[661_Pete]

Just been kibitzing a hand on BBO where a defender erroneously conceded all the remaining tricks, evidently unaware of his partner's remaining holding. In fact the defence had three more tricks.

As I understand it, a claim or concession by declarer has to be accepted by both defenders, but a claim or concession by a defender need only be accepted by declarer. Is this right? Should it not be a requirement that both the Declarer, and the defender's partner, have to accept the claim before it is ratified?

If so, can the BBO software be modified?

[barmar]

If this happened in a tournament, dummy could have called the TD to have it adjusted after the erroneous claim.

At regular bridge tables, play is much more like rubber bridge, since there's no director to adjudicate claims. That's the philosophy behind allowing play to continue after a denied claim, with the non-claimants playing double dummy. And the Laws of Rubber Bridge say that only declarer has to agree to a defensive claim (Law 70B).

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-July-16, 08:52, said:

If this happened in a tournament, dummy could have called the TD to have it adjusted after the erroneous claim.

At regular bridge tables, play is much more like rubber bridge, since there's no director to adjudicate claims. That's the philosophy behind allowing play to continue after a denied claim, with the non-claimants playing double dummy. And the Laws of Rubber Bridge say that only declarer has to agree to a defensive claim (Law 70B).

But Law 71C of Rubber Bridge says that "a concession may be withdrawn ...if a defender concedes one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects". So the other defender is not required to actively consent but should be able to immediately dissent. Sounds to me like the software might as well ask consent.

Maurizio di Sacco is working on a proposal for on-line duplicate bridge laws for the WBFLC. I don't know if he has a BBO contact or not, but it might be a good idea to find out what he thinks about claims.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2019-July-16, 08:52, said:

If this happened in a tournament, dummy could have called the TD to have it adjusted after the erroneous claim.

At regular bridge tables, play is much more like rubber bridge, since there's no director to adjudicate claims. That's the philosophy behind allowing play to continue after a denied claim, with the non-claimants playing double dummy. And the Laws of Rubber Bridge say that only declarer has to agree to a defensive claim (Law 70B).

Of course, rubber bridge on BBO has been deprecated, and almost all bridge is either IMPs or MPs. In any case, the laws of duplicate bridge were changed to allow playing on after claims, so you don't have to fall back on rubber bridge rules.

The problem is that the player with zero tricks is the one likely to agree to a claim, while the partner with a sure or possible trick is very unlikely to agree to a claim. I don't see what BBO's aversion to making both opponents agree to a claim. This should be a 15-20 minute fix to require both opponents to concur on a claim IMHO.

[GrahamJson]

Unfortunately 5his has happened to me also. My partner conceded all of the tricks when I was sitting there with the remaining trump together with three or four winners. It didn’t take long for declarer to agree to the concession and the hand to disappear from view before I could say a word. I was not pleased.

[PhilG007]

661_Pete, on 2019-July-16, 07:26, said:

Just been kibitzing a hand on BBO where a defender erroneously conceded all the remaining tricks, evidently unaware of his partner's remaining holding. In fact the defence had three more tricks.

As I understand it, a claim or concession by declarer has to be accepted by both defenders, but a claim or concession by a defender need only be accepted by declarer. Is this right? Should it not be a requirement that both the Declarer, and the defender's partner, have to accept the claim before it is ratified?

If so, can the BBO software be modified?

When a claim is made, there must be agreement all round. A defenders concession is not binding on his/her partner who should immediately
summon the TD and give their reason(s) for opposing the claim. Now you know for for future games

[Vampyr]

It seems better and simpler to just do it like real bridge — when a defender concedes, partner may object.

[Joe_Old]

Vampyr, on 2019-July-17, 14:47, said:

It seems better and simpler to just do it like real bridge — when a defender concedes, partner may object.

That works if there is a Director available, because the concession by one defender could result in unauthorized information to the other. In many of these tournaments, there is no Director. In others, where there are a large number of tables and insufficient help to properly address them, the Director might have to spend too much time untangling the problem.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2019-July-16, 12:38, said:

The problem is that the player with zero tricks is the one likely to agree to a claim, while the partner with a sure or possible trick is very unlikely to agree to a claim. I don't see what BBO's aversion to making both opponents agree to a claim. This should be a 15-20 minute fix to require both opponents to concur on a claim IMHO.

We don't have an "aversion", we just have other things to work on.

And there's hardly anything that's just a 15-20 minute fix. We made one of those "simple" fixes last month, and that's why the Redeal button is missing from some tables where it should be available.

[barmar]

Remember that BBO is has a very small programming team, and we just lost an important member of it last week when Fred retired. We picked up a couple of programmers from Funbridge (one of them has taken over the client from Fred), but we only have one person who really knows the server.

[Vampyr]

Joe_Old, on 2019-July-18, 08:04, said:

That works if there is a Director available, because the concession by one defender could result in unauthorized information to the other. In many of these tournaments, there is no Director. In others, where there are a large number of tables and insufficient help to properly address them, the Director might have to spend too much time untangling the problem.

Well, something has to be done obviously. Perhaps defender concession should not happen until both defenders (unknown to each other) concede. Yes, there may of course be UI, but letting a concession be accepted when one defender still has tricks in her hand is not acceptable, and is just another reason why Bridge Base Online should remove the word Bridge from its name.

[MARKH001]

I have seen this many times , especially in the Quickie Tournaments , one player through lack of brains , upset with the way ptr has played or themselves , or in some cases it seems , just a desire to cause maximum confusion when holding tricks will concede . I'm not sure there is a solution , well apart from the obvious one of drugging them and forcing them to go on a Re-education course for a couple of years . Perhaps BBO could add it to the list for a future look at .