Who is required to accept a claim/concession?

[BudH]

1. Declarer claims 1 or more tricks (this one I got - both defenders must answer “Yes”).

2. Declarer claims zero (concedes the rest)

3. Defender claims 1 or more tricks

4. Defender claims zero tricks (concedes the rest)

 

Who from the opposing side needs to agree in these cases for the claim to go through, thereby proceeding to the next board?

 

On a defender claim, can defender’s partner object? (I saw one recently where a defender conceded all and his partner had the trump ace.)

[TylerE]

If declarer claims, both opponents must all ways agree.

 

If a defender claims, declarer must agree. Defenders partner never even sees the claim.

[Vampyr]

 

On a defender claim, can defender’s partner object? (I saw one recently where a defender conceded all and his partner had the trump ace.)

 

Yes in bridge, not on BBO.

[pescetom]

Yes in bridge, not on BBO.

 

To be fair to BBO, bridge has not yet addressed the problems and opportunities offered by online play. Until it does, this seems a reasonable set of choices and certainly better than a literal implementation of the current laws.

[gordontd]

To be fair to BBO, bridge has not yet addressed the problems and opportunities offered by online play. Until it does, this seems a reasonable set of choices and certainly better than a literal implementation of the current laws.

There was a set of Online Bridge Laws produced in 2001 but they gave the impression of having been written by people who had not really played online bridge and so were never used much.

 

I had a conversation about this recently with someone of influence in the sphere, about the fact that with online bridge having currently assumed such importance, the need for something to regulate it was being felt. We concluded that probably what is needed is some supplementary regulations to cover online bridge, rather than a separate set of laws, because many of the differences are to do with matters not covered directly by the laws themselves - eg alerting - or infractions that simply don't exist online. So we may yet see something appear to help with rulings in online bridge.

[pescetom]

There was a set of Online Bridge Laws produced in 2001 but they gave the impression of having been written by people who had not really played online bridge and so were never used much.

 

I had a conversation about this recently with someone of influence in the sphere, about the fact with online bridge having currently assumed such importance, the need for something to regulate it was being felt. We concluded that probably what is needed is some supplementary regulations to cover online bridge, rather than a separate set of laws, because many of the differences are to do with matters not covered directly by the laws themselves - eg alerting - or infractions that simply don't exist online. So we may yet see something appear to help with rulings in online bridge.

 

Glad to hear that the problem is at least recognised - things need to move fast now that the covid crisis is melting down all things face to face, including bridge. As you say, not only do many infractions cease to exist but new ones arise and new possibilities arise too including the possibility to reduce information leakage between partners.

I also agree that merely updating the current monolithic laws would be impractical, but I suggest a modular redesign which separates the rules of the game from all aspects particular to a certain method of play. So I would prefer a core of game definition and principles and then distinct modules for different types of play: face to face, screens and one or more online modules (might be useful to define how to play traditional physical location tournaments but with tablets, as distinct from generic online play). These play modules could be sufficiently well defined to eliminate discretionality for RAs and closely define it for software designers and service providers like BBO.

[gordontd]

Glad to hear that the problem is at least recognised - things need to move fast now that the covid crisis is melting down all things face to face, including bridge. As you say, not only do many infractions cease to exist but new ones arise and new possibilities arise too including the possibility to reduce information leakage between partners.

I also agree that merely updating the current monolithic laws would be impractical, but I suggest a modular redesign which separates the rules of the game from all aspects particular to a certain method of play. So I would prefer a core of game definition and principles and then distinct modules for different types of play: face to face, screens and one or more online modules (might be useful to define how to play traditional physical location tournaments but with tablets, as distinct from generic online play). These play modules could be sufficiently well defined to eliminate discretionality for RAs and closely define it for software designers and service providers like BBO.

I think that even if this were thought to be a good idea, it would be to large a change to be considered before the next revision of the laws, expected in about seven years, which is why a supplementary document might provide more immediate solution.

[pescetom]

I think that even if this were thought to be a good idea, it would be to large a change to be considered before the next revision of the laws, expected in about seven years, which is why a supplementary document might provide more immediate solution.

 

Perhaps.

My gut feeling is that if the WBF does not move with more decision than that, it might not be around in seven years.

[Vampyr]

To be fair to BBO, bridge has not yet addressed the problems and opportunities offered by online play. Until it does, this seems a reasonable set of choices and certainly better than a literal implementation of the current laws.

 

Reasonable to not allow a defender to object to his partner’s concession? Yes, if “reasonable” means ”totally unacceptable”. Is that how you were defining it?

[johnu]

To be fair to BBO, bridge has not yet addressed the problems and opportunities offered by online play. Until it does, this seems a reasonable set of choices and certainly better than a literal implementation of the current laws.

The problem with a single defender conceding tricks that can't be lost has been know for years, if not decades. As a software developer, I don't think I am going out on a limb in saying that requiring both defenders to concede would be trivial programming. The excuses from BBO why there is no fix to the concession problem have never impressed me as remotely convincing.

[TylerE]

The problem with a single defender conceding tricks that can't be lost has been know for years, if not decades. As a software developer, I don't think I am going out on a limb in saying that requiring both defenders to concede would be trivial programming. The excuses from BBO why there is no fix to the concession problem have never impressed me as remotely convincing.

 

The problem is not a technical one. If both players are required to agree, that means they get to see the cards. At that point if either objects there's really no way to play on. Else you'd have one defender conceding at trick 1, revealing their cards and then they get to defend double dummy.

[Vampyr]

The problem is not a technical one. If both players are required to agree, that means they get to see the cards. At that point if either objects there's really no way to play on. Else you'd have one defender conceding at trick 1, revealing their cards and then they get to defend double dummy.

 

Why would they see the cards? Have you never faced this situation in real life?

[johnu]

The problem is not a technical one. If both players are required to agree, that means they get to see the cards. At that point if either objects there's really no way to play on. Else you'd have one defender conceding at trick 1, revealing their cards and then they get to defend double dummy.

If you let a bad concession go through, how are you expecting to fix the score unless a director can adjust the score.

 

Why would the defenders get to defend double dummy or even guess right? They are the ones who made a faulty concession. Read the section of the Laws about contested claims and concessions.

[TylerE]

Because it's online, and there is no director.

 

I'm talking about how it does work, not how it should.

[johnu]

Because it's online, and there is no director.

 

I'm talking about how it does work, not how it should.

I will note that sometimes there are directors in the online tournaments.

 

If the non-conceding partner has a sure trump trick, or a high card that is always going to win a trick, would you say it would be trivial for the players at the table to agree that was the case and simply adjust the number of tricks for each side? I think it should and would be the case in almost every instance. That way you can get the correct result on the board. If you let an impossible concession happen, the board is over and if there is no director to adjust the score, that's the final result. Isn't it better to not let that bad concession happen in the first place?

[pescetom]

I will note that sometimes there are directors in the online tournaments.

 

If the non-conceding partner has a sure trump trick, or a high card that is always going to win a trick, would you say it would be trivial for the players at the table to agree that was the case and simply adjust the number of tricks for each side? I think it should and would be the case in almost every instance. That way you can get the correct result on the board. If you let an impossible concession happen, the board is over and if there is no director to adjust the score, that's the final result. Isn't it better to not let that bad concession happen in the first place?

 

It would be between gentlemen of decent playing level, both face to face and online.

Unfortunately it often doesn't work out that way, even in top level competition (see many examples related on BridgeWinners).

Nor are the current f2f laws 68B and 70 particularly easy to enforce or absent of criticism.

It seems reasonable to rethink them for online.

[pilowsky]

There is no requirement for anyone to accept a claim. Just keep playing. In the online environment, all kinds of technical problems occur that are not faced in a club. just keep taking tricks. There are only 13 cards. Also, you have no idea if the person you are playing against is strong or weak, sees the situation as you do or not. Meanwhile, it's your time running away - not theirs. Just try to be a little kinder. Online directors have better things to do with their time than listen to pathetic rants of the form "I claimed - it's obvious I only want 5/6 tricks etc etc" for crying out loud. Nobody wants a bridge lesson from you.

[Vampyr]

The problem with a single defender conceding tricks that can't be lost has been know for years, if not decades. As a software developer, I don't think I am going out on a limb in saying that requiring both defenders to concede would be trivial programming. The excuses from BBO why there is no fix to the concession problem have never impressed me as remotely convincing.

 

If BBO are unwilling to fix the problem, the only alternative solution is to disable concessions by a defender altogether.

 

I have made my partners aware of the issue, so we know not to concede as defenders, but others will not know. Particularly because it seems, as you say, a trivial matter to eliminate the bug (or to have not introduced it in the first place) few people will suspect that there is a problem.