[mike777]

When opp claim....with no discussion....can I make them play so i get one more trick at the table?....assume not insane...but....not perfect.....


---------------


on bbo this is a real problem as.......opp will then keep playing we cann\ot call director....

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2010-November-11, 00:12, said:

When opp claim....with no discussion....can I make them play so i get one more trick at the table?....assume not insane...but....not perfect.....

No you cannot. You call the TD and let them work it out.

[bluejak]

True when there is a TD. But if you are playing online without a TD I understand a disputed claim is played out. Unsatisfactory, but there is no obvious alternative.

[peachy]

Online, you can reject the claim (if you think they made a bad claim) and then play out the hand.

[barmar]

And after a claim is rejected online, the non-claiming side gets to play double dummy. While this doesn't allow them to force the opponent's plays, it does give them a significant advantage after a bad claim.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2010-November-12, 21:43, said:

And after a claim is rejected online, the non-claiming side gets to play double dummy. While this doesn't allow them to force the opponent's plays, it does give them a significant advantage after a bad claim.

On-line claim law may not be entirely satisfactory but is a considerable improvement on face-to-face laws. Face-to-face claim laws engender endless controversies here and on BLML.

[blackshoe]

For every claim that is posted here (and other laws forums on the 'net) there are a hundred that no one ever hears about, because there is no problem with them.

The method of handling claims online is neither lawful nor, IMO, an improvement, much less a considerable one, over the lawful way of dealing with them. Not when claimer's opponents get to play out the hand double dummy.

[mjj29]

 nige1, on 2010-November-13, 03:55, said:

On-line claim law may not be entirely satisfactory but is a considerable improvement on face-to-face laws. Face-to-face claim laws engender endless controversies here and on BLML.

On the contrary, I think it can be worse. If declarer has forgotten about an outstanding card which it may be possible to pick up, the very act of rejecting the claim may tip him off, causing him to get it right, where he would have got it wrong. Having the director adjudicate claims, awarding such doubtful points against the claimer, protects against those cases.

[bluejak]

Online claims are very unfortunate. The real life solution works extremely well, despite a very very small minority of claims that get to the forums.

[barmar]

Online claims are more like claims in rubber bridge rather than duplicate bridge.

[blackshoe]

Even in rubber bridge, claimer's opps don't get to play on double dummy.

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2010-November-13, 10:15, said:

Even in rubber bridge, claimer's opps don't get to play on double dummy.

We-e-e-e-ell.

The play continues with declarer's hand face up on the table, and a defender has the right to show his hand to partner. Sounds pretty much like double dummy to me.

[blackshoe]

What if it's a defender's claim? Perhaps I should have said "don't always get to play double dummy".

[bluejak]

If it is a defender's claim then play continues with the defender's hand face up on the table. Thus declarer is in effect playing double dummy.

[blackshoe]

Huh. I thought "double dummy" meant all four hands exposed. What I get for listening to The Bridge World, I suppose.

[mjj29]

 blackshoe, on 2010-November-13, 22:22, said:

Huh. I thought "double dummy" meant all four hands exposed. What I get for listening to The Bridge World, I suppose.

Well, if you can see three hands...

Matt

[blackshoe]

What!? You want me to think?!

[ggwhiz]

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.

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?

Seems like a HUGE improvement to me.

[bluejak]

 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.

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?

Seems like a HUGE improvement to me.

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.

[Echognome]

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...