[michaelbey]

When a defender concedes all the remaining tricks his partner has no say in the matter and that's wrong. Only declarer sees the claim (concession) and has the option to accept or reject. I think the partner of the defender making the concession should also be given the option to accept or reject. As an example, East got impatient and conceded all (5) remaining tricks and Declarer accepted. When in fact West a master trump and could not overrule his/her partner. Declarer may have been greedy or has forgotten about the outstanding (master) trump; that's besides the point. The main point is to allow the other defender to have a say in the matter. Such an "error" does not occur in f2f bridge.

[Vampyr]

michaelbey, on 2020-December-04, 11:03, said:

When a defender concedes all the remaining tricks his partner has no say in the matter and that's wrong... Such an "error" does not occur in f2f bridge.

No, because this would be in contravention of the Laws of Contract Bridge. I do not believe, actually, that the game played on BBO can legally call itself Bridge, but there you are.

[michaelbey]

Vampyr, on 2020-December-04, 13:41, said:

No, because this would be in contravention of the Laws of Contract Bridge. I do not believe, actually, that the game played on BBO can legally call itself Bridge, but there you are.

I played backgammon online against a player named Vampyr! Could that be you?

[Vampyr]

michaelbey, on 2020-December-04, 16:13, said:

I played backgammon online against a player named Vampyr! Could that be you?

No, I have not played backgammon online in years. So many that I don’t even remember my nickname on FIBS!