[mink]

This happened in a BBO tourney tonight, but I would be interested also what the ruling at a physical table would have been.

---

I have deleted any cards that were played after the claim.

I was West and rejected the claim. Declarer played ♦A, but then refused to continue and mentioned something like "an advanced player should see that the claim is good". I called the director. In table chat the director judged that the claim should be good. I objected in private chat and stated that BBO rules require the play to continue if a claim is not accepted. Eventually the director ruled that we shall play it out, and declarer made all remaining tricks.

I asked the director if he had allowed the the claim if it happened at a physical table, and he responded that most players he knows would get it right. Therefore he would allow the claim unless the declarer was very weak.

I doubt that the director did inspect the previously played tricks, where in trick 5 declarer in forth seat used the ♠A to win the trick instead of the 9.

Karl

[ahydra]

I imagine the conversation might go along the lines of

TD: "West, what is your objection to the claim?"
West: "He hasn't stated a line of play, it's not obvious to me how he intends to make the rest"
TD: "South, can you explain why it's clear you have the rest?"
South: "The small spade and the club are losers. So I cash the DA and two spades, ruff a spade and discard my losing club on DK" [note that hopefully EW haven't shown their cards at this point]
TD: "Seems legit. Making four, but South, please be aware that if you claim in a non-obvious situation the Laws say that you must state your line of play. I'll issue a PP if I have to tell you this again."

The TD made a good ruling (and hypothetical at-the-table ruling) IMHO. I don't think declarer winning trick 5 with the Ace rather than the 9 necessarily indicates that declarer is a weak player, or should be taken into account here. Even strong players have the occasional lapse in concentration / play on autopilot.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Is there a normal, albeit inferior or careless, line of play by which declarer would fail to make his contract? There are, it seems to me, a couple. Is stating a line of play a requirement? Yes it is. Did declarer state a line of play? No he didn't. Instead he made a rather insulting comment and refused to comply with the rules in force. I think the director was entirely too lenient here.

[Nabooba]

Declarer is correct. This is a baby claim. Ok if an opponent is not good enough to see it, Declarer should explain. If a player rejects the claim he should change his profile from Advanced to Intermediate or lower.

[barmar]

I think it would take incredible incompetence, not just carelessness, to lose a trick at this point. What is the "normal, albeit inferior or careless" play that you think might ensue?

That said, the spade play and "safety round" of trumps suggest that declarer is not paying close attention.

Despite what the Laws say about claims, explanations are practically never given in BBO games unless an opponent objects. There's really not much the TDs can do to change a decade of culture.

[weejonnie]

Even if it is a baby claim the declarer is surely expected to make a statement as to how he will make the rest of the tricks, including the order of playing cards. Unless BBO is different, the director sorts out claims as equitably as possible, but any doubtful points are adjudicated against the claimer.

So is not trumping a loser "careless or inferior"? (NB the word 'irrational' doesn't apply in this situation). There are only three spades out - declarer (e.g. East plays the 4 then Jack) might think the last spade is good and not ruff it.

There is no, AFAICS definition of 'normal (including careless or inferior)' compared with 'abnormal' - if 'abnormal' is the equivalent of a 'serious error' e.g revoking or throwing winners on winners then you would have to allow not trumping as being careless (maybe there was a squeeze or the spades might have broken if declarer hasn't a count of the hand).

Regrettably you cannot rely on declarer, at the time of the claim, being aware of the situation, since the very fact that the claim was disputed might have led him into the correct line.

The only true solution is for the claimer/ conceder to make a comprehensive statement when they claim/ concede. If they don't do it then they must expect to have tricks awarded to the opposing side, even if of very low probability.

[StevenG]

 weejonnie, on 2017-June-15, 08:11, said:

Even if it is a baby claim the declarer is surely expected to make a statement as to how he will make the rest of the tricks, including the order of playing cards. Unless BBO is different,

Have you any idea of how long it takes to type a claim statement, rather than speak it?

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2017-June-15, 07:51, said:

I think it would take incredible incompetence, not just carelessness, to lose a trick at this point. What is the "normal, albeit inferior or careless" play that you think might ensue?

That said, the spade play and "safety round" of trumps suggest that declarer is not paying close attention.

Precisely. If he makes those plays, I think he might be careless even to the degree of "incredible incompetence". But perhaps I've seen too many club players do stuff like that.

 barmar, on 2017-June-15, 07:51, said:

Despite what the Laws say about claims, explanations are practically never given in BBO games unless an opponent objects. There's really not much the TDs can do to change a decade of culture.

That's unfortunate. Very unfortunate.

There is one thing they can do - follow the laws. But I suppose not doing that is "a decade of culture" too.

[mink]

Thanks for all responses.

I do not think that the BBO procedures concerning claims should be changed. Of course, a rejection may wake up the claimer, and maybe it did so in this case, but I really do not mind that this way in some cases that would have been ruled against the claimer in f2f bridge, the claimer is successful when the hand is played out.

But I was really astonished when the director first suggested to accept the claim, in a situation where time was no issue - it was the last board of the tourney, and the first board of this round had been passed out. It should not be too difficult for the director to immediately follow the BBO rules and tell players to play it out. At BBO, it is not the director's task to judge if the claim is good or not.

Regarding the same claim in an hypothetical f2f situation, I am even more astonished that some would allow the claim. Making an oral statement is easy. The absence of such a statement is evidence that declarer might think that ♣10 is good, unblocking ♦ is not necessary or there are only 2 ♠ cards left in opps' hands, and a ♣ can be discarded on ♠7. Each of these possible misconceptions will cause the contract to fail.

Karl

[ahydra]

 mink, on 2017-June-16, 18:49, said:

Regarding the same claim in an hypothetical f2f situation, I am even more astonished that some would allow the claim. Making an oral statement is easy. The absence of such a statement is evidence that declarer might think that ♣10 is good, unblocking ♦ is not necessary or there are only 2 ♠ cards left in opps' hands, and a ♣ can be discarded on ♠7. Each of these possible misconceptions will cause the contract to fail.

I appreciate your point, but I think here it's quite clear neither of those will happen. Declarer surely knows only one round of spades has been played. On cashing the SKQ only one of the J10 will appear (otherwise the 7 is good anyway), not the other so he'll know the 7 isn't good. And he hasn't seen the CJ either.

In a situation where it's less obvious, for example if declarer may not realise a small spot is good (by weight rather than length) or the play requires a squeeze which will happen automatically but hasn't been stated, it's much clearer to rule against declarer.

Perhaps the biggest factor is declarer's skill level. If this was a club player, the TD may well have some idea of the player's level and - if they were a weakish player - judge that they would be likely to fail to unblock ♦A, for example. In a county-level tournament or similar I'd expect every TD to rule 10 tricks (but remind declarer to state a line next time).

ahydra

[blackshoe]

 mink, on 2017-June-16, 18:49, said:

At BBO, it is not the director's task to judge if the claim is good or not.

Who gets to decide what the director's task is?

[mink]

 ahydra, on 2017-June-16, 19:15, said:

... In a county-level tournament or similar I'd expect every TD to rule 10 tricks (but remind declarer to state a line next time).

Regarding errors, the difference between a club player and an expert is only the probability. Even experts miscount, just very seldom. But I would expect an expert to know the Laws better than a club player. Those experts I know make a statement if their line of play includes deblocking a suit or ruffing, no matter how obvious.

Karl

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2017-June-16, 19:16, said:

Who gets to decide what the director's task is?

Well in this case the BBO staff wrote the regulations for handling online claims within the software. There used to be a short lesson/tutorial that included the subject of claiming on BBO but I am not sure if that survived the migration to the client version.

[weejonnie]

 StevenG, on 2017-June-15, 08:48, said:

Have you any idea of how long it takes to type a claim statement, rather than speak it?

ADKQSRuff Spade, Disc Club on KD, ruff club. - notlong.

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-19, 06:37, said:

Well in this case the BBO staff wrote the regulations for handling online claims within the software. There used to be a short lesson/tutorial that included the subject of claiming on BBO but I am not sure if that survived the migration to the client version.

Not having seen the regulation, I can only say that a regulation that contradicts the laws of bridge is not valid.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2017-June-19, 08:27, said:

Not having seen the regulation, I can only say that a regulation that contradicts the laws of bridge is not valid.

I don't think he meant there's a written regulation, just that it's implied by the way the claim function in BBO works. It was patterned more after how claims are handled in rubber bridge, not duplicate.

Except for the ACBL and robot tourneys, where BBO is the club management, BBO is not an RA. For all other games on BBO, we're more analogous to the landlord that owns the building where the bridge club rents space. There are some loose guidelines and two decades of tradition common to most online bridge services, but no hard regulations.