Claim/concede Play it out
#1
Posted 2022-September-14, 12:40
Very often, a trump could be outstanding as the declarer may have miscounted. You deny the claim, he slaps down the Ace of trump to pick up yours.
Similarly, in BBO, you either accept or deny the claim - and that may again warn the declarer that hw has missed a certain factor such as missing
a minor trump which could possibly win a trick. Sometimes a player may think a certain high card has been played and mistakenly claims.
I have even seen players falsely make a claim hoping opponents will accept without looking closely - something as simple of having the top cards
in a suit but have no entry to use them. Nothing to lose by claiming.
My suggestion is: if a claim is made with no explanation of a line of play and there is an outstanding trump, you automatically lose a trick or
(or tricks, depending on the situation) such as can happen when a director rules at a club. The onus would be on the claimer to
make sure it is a valid claim) If a guy had claimed 11 tricks in Spades - had and outstanding trump - he would still make his
contract of 4S, but be denied the overtrick)
Perhaps, in addition to accept or deny the claim, there could be an option to "accept with reservation". Then, if there was a line of play that
could fail or there was an outstanding trump, the penalty would be assessed
#2
Posted 2022-September-14, 17:44
Law 68.D: After any claim or concession, play is suspended.
#3
Posted 2022-September-15, 10:20
TylerE, on 2022-September-14, 17:44, said:
That rule is ignored by BBO automatically when a claim is denied as the play continues (double dummy for the non-claiming side).
The proposed approach is MORE in line with the rule as instead of a referee assessing the claim it would become BBO software doing it.
#4
Posted 2022-September-15, 11:33
Since the software seems to be capable of calculating the result of unfinished boards when time expires, why cannot it not be allowed to calculate results in these situations as well?
#5
Posted 2022-September-16, 17:36
I made a post a long time ago demonstrating such a hand I played but my post history doesn't go back that far unfortunately.
#6
Posted 2022-September-16, 22:04
Huibertus, on 2022-September-15, 10:20, said:
The proposed approach is MORE in line with the rule as instead of a referee assessing the claim it would become BBO software doing it.
#7
Posted 2022-September-16, 22:09
Twice in the last few weeks, I mistakenly claimed -1 when I made the contract. So it pays to be careful and when trumps out or other play needed to put that info in the claim.
Interesting things can and do happen. In a speedball, the opponent refused to accept a valid claim until time ran out. Partner called the director and later we received an adjusted score.
I hear complaints about slow play very often.
#8
Posted 2022-September-17, 16:32
In a tournament with the director, if it's not obvious (can't lose the high trump, forgot about the ♦A), call the director and let them adjudicate. If you choose not to do so, then see above.
In the main bridge club (note, not the BBO "ACBL club", which has directors and my previous statements about club bridge apply) as has been mentioned many times before, the claim "rules" as "enforced" by the software more closely reflect the rubber Laws; where the deal is played out with declarer's hand faced, and certain plays "should" not happen. If they do anyway, since there is no arbiter or money on the line, the best thing to do is to choose not to play against this player, as you should also choose not to play against anyone deliberately using other sharp practises. A report to management would not go awry, but it's 10 000th in seriousness today, so it likely won't go anywhere. You never know, though.
#9
Posted 2022-September-18, 07:13
themarc, on 2022-September-15, 11:33, said:
Since the software seems to be capable of calculating the result of unfinished boards when time expires, why cannot it not be allowed to calculate results in these situations as well?
It has long been my suggestion that online bridge should replace claims with a "play out" button which causes the software to calculate the remaining result of the board, according to well known rules.
I don't see much that can be done to improve claims in face to face, except reversal of the misguided 2017 modifications.
#10
Posted 2022-September-18, 22:28
Huibertus, on 2022-September-15, 10:20, said:
The proposed approach is MORE in line with the rule as instead of a referee assessing the claim it would become BBO software doing it.
As I've explained many times before, BBO's approach to claims is modeled after rubber bridge, not duplicate bridge. At non-tournament tables, there's no director to adjudicate claims, so playing it out is the best approach.
#11
Posted 2022-September-18, 23:45
pescetom, on 2022-September-18, 07:13, said:
This is going to be hard to do practically. How do you handle:
- A claim where declarer has correctly said "drawing last two trumps" in the claim box (or in the chat line outside the claim box)
- A similar claim where declarer hasn't said anything and it's not obvious that declarer knows how many are out
- A claim, which is valid on the assumption that a previously taken finesse (which the opponents would never have ducked) still works
- A claim which is cold on the known double squeeze, but the finesse for the 12th trick loses
The problem I envisage is that if you do anything but use a double-dummy solver you're getting into very messy rules for the poor computer. And double dummy is a very poor way to adjudicate claims.
#12
Posted 2022-September-19, 07:34
sfi, on 2022-September-18, 23:45, said:
- A claim where declarer has correctly said "drawing last two trumps" in the claim box (or in the chat line outside the claim box)
- A similar claim where declarer hasn't said anything and it's not obvious that declarer knows how many are out
- A claim, which is valid on the assumption that a previously taken finesse (which the opponents would never have ducked) still works
- A claim which is cold on the known double squeeze, but the finesse for the 12th trick loses
The problem I envisage is that if you do anything but use a double-dummy solver you're getting into very messy rules for the poor computer. And double dummy is a very poor way to adjudicate claims.
This completely replaces the concept and mechanism of claims, so it is immaterial what Responder says before or after pressing the button. What happens when he does so is that the software plays it out with simple and well known single-dummy rules for the Declarer and smart double-dummy for the Defenders. A cinch for the computer, the Director and all at the table. The result is definitive and uncontestable. Time is saved and trivial play avoided. If the Declarer is capable of more than the simple algorithm then he simply avoids the button and plays on.
Obviously, the fly in the ointment is the complexity of the known single dummy rules. Too simple, and it will often not be convenient to claim. Too complex and it will not be easy to predict the consequences of a claim, plus the possibility that the mechanism might do better than a poor or confused player could on his own. This can be mitigated by having two or more levels, to be assigned according to tournament level.
Even the highest level is not going to execute the known double squeeze, so this mechanism is going to cause some "trivial" play in expert competition (but also eliminate some non-trivial litigation). If that is a real problem then maybe Claims could be enabled in top level competition, with f2f laws enforced by Directors.
#13
Posted 2022-September-25, 17:33
pescetom, on 2022-September-19, 07:34, said:
I understand what you're trying to do and more power to you, but the devil is in the details here. Is your rule "draw all the trumps", "draw an extra trump to check for lurkers" or something else? What I'm betting you'll find is that it will be almost impossible to write a set of rules that cannot be gamed by someone who has forgotten a crucial detail such as whether there's another trump out and whether or not it's high.
And I didn't choose the double squeeze example because it's some difficult play. One of the typical features is if it's working, declarer needs to do little more than follow suit once they set up the position. It's simply a matter of recognition, unlike other types of squeezes which require annoying things like counting.
#14
Posted 2022-September-26, 08:44
sfi, on 2022-September-25, 17:33, said:
When I find time I will open a specific thread with a draft set of (basic level) rules, hoping that this can be improved in a team effort (we have all the necessary skills here between Directors, robot-familiar programmers and players of various levels).
I'm not sure forgetting a trump is a good example of your point, maybe say forgetting whether or not a side suit is established. But it's not an objective that the rules cannot be "gamed" by someone who is a total beginner or has forgotten the play so far or is drunk or whatever. They may improve their score, but they are not going to win the tournament or impress anyone by using the button as a crutch.
sfi, on 2022-September-25, 17:33, said:
Fully understood, but "recognition" of situations (and recognition that declarer has recognised) are among the more difficult things to express in black and white rules. We will probably have to get into this discussion for the higher level rules, but basic really should be back of an envelope level.
#15
Posted 2022-September-26, 09:13
#16
Posted 2022-October-08, 17:34
barmar, on 2022-September-18, 22:28, said:
Understood but that still doesn't explain why one half of a pair can concede the board without partner input.