have thought that all declarer would be able to divine from my rejection is that I am faster or better at analysing the hand than my partner, not that I have his cards.

 

All that said, I can see no positive purpose in idetentifying the rejector, which being the case if there is a shred of benefit to declarer in the knowledge then by all means keep it concealed.

[1eyedjack]

Additional thought.

 

The one POSSIBLE benefit to disclosure is in order the better to simulate a F2F environment, in which obviously the rejector cannot be concealed.

 

The supposition that this would be a benefit pre-supposes that the F2F environment is the Nirvana to which we should aspire. In that case the software should be programmed to permit revokes.

 

But the assumption that the F2F environment is the ideal which cannot be bettered is at best questionable, and in my opinion obviously flawed. If we can improve on F2F then let's do so.

[Vampyr]

But the assumption that the F2F environment is the ideal which cannot be bettered is at best questionable, and in my opinion obviously flawed. If we can improve on F2F then let's do so.

 

Maybe not so much improve, but use the advantages and disadvantages of the format appropriately.

 

I have never played on BBO, but I used to play a lot on another server, and there it was the custom to play on after a claim was rejected. Obviously this is illegal, but it's only online after all, and more importantly it seems to be the case on BBO as well. This makes it especially important that the rejector not be identified

[RMB1]

Protection from what?

Disgruntlement from declarer for slowing the game down?

[Vampyr]

Disgruntlement from declarer for slowing the game down?

 

Hey, irritate your opponents as much as possible -- they will let it get in the way of their playing well! ;)

[helene_t]

If I'm partnering someone who rejects a claim in error, I don't want to be suspected of being the one who rejects it. The purpose of this change would not to embarrass the person who doesn't see the line of play to a claim. It would be to protect the person who DOES see the line and accepts the claim.

If you really want to show declarer your excellent claim-acceptance skills, you can just concede immediately after the claim was rejected by your p.

[barmar]

But the assumption that the F2F environment is the ideal which cannot be bettered is at best questionable, and in my opinion obviously flawed. If we can improve on F2F then let's do so.

Exactly.

 

People have occasionally complained that online bridge isn't "real bridge" because F2F bridge allows players to accept insufficient bids, calls/plays out of turn, and take advantage of penalty cards if they think it will improve their result. While it's true that this changes the game a bit, I don't think most players actually consider these types of errors inherent in the game -- rather, they're unavoidable problems that the laws have to deal with. Online bridge deals with them by preventing them in the first place, and this is considered a good thing.

 

The same thing goes for anonymity in requesting bidding explanations and disputing claims, I think.

[nige1]

Additional thought.: The one POSSIBLE benefit to disclosure is in order the better to simulate a F2F environment, in which obviously the rejector cannot be concealed. The supposition that this would be a benefit pre-supposes that the F2F environment is the Nirvana to which we should aspire. In that case the software should be programmed to permit revokes. But the assumption that the F2F environment is the ideal which cannot be bettered is at best questionable, and in my opinion obviously flawed. If we can improve on F2F then let's do so.

Exactly. People have occasionally complained that online bridge isn't "real bridge" because F2F bridge allows players to accept insufficient bids, calls/plays out of turn, and take advantage of penalty cards if they think it will improve their result. While it's true that this changes the game a bit, I don't think most players actually consider these types of errors inherent in the game -- rather, they're unavoidable problems that the laws have to deal with. Online bridge deals with them by preventing them in the first place, and this is considered a good thing. The same thing goes for anonymity in requesting bidding explanations and disputing claims, I think.

IMO Agree with 1eyedjack and Barmar. F2F law-makers should seriously consider whether BBO can provide useful lessons on how to simplify and clarify Bridge-rules and popularise the game.Future F2F developments could include

• Electronic entry of bids and plays -- to prevent insufficient bids, bids out of turn, leads and plays out of turn, revokes, exposed cards, and so on. This would also facilitate accurate records. A lot of the current law-book would become irrelevant -- especially the more controversial and opaque bits.
• Automatic disclosure based on the BBO full-disclosure model.
• Electronic timers, to allow properly time-limited games (at least as an option). And timing displays of bids and plays to make it hard to discern who broke tempo.
• Claim law based on the BBO (and Rubber Bridge) model.

[Vampyr]

IMO Agree with 1eyedjack and Barmar. F2F law-makers should seriously consider whether BBO can provide useful lessons on how to simplify and clarify Bridge-rules and popularise the game.Future F2F developments could include

• Entering bids and plays, electronically -- to prevent insufficient bids, bids out of turn, leads and plays out of turn, revokes, exposed cards, and so on. This would also facilitate accurate records. A lot of the current law-book would become irrelevant -- especially the more controversial and opaque bits.
• Automatic disclosure based on the BBO full-disclosure model.
• Electronic timers, to allow properly time-limited games (at least as an option). And timing displays of bids and plays to make it hard to discern who broke tempo.
• Claim law based on the BBO (and Rubber Bridge) model.

 

These are the worst ideas, ever. The second one might work well with screens though.

[Antrax]

If you really want to show declarer your excellent claim-acceptance skills, you can just concede immediately after the claim was rejected by your p.

This. Or you can chat "p why reject????????", that also works.

Please note that on BBO, unlike F2F, declarer can accept invalid defensive claims and the other defender has no say about it. So, you can concede all tricks even if you or partner hold the trump ace, for instance.

[1eyedjack]

Please note that on BBO, unlike F2F, declarer can accept invalid defensive claims and the other defender has no say about it. So, you can concede all tricks even if you or partner hold the trump ace, for instance.

 

How about this suggestion. Rather off the cuff and not thought it through thoroughly (heh, that rolls off the tongue!).

 

When a defender claims all of the remaining tricks, system to operate as currently: Claim is visible only to claimant and declarer, declarer (alone) is provided with double-dummy view, and play proceeds on rejection with declarer playing double dummy (until a new claim or concession is issued). Claimant's partner is then never made aware that a claim has been made (unless he can guess from delays in play).

 

When a defender makes a claim which includes a concession, then the process starts as above: Claim is (initially) visible only to claimant and declarer, and declarer is provided with double dummy view. *IF* declarer rejects the claim the play proceeds exactly as above. However if declarer accepts the claim and concession then the claim is forwarded to the other defender who then has an opportunity to accept or reject. In case of the latter then play proceeds. The original claimant is not informed who rejected the claim.

 

There is one aspect about this proposal on which I am undecided as to the optimal system, in the circumstances were a defender's concession is accepted by declarer, namely: whether the claimant's partner should be provided with a double dummy view on which to base his acceptance/rejection. On balance I favour his being provided with full view. Either way, the claimant should continue to have only a single-dummy view (unless and until declarer subsequently claims or partner subsequently concedes).