[bluejak]

Echognome, on 2010-November-15, 19:14, said:

A simple solution is to just have an option to disallow any claims at all when playing online. Of course you will in theory slow up the game, but practically this may not be the case. I'm not saying it's perfect, but does avoid the issues associated with rejected claims and no available TD...

As with face to face claims, I think this a terrible idea, and for the same reason. Most claims are accepted without question, and the slowing down of the game for such a minority problem seems a very poor solution.

[nige1]

Echognome, on 2010-November-15, 19:14, said:

A simple solution is to just have an option to disallow any claims at all when playing online. Of course you will in theory slow up the game, but practically this may not be the case. I'm not saying it's perfect, but does avoid the issues associated with rejected claims and no available TD...

I first played on-line in the 80's. In more than 20 years, I don't remember an on-line claim creating a problem. The BBO on-line rules seem an ideal compromise.

• They are easy to understand and apply.
• Justice is done and seen to be done.
• They don't depend on language skills or players speaking the same language.
• They encourage claims and speed up the game -- even when contested!

[mycroft]

ggwhiz, on 2010-November-14, 12:05, said:

Hmm, we defend perfectly and the claimer follows the line of play he had in mind before making the false claim AND with no info as to which player rejected the claim. I've seen lots that automatically reject so they can see all the cards before deciding.

Why would anyone do that? I've never seen an online claim that doesn't show all the cards to the non-claimers, without the need for a reject. Auto-rejecting claims are one of the few things one can do (as opposed to things one can say) that will invoke my ire. Better yet, "reclaim" gets replied to by "defenders can claim, too". I feel I can tell the difference between "unclear" and "auto-reject", but defenders can claim, too.

ggwhiz, on 2010-November-14, 12:05, said:

He won't do anything insane (maybe) and a result is reached.

Does this not follow the face to face procedure without the claimer arguing about a different line he might have taken after seeing ALL the cards?

No, it frequently follows the face to face procedure exactly - with the claimer following the different line he wouldn't have taken if the claim hadn't been rejected, not just arguing over it.

ggwhiz, on 2010-November-14, 12:05, said:

Seems like a HUGE improvement to me.

bluejak, on 2010-November-15, 19:05, said:

Why should claimer follow the line he originally stated? You think he is stupid? It is far worse because it is unfair, leads to more arguments and is inequitable. No, I prefer the duplicate rules which work extremely well in the vast majority of situations.

And, of course, what if (as is frequent/usual online, and, in fact, frequent when there's a disputed claim FTF) the claimer doesn't present a statement? He thinks they're all good, when the claim is rejected, "oops, it must be a 4-0 split", and plays to handle it - yeah, it's the right play in any case, but how many people would get it wrong, at least sometimes?

[Echognome]

You may have varying mileage on the speediness of claims, but in an online environment, I don't see it speeding things up that much. Nevertheless, I would prefer to play a game where you can claim online. But then I usually play (or usually did play) only with people I consider "friends" online. In that game, I would definitely prefer having the ability to claim. But then I don't worry about stupid rejected claim issues.

However, if you put me in a situation where I'm playing in the MBC against randoms, I'm equally happy to be in an environment where you can't claim. It avoids any issues associated with rejected claims and the time it takes to play out a hand online is minimal. Hence the suggestion to make it an option to the table host. It's a choice. You can like it and select it (or choose to play at such a table) or you can dislike it and live with the consequences of having rejected claims. I cannot see what is wrong with having an added choice. It's not like either method follows the laws of duplicate bridge.

I think people misinterpreted what I was suggesting, so feel the need to respond. Do you personally not want people to have the choice to set up tables with no claims allowed or do you just not want that choice for yourself? Why would you object to others having that choice?

[pran]

Echognome, on 2010-November-15, 19:14, said:

A simple solution is to just have an option to disallow any claims at all when playing online. Of course you will in theory slow up the game, but practically this may not be the case. I'm not saying it's perfect, but does avoid the issues associated with rejected claims and no available TD...

I take the liberty to assert that any claim causing a call for the director slows up the game.

Consequently there is a question whether claims should only be allowed when they are so obvious that no claim statement is needed?
(At least when the purpose of claims is allegedly to spare time).

[bluejak]

pran, on 2010-November-16, 02:30, said:

I take the liberty to assert that any claim causing a call for the director slows up the game.

Consequently there is a question whether claims should only be allowed when they are so obvious that no claim statement is needed?
(At least when the purpose of claims is allegedly to spare time).

I claim about eight times every session. While I do not claim when much of a claim statement is required - I usually say "Playing it in a sensible fashion" - you would considerably slow play at my table by disallowing many of my claims which are pretty obvious but not quite as obvious as you say.



Matt: I hope you are felling better. Yes, it did not occur to me that you meant there would be claiming and non-claiming tables. However I have no idea how one would find out, and still do not like the idea. The main thing that some people here just do not seem to get is that, online or not, the vast majority of claims are accepted without argument.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-November-16, 06:26, said:

I claim about eight times every session. While I do not claim when much of a claim statement is required - I usually say "Playing it in a sensible fashion" - you would considerably slow play at my table by disallowing many of my claims which are pretty obvious but not quite as obvious as you say.

If all my cards (together with dummy's) are high and there is no way defenders can get any (further) trick I simply show my cards and return them to the board.

If my claim only depends on my cards being played in a particular sequence I just "play" (expose) them rapidly in that sequence without expecting (or awaiting) opponents to follow suit. This means at least two or three cards being exposed per second.

If anything more (of explanation) is required with my claim I just don't claim, but play on.

I guess on the average that I claim at least half the boards in which I am declarer as the situation is usually clear before trick twelve. (Exposing my last two cards is also a "claim"!) And I don't remember the last time the director was needed to my table because of a claim by me.

[nige1]

Current face-to-face claim-law does speed up the game a bit but there are draw-backs:
Poor declarers rarely claim, especially if they rate their explanation skills below their play-skills.
Usually, when poor players claim, they think that their hand or dummy is high.
Good declarers claim more often, mostly correctly.
Sometimes they claim incorrectly.
If declarer has completely lost the place, then claiming without a statement may be his best hope.
The reason why current f2f claim law works is that it is rarely invoked: claims are rarely disputed.
Puzzled opponents usually concede rather than prolong the agony.
Sometimes (for instance when declarer is claiming nine tricks but they can see only eight) naive defenders ask declarer to "play on". Declarer just smiles and says "I can't do that. If you dispute the claim, I will call the director"
Most defenders give in at that point.
If they are in contention, however, they may persist and call the director.
Once the current f2f claim-dispute law clicks in, claims do waste lots of time.
Even in the simplest basic cases, posted to on-line discussion groups, there is rarely a consensus as to the correct ruling.
Players perceive inconsistent rulings as unjust.
Defender claims are even more fraught.
On-line claim law has draw-backs too -- but not so severe and not so many -- in particular, it easy to dispute a claim and even when disputed, a claim usually still saves time

[mgoetze]

Echognome, on 2010-November-15, 19:53, said:

You may have varying mileage on the speediness of claims, but in an online environment, I don't see it speeding things up that much. Nevertheless, I would prefer to play a game where you can claim online. But then I usually play (or usually did play) only with people I consider "friends" online. In that game, I would definitely prefer having the ability to claim. But then I don't worry about stupid rejected claim issues.

If I am defending against a player of your skill level, and you don't claim, I will start thinking about how to defeat the contract. If you are making exactly no matter what I play, it will be wasted effort. I prefer claims to be available.

[barmar]

My guess is about 90% of claims save an average of 30 seconds apiece, 5% result in director calls that cost a minute, and 5% break even (the opps don't understand and you have to explain it more slowly, or there's a director call that can be adjudicated quickly). This is still a significant net savings, and it would be a bad idea to disallow claims.

[pran]

barmar, on 2010-November-17, 00:54, said:

My guess is about 90% of claims save an average of 30 seconds apiece, 5% result in director calls that cost a minute, and 5% break even (the opps don't understand and you have to explain it more slowly, or there's a director call that can be adjudicated quickly). This is still a significant net savings, and it would be a bad idea to disallow claims.

These figures do not make sense:

If a claim is good (i.e. obvious) it would definitely have taken less than 30 seconds to play the board out instead of claiming, so the net saving from a good claim is nowhere near 30 seconds. My guess is that the net saving on the average is close to 10 seconds at the best.

If the Director is called he shall arrive at the table, obtain the facts and inspect the hands. By this time I would expect the time "wasted" to be around a full minute provided the director was immediately available, more if the table had to wait for the director to become available. (It does indeed happen that we have more than one call overlapping!) And finally the director must make his ruling; the time he needs for this (anything from a second or two and upwards) just adds to the time already "wasted". My guess is that the net waste is a minimum of one minute, on the average closer to at least two minutes.

And then you must consider the annoyance at the table caused by the interruption from normal progression of the plays whenever the director must be called.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2010-November-17, 03:55, said:

These figures do not make sense:

If a claim is good (i.e. obvious) it would definitely have taken less than 30 seconds to play the board out instead of claiming,

Eh? It can be obvious a claim is valid when you can see declarer's cards and very far from obvious with the defenders needing quite a lot of time to think about their plays when they can't see declarer's cards.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2010-November-16, 18:51, said:

Once the current f2f claim-dispute law clicks in, claims do waste lots of time.
Even in the simplest basic cases, posted to on-line discussion groups, there is rarely a consensus as to the correct ruling.

Come off it, Nigel, the simplest basic cases are never posted to online discussion groups. There are a large number of disputed claims that are easy, do not waste much time, and are of insufficient interest to be posted.

[Chris L]

In my considerable experience of playing online:

(1) Most rejections of claims are either ill-founded or caused (automatically) by a player leaving the table, or losing connection, before accepting; and

(2) They frequently come from players who have complained about the pace of play in the preceding five minutes.

But when all's said and done it's only a game, almost always with nothing at stake (not remotely in Bill Shankly territory) so why get worked up about it?

[Echognome]

Of course all of this is my personal opinion, but what I think some people are missing here is the actual playing environment.

If we have a director available (such as in live bridge or an online tournament), then of course there is no need for such a disallowance of claims. A director is available if any problems arise.

When playing with sensible opponents, then I would very much prefer having the ability to claim. This is to address Michael's concerns.

In both of these situations, I grant wholeheartedly that claims speed up the game.

Now, let's turn to the situation I'm describing. You are playing against random opponents in the main bridge club. It is not like a face-to-face club where you have a director available. In this specific situation, I recommend having the ability as table host to have no claims allowed. To answer David's question of how you would know, I think that is simply a software issue. Right now you have tables which allow kibitzers and those which do not. You have tables which allow kibitzer chat and those which do not. There are markings on the tables that let you know which type of table it is. Similarly, you can have tables that are MP's and tables that are IMP Pairs. It seems not to difficult to program even. Either the claim button is available and functions as is or it is not available and you cannot select it.

[ggwhiz]

Not 1 out of 10 claims rejected or otherwise on BBO state a line of play.

Those that do are subject to a defensive claim based on the stated line which I have done a few times, always accepted by declarer who are generally very honest.

I get to see all the cards, reject and then immediately claim my trick(s) on defence and tell them which one(s). I have even claimed partners which really helps in speedball.

[mycroft]

BBO is different, although when I play in ACBL tournaments, I follow the Law as it is written, because I should.

In BBO, "playing in a sensible fashion" is an implied claim statement, and almost everybody feels that way. Good, fine, not letter-of-the-law, but I kind of like it. If it requires anything more that that implied statement - i.e. if there are two "sensible" ways to play it, but I'm taking the one that I know works - I'll provide it. Is that more than one in 10? probably, but probably still only 2, 3 in 10.

In answer to Sven, "how long does it take to get to 'all high'?" Well, against me (as well as against other Michael), probably quite some time, as I try to figure out what cards partner can have that will take another trick. "I'll run my tricks and take the hook at the end" definitely takes less time (Yes, I have asked "where's the HK?" implying I'm taking the hook. Only one person yet has complained, at which point I modify my claim statement to "taking the heart hook, if it works I make X, if it fails I make Y." Even with the "shortcut explain time", it's still faster than playing to "all high", especially if it's dangerous to take the heart hook, so I'm going to take my "all high" first.