Claims with GIB

[iandayre]

There is at least one aspect of the game of Bridge that GIB does perfectly - I will not accept incorrect or unproven claims - even if the claim succeeds as the cards lie. But isn't it time to fix the other side? If I hold a 13 card suit and claim as soon as the dummy hits, I am conceding down 13 - and GIB cheerfully accepts. Same later in the hand if we have all winners and/or high trumps - it will accept any concession even if it impossible to lose a trick on any line of play. The Laws do not permit concession of tricks that cannot possibly be lost - GIB should not either.

[smerriman]

There is at least one aspect of the game of Bridge that GIB does perfectly - I will not accept incorrect or unproven claims - even if the claim succeeds as the cards lie. But isn't it time to fix the other side? If I hold a 13 card suit and claim as soon as the dummy hits, I am conceding down 13 - and GIB cheerfully accepts. Same later in the hand if we have all winners and/or high trumps - it will accept any concession even if it impossible to lose a trick on any line of play. The Laws do not permit concession of tricks that cannot possibly be lost - GIB should not either.

The system should just default to claiming all tricks regardless of whether you are on lead or not. No idea why it doesn't. I'm sure this has been requested a lot in the past too, seems like it'd be a trivial fix.

[Bbradley62]

Did you copy this wording from an old thread?

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/68039-claims/page__p__811940__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry811940

 

same/similar suggestion/question:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/73044-claiming-vs-robots/page__p__870674__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry870674

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/71107-claim-options/page__p__847329__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry847329

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/70350-did-i-claim-too-early-here/page__p__839175__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry839175

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/64142-claiming-v-robots/page__p__770851__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry770851

 

I got tired of looking... it's been suggested/discussed repeatedly.

[lycier]

Oh, Bbradley62, good job!

I think you are a best person of moderator in this forum.

[iandayre]

You're right BB it has been mentioned before. To my knowledge, no one from BBO has ever commented on it. Since JDonn has said that a new revision is pending, I thought another mention might be timely. Of course you jump at every possible opportunity to criticize anything I say here, I'm used to it.

[smerriman]

Did you copy this wording from an old thread?

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/68039-claims/page__p__811940__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry811940

 

same/similar suggestion/question:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/73044-claiming-vs-robots/page__p__870674__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry870674

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/71107-claim-options/page__p__847329__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry847329

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/70350-did-i-claim-too-early-here/page__p__839175__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry839175

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/64142-claiming-v-robots/page__p__770851__hl__claim__fromsearch__1#entry770851

 

I got tired of looking... it's been suggested/discussed repeatedly.

 

Perhaps the fact it has been suggested so many times over so many years means it's more important to fix.

[johnu]

Perhaps the fact it has been suggested so many times over so many years means it's more important to fix.

 

Or maybe it shows that BBO is adamantly against making changes. :P

[1eyedjack]

Or perhaps the fix is not as trivial as you imagine

[johnu]

Or perhaps the fix is not as trivial as you imagine

 

My educated guess as a longtime software developer is that a developer that is familiar with the code could make the change in the time it takes to read this thread.

[1eyedjack]

My educated guess is that if the developer could make the change with that ease it would have been done by now.

 

I don't claim to be a longtime software developer, although on the fringes I have been exposed to it sufficient to see how, without familiarity with the code, it would superficially appear to be a simple matter.

 

One thing that I recall is seeing in this forum many moons ago assurances by those closer to the ground that it was not a simple solution, and while I may find it surprising I nevertheless choose to believe them.

 

I speculate one possible explanation for the delay being that not all of GIB's un-compiled code was made available to BBO when they acquired the product. Reverse engineering the code would be hard enough (assuming within the permitted terms of acquisition) however simple the ultimate task. That need not be the real reason. It is sufficient to imagine a possible reason.