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?
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)