[LCarey13]

I play a very friendly game with people I used to play in person with. Fairly early in a game, my opponent tried to claim all the remaining tricks, so the hands were revealed. We decided to go ahead and play it, so we rejected the claim.

The hands remained visible to all for the remainder of the game.

That didn't seem fair at all.

Is that the way it's supposed to work?

[smerriman]

Yes, if your opponent claims, you can see the whole deal in order to know whether to accept or not. Only you see all four hands - the person who claimed does not.

[LCarey13]

 smerriman, on 2020-December-07, 13:10, said:

Yes, if your opponent claims, you can see the whole deal in order to know whether to accept or not. Only you see all four hands - the person who claimed does not.

But that doesn't happen if you play bridge at a table with physical cards. You just claim, and the opponents can reject or accept. If they reject, the game continues as before.

I don't understand why when someone claims on BBO, they suddenly have to show their hand and everyone's hand to the opponents, for the entire rest of the game.

[smerriman]

Well, up until a few years ago, if a claim was disputed in real life, you weren't even allowed to carry on - getting the director to rule was the only option.

BBO was built well before then for a different audience, but the ability for different players to see different information online allows for many different aspects to face to face bridge (such as the concept of self-alerting).

Having the claimer's hand revealed the way it is online makes far more sense to me - if you don't want it to happen, just don't make bad claims.

[bberris]

 LCarey13, on 2020-December-07, 20:01, said:

But that doesn't happen if you play bridge at a table with physical cards. You just claim, and the opponents can reject or accept. If they reject, the game continues as before.

I don't understand why when someone claims on BBO, they suddenly have to show their hand and everyone's hand to the opponents, for the entire rest of the game.

In a live game with a competent director, after a claim is disputed the director is called and the result is adjudicated. In no case does play continue under ACBL rules, and I suspect under any other regime.
This must be followed. To see why, what if a declarer claims with a two-way finesse. All he has to do is wait for the objection and hook the objecting player.

[mycroft]

The laws are right here [2017] [2007]. You don't have to rely on what you remember of what you were taught by someone who is remembering what they were taught by...

In duplicate, there was (and is) never a case when "if rejected, the game continues as before". However, in the newest version of the Laws, the lawmakers decided to give in to the "just play it out people" and make what they always did legal (L68D2b). But - it requires the consent of all four players at the table. If I'm one of them (in real life, online tradition is a bit different), that will never happen - and as a TD (who clearly wants more work), I repeatedly state when asked "there is no case where it is to the advantage of all four players to let play continue. So don't suggest it, and don't agree to it". Note especially L68D2b(ii) - if you end up doing worse than what the TD would have given you, that's your tough luck. If you end up doing worse than the claim, that's *also* your tough luck.

Once somebody refuses to suggest, or refuses to accept, the offer to play on, we revert to the Law that has always been there (okay, in my lifetime, at least) that says the TD is summoned and adjudicates fairly (L70).

But remember, BBO was built before online organized duplicate games were a thing. So how to deal with claims when there is no Director to call? Well...

In rubber bridge, the 2014 (current) Laws state that when an Arbiter is available, effectively the 2007 Duplicate claim law applies. Otherwise (my emphasis):

Quote

When his claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face up on the table. At any time either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner, and declarer may not impose a penalty for any irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced. (Rubber L69)

In addition, declarer is restricted in his choice of plays if they were not in his claim statement, including in particular, if a trump is out that wasn't mentioned defenders can require that declarer draw or not draw the trump (L69B). So, yeah, again, no case where "the game just continues as before".

BBO claim procedure (and tradition) outside of sanctioned tournaments is effectively to follow the rubber laws.

So, on BBO, in games where there is a Director, follow the Laws (either duplicate or rubber-with-Arbiter). In games where there is not a director, like random games on the casual server, follow the Rubber Laws - declarer shows his hand, defenders show their hands to each other (no reason not to when the option for declarer not to see them is available), and play it out, treating as you would someone shady in a rubber game a declarer who tries anything that looks like "claim, and if rejected, take the safety play/remember the trump out".

If your game chose to not follow the Laws before, by "just playing on, not showing your hand", well, now you know. Find out who convinced your game that declarer should have that advantage, and have him read the actual Laws, too.

[blackshoe]

I fear, Mycroft, that no one except me and thee actually reads the rules of this game.

[LCarey13]

Thanks to everyone who responded! I just was surprised that this forum forced ALL the hands to be visible to the opponents when a claim is denied. I would understand the declarer's hand be exposed, but I was just surprised the both defenders hands were now visible to the defenders.

[gordontd]

 bberris, on 2020-December-08, 05:57, said:

In a live game with a competent director, after a claim is disputed the director is called and the result is adjudicated. In no case does play continue under ACBL rules, and I suspect under any other regime.
This must be followed. To see why, what if a declarer claims with a two-way finesse. All he has to do is wait for the objection and hook the objecting player.

This is not true under the 2017 laws and indeed was not entirely true under those introduced in 2007.

[barmar]

BBO's claim process is modeled after rubber bridge rules, not duplicate bridge, since there's no director to adjudicate in the MBC. And the programmers didn't implement different procedures for MBC and tournaments.