[fuzzyquack]

I think that bot claims pass way too easily. One can claim with outstanding trumps provided they may be drawn, and much more. I claimed on a double or trump squeeze when the position was clear, but at this point no bot was squeezed yet, or a clear but not executed yet strip-and-endplay went through. In general, I claimed a plethora of hands when a 'comprehensive statement' in the spirit of the Secretary Bird would be needed for the human opps to fold their cards. I believe that the reasons for that is the use of GIB in evaluating claims: when the best play is certain to succeed, the claim is granted. There are two issues here. First, why not to make a trial-end-error claim without much of an idea how to play the hand since GIB automatically provides the best solution to evaluate the claim? Second, even a great player may profit from a trial-end-error claim since it will often provide a direction to the problem or bring savings on mental fatigue. I propose to remove a possibility of claiming in bot tourneys till four-card ending, which will remove a vast proportion of possible profits from trial-end-error claims. I don't even think it will be a large nuisance since hands when we claim very early don't happen that often. Please provide other ideas.

[fuzzyquack]

Does anyone know how to move it to general BBO forum?

[nige1]

fuzzyquack, on 2021-April-23, 05:36, said:

I think that bot claims pass way too easily. One can claim with outstanding trumps provided they may be drawn, and much more.

Agree with Fuzzyquack. GIB concedes claims when there are outstanding trumps and finesses need to be taken If GIB rejects your faulty claim, then you can take advantage of the information about unfavourable distribution The regular claimer has a considerable advantage GIB should be much more discriminating about accepting claims. Perhaps GIB should also adjudicate faulty claims more harshly.

[steve2005]

GIB should be able to know what cards declarer has and take advantage of double dummy defense after an unsuccessful claim.

[pilowsky]

I play with someone IRL who is of the firm opinion that if someone makes a claim and it is rejected, then they cannot subsequently take a finesse to make the contract.
Is this true?
In every jurisdiction?


Yes, GIB is sometimes kind. Sometimes it isn't.
It will sometimes deny an invalid claim and then continue to play so badly that you make the contract anyway.
Swings and roundabouts.

[mycroft]

Cannot? Of course not. If partner showed out last round, declarer obviously gets to take the marked finesse.

In general, it depends on the game. In a tournament, the Duplicate Laws apply, which include:

• 68C:A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of [the claim];
  
• 70A:[T]he Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point ... shall be resolved against the claimer.
  
• 70E1:The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play [which relies on a card being in one or the other hand] unless an opponent failed to follow suit [], or would subsequently fail to follow suit on a normal* line of play.

In a BBO tournament, the claim statement tends to be handwaved a bit (but in ACBL RegionalsAtHome, nope, LB claim law applies).

But also note that if you want to insist on all of the above, you MUST have the director adjudicate. Because if you just reject the claim and let declarer play on,

• 68D2b:...play may continue, [and] (ii): the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.

(my emphasis) Which means declarer gets to play any way they want, and with the knowledge of who objected.

In rubber, claims are adjudicated by the Arbiter, if present; in a game without arbiter, the Laws are just different enough from above to be interesting (including if there's a trump outstanding unmentioned, defenders can require or forbid declarer pulling the trump).

[sfi]

nige1, on 2021-April-23, 07:33, said:

Agree with Fuzzyquack. GIB concedes claims when there are outstanding trumps and finesses need to be taken If GIB rejects your faulty claim, then you can take advantage of the information about unfavourable distribution The regular claimer has a considerable advantage GIB should be much more discriminating about accepting claims. Perhaps GIB should also adjudicate faulty claims more harshly.

GIB only accepts claims where there is a 100% line based on what is known thus far. So if a claim relies on a successful finesse, it will only accept it if the other hand has already shown out in the suit. If GIB accepts a claim you think needs an unproven finesse, you have missed a better line.

You are right that it should be more discriminating. If you're unsure whether a suit is good (maybe you missed a pitch), it's often simple enough to claim assuming it is. If the claim is rejected, you have more information about the hand. I'm not sure how you cater for that, particularly when the vast majority of play against robots is casual and you don't want to draw out the game unnecessarily.

[pilowsky]

mycroft, on 2021-April-23, 15:26, said:

Cannot? Of course not. If partner showed out last round, declarer obviously gets to take the marked finesse.

In general, it depends on the game. In a tournament, the Duplicate Laws apply, which include:

• 68C:A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of [the claim];
• 70A:[T]he Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point ... shall be resolved against the claimer.
• 70E1:The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play [which relies on a card being in one or the other hand] unless an opponent failed to follow suit [], or would subsequently fail to follow suit on a normal* line of play.

In a BBO tournament, the claim statement tends to be handwaved a bit (but in ACBL RegionalsAtHome, nope, LB claim law applies).

But also note that if you want to insist on all of the above, you MUST have the director adjudicate. Because if you just reject the claim and let declarer play on,

• 68D2b:...play may continue, [and] (ii): the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.

(my emphasis) Which means declarer gets to play any way they want, and with the knowledge of who objected.

In rubber, claims are adjudicated by the Arbiter, if present; in a game without arbiter, the Laws are just different enough from above to be interesting (including if there's a trump outstanding unmentioned, defenders can require or forbid declarer pulling the trump).

OK - so if the defenders (usually) continue to play then they have no recourse.
Thanks.

[pilowsky]

sfi, on 2021-April-23, 16:00, said:

GIB only accepts claims where there is a 100% line based on what is known thus far. So if a claim relies on a successful finesse, it will only accept it if the other hand has already shown out in the suit. If GIB accepts a claim you think needs an unproven finesse, you have missed a better line.

You are right that it should be more discriminating. If you're unsure whether a suit is good (maybe you missed a pitch), it's often simple enough to claim assuming it is. If the claim is rejected, you have more information about the hand. I'm not sure how you cater for that, particularly when the vast majority of play against robots is casual and you don't want to draw out the game unnecessarily.

I suspect - with no evidence - that the vast majority of play against robots is Human V. 3 other robots.
OP is someone with considerable success in that format. (https://www.bridgeba...hp?u=fuzzyquack).

OP's comments about robots tournaments are completely correct.
But, every player is dealing with the same advantage/disadvantage.

I don't think fuzzyquack is talking about robot V. 2+ human games

[helene_t]

For casual play I think it's ok the way it works but for competitive play I think it's too generous. Not sure how it can be improved, though. Maybe better just to abolish claims for competitive play.

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2021-April-24, 05:52, said:

Not sure how it can be improved, though. Maybe better just to abolish claims for competitive play.

Or replace them with something more practical: see my proposal for a playout button in this related thread and others previously.