[penguinlan]

{comments}

---

This happened to my partner and me yesterday, and I'm still rankled. At trick 6, my partner made a good claim: he described that he'd finish pulling trump, concede a heart, and the rest were good (and wrote that out in the claim description). The opponents rejected the claim, so partner drew the last trump and conceded a heart. and then, instead of ruffing back in and taking the rest, he misclicked and gave the opponents an extra, undeserved trick. After the hand was over, he appealed to a TD, who adjusted the score to what it should have been (since partner had already claimed, it was obvious what he intended, and he argued that in the club he'd be able to replace a card he pulled by accident and play the card he intended). Then, the opponents appealed to a more senior TD, who said that there are no undos for misclicks in this tournament, and adjusted the score back.

I feel slightly cheated. It appears that an effective, if unsportsmanlike, tactic is to reject every good claim, even if you can see that it's good. If the opponent plays it the way they described, you've lost nothing. If you run out of time, you get the double-dummy result and have lost nothing. If the opponent misclicks, you've gained something you wouldn't be able to get otherwise.

Is there any downside to always rejecting all claims? I want there to be, because this goes against ACBL law 74B.4 on etiquette ("As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from... prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent"). Should I just accept that the laws of bridge are slightly different online, and start rejecting all claims because it's at least as good as accepting them?

How should I handle this situation next time? (Yes, I realize that "don't misclick" is the best solution. but the result we received still feels unfair.)

[pescetom]

Welcome to BBO and congratulations for your eyesight

Yes the claim was reasonable and opponents had no good reason to refuse it, but often a weaker player has difficulty in judging such situations and he does have the right to refuse any claim and even override his partner. The way claims are handled on BBO is different to the laws of Contract Bridge, but there is nothing strange in the final Director decision that your partner should have played the cards correctly. Nor is there anything strange in the fact that your partner made a mistake under the unexpected stress of having his claim challenged. For this and other reasons many experts recommend that you should never claim except in a friendly environment of trusted and equally skilled players, whatever your RA (in this case ACBL) invites you to do. It's ironic that you hit a problem inherent in the current laws of face to face bridge rather than one specific to the modified scenario of online play.

[Vampyr]

Don’t follow the above advice not to claim.

In any game where there is a director involved, don’t play on. After a claim play ceases, and it is only in the latest version of the laws that it was permitted to play on with the agreement of all four players. Just call the director when there is a contested claim.

[SelfGovern]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-03, 16:50, said:

Don't follow the above advice not to claim.

In any game where there is a director involved, don't play on. After a claim play ceases, and it is only in the latest version of the laws that it was permitted to play on with the agreement of all four players. Just call the director when there is a contested claim.

I agree with Vampyr. Play ceases when a claim is made.
When a claim is made, call the director if:
1. You disagree with the clam, and reject it
2. Declarer claimed, and the claim is rejected.

The laws say that play ceases when a claim is made.
In ACBL games, the declarer will advance to the next board and adjudicate when he has a moment to look at the board in contention.

[Gerardo]

If you're dummy you still have the right to stop the play.

However, in BBO, decarer can overrule you.

In this case, say ASAP to the table you disagree with playing on (so Director who can pick table chat can use it, and disregard any further play), and call the Director.

[Vampyr]

penguinlan, on 2020-May-03, 13:51, said:

he argued that in the club he'd be able to replace a card he pulled by accident and play the card he intended).

Just noticed the above. Is this club on earth? If it is, the player’s argument is false.

[penguinlan]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-22, 00:11, said:

Just noticed the above. Is this club on earth? If it is, the player’s argument is false.

ACBL law 48A reads: "Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer’s or dummy’s hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally."

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-03, 16:50, said:

Don't follow the above advice not to claim. In any game where there is a director involved, don't play on. After a claim play ceases, and it is only in the latest version of the laws that it was permitted to play on with the agreement of all four players. Just call the director when there is a contested claim.

Vampyrs interpretation of current law seems correct. IMO, it is too slow, sophisticated, and subjective for a game. It monopolises director time and results in contentious rulings.

The usual BBO protocol is to dispute declarer's clam by playing on, with declarer's hand exposed, until satisfied.. Especially useful when no director is available. In any case, IMO, it's faster, simpler, fairer, and encourages more claims.

[Vampyr]

penguinlan, on 2020-May-30, 09:59, said:

ACBL law 48A reads: "Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer’s or dummy’s hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally."

A misclick is not the same as a dropped card, after all the “click” is an act of volition, but anyway if it was a true misclick and not declarer getting ahead of himself or getting distracted, he should have asked for an undo. If the opponents refuse the undo or undos are not allowed in the event, then declarer has only himself to blame for playing on.

Neither is a card “pulled by accident” (what was actually said by the OP) the same as a dropped card, and cannot be replaced by another.

[pescetom]

I missed the continuation of this topic, mea culpa.

Vampyr, on 2020-May-03, 16:50, said:

After a claim play ceases, and it is only in the latest version of the laws that it was permitted to play on with the agreement of all four players. Just call the director when there is a contested claim.

The latest version of the laws is the current version of the laws.
You are permitted to play on with agreement and without involving the director.
You can call the director even on BBO, but don't expect him to be thrilled, given the protocol that it offers.

nige1, on 2020-May-30, 11:03, said:

IMO, it (current face to face laws) is too slow, sophisticated, and subjective for a game. It monopolises director time and results in contentious rulings.

I agree.

nige1, on 2020-May-30, 11:03, said:

The usual BBO protocol is to dispute declarer's clam by playing on, with declarer's hand exposed, until satisfied.. Especially useful when no director is available. In any case, IMO, it's faster, simpler, fairer, and encourages more claims.

I'm not a great fan of the current BBO protocol, but I agree it is fairer and more practical than an attempt to enforce the face to face laws.
I hope that future online play will do even better.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2020-May-30, 12:59, said:

I missed the continuation of this topic, mea culpa.


The latest version of the laws is the current version of the laws.
You are permitted to play on with agreement and without involving the director.
You can call the director even on BBO, but don't expect him to be thrilled, given the protocol that it offers.

I really don’t care how thrilled or otherwise the director is. One of his responsibilities is adjudicating rejected claims. I would certainly never play on after a claim.

In real bridge you would get a DP if you made a habit of rejecting claims.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-30, 13:20, said:

I really don’t care how thrilled or otherwise the director is. One of his responsibilities is adjudicating rejected claims. I would certainly never play on after a claim.

In real bridge you would get a DP if you made a habit of rejecting claims.

As a director I am well aware of my responsibilities in both face to face and (as far as they are defined) online.
I don't remember any occasion on which I had to consider assigning a penalty to people rejecting clains.