[lamford]

---

North London Online IMP pairs. Lead ♣2. Table result 3NT-9, EW+900

RR was North on the above hand, and bid NT first, something he was only supposed to do in an emergency. SB was again playing with the Robot, East, who began with a small club. RR was pressed for time as he had been slow on the first board and, on the second board, in deciding whether to give a positive or negative in response to 2C. Being a bit rushed, he claimed nine tricks on the club lead. "You cannot take more than four club tricks", he knowingly typed, but he did not realise that the software only allowed a claim when the claimant was on lead, and, wearing his computer spectacles which he was only just getting used to, he had inadvertently conceded nine down.

Sadly he did not notice this until the results were posted at the end of the evening, when he wondered why he had lost 17 IMPs on the board, and he contacted the TD about 35 minutes after the end of the session. The TD spoke to the players who were still online discussing hands in a Zoom meeting.

SB was unforgiving. "Too late, sorry", he started. "RR did claim nine down rather than nine tricks which he clearly intended, and my partner, the Robot, accepted immediately." He continued. "On this occasion, the Robot was able to accept the claim of nine down, and it did not infringe Law 79A2. That states:
2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." "My emphasis," added SB.

"Also the concession by RR can only be withdrawn within the correction period, which is 30 minutes after the end of the session, and that has expired. If it were not possible to lose all the tricks, RR might get redress, but here he can discard his top diamonds on the run of the clubs, then East can cash five rounds of diamonds, South discarding his hearts, and North pitching the ten of hearts, and it is a simple matter for the defence to take the last four hearts with a bit of unblocking.", SB concluded, pausing for breath and unsure whether his exact analysis of the relevant Laws was better than his exact analysis of the play.

"Well I am not sure", replied OO, the TD. "That seems very far-fetched".

How do you rule?

[ahydra]

Law 71B would suggest that the concession can be cancelled in this case. But the correction period has expired, so the TD is within their rights to refuse to change the score.

IMHO, this aspect of the claim interface on BBO ought to be changed, so that it is a uniform interface regardless of who is declarer and who is currently to play. I doubt that RR is the only player who has been caught out by this.

ahydra

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2020-June-08, 16:15, said:

Law 71B would suggest that the concession can be cancelled in this case. But the correction period has expired, so the TD is within their rights to refuse to change the score.

IMHO, this aspect of the claim interface on BBO ought to be changed, so that it is a uniform interface regardless of who is declarer and who is currently to play. I doubt that RR is the only player who has been caught out by this.

ahydra

So you don't share smerriman's opinion: "I believe BBO's claiming algorithm is about as perfect as it can get?"

[smerriman]

lamford, on 2020-June-08, 16:35, said:

So you don't share smerriman's opinion: "I believe BBO's claiming algorithm is about as perfect as it can get?"

As I mentioned in that thread - or at least, what I intended; perhaps I didn't specify well enough - I was referring to the algorithm that decides whether there is a 100% single dummy line that allows guarantees the human takes (at least) that number of tricks. Given the number of issues with GIB's double dummy play/simulation, I'm amazed by how flawless the single dummy algorithm is.

The UI for conceding by default is something that has been broken for years; there have been numerous requests (including my own) for this to be fixed that have just gone ignored.

I'm not sure why SB brought up the fact the robot accepted immediately though; as was brought up in the other thread, the robot does not accept/reject claims when it has a human partner. Even if it did, the claim needs to be accepted by both players on BBO. So his real argument is that he accepted himself, and apparently was within his rights to do so.

Edit - actually, as far as I'm aware, that UI issue is only when playing fully against robots. So RR must have just misclicked the number.

[lamford]

smerriman, on 2020-June-08, 16:53, said:

Edit - actually, as far as I'm aware, that UI issue is only when playing fully against robots. So RR must have just misclicked the number.

When I tried in Casual with a robot, against Vampyr and a robot today, it did not allow me to claim the remainder when it was the opponent's lead, but did allow me to concede the remainder. And it allowed me to concede the remainder when I had the master trump.

[sanst]

Has this anything to do with bridge laws? Or is it a discussion about certain computer algorithms? You just again proved my point that online bridge is a game that has little to do with serious bridge as a competitive game.
FWIIW: it’s completely idiotic to let the result stand.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2020-June-09, 01:52, said:

Has this anything to do with bridge laws? Or is it a discussion about certain computer algorithms? You just again proved my point that online bridge is a game that has little to do with serious bridge as a competitive game.
FWIIW: it’s completely idiotic to let the result stand.

Sadly, online bridge is quite likely to be the medium of the future, and computer algorithms are an integral part of it. And the Laws will have to reflect that.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2020-June-09, 02:51, said:

Sadly, online bridge is quite likely to be the medium of the future, and computer algorithms are an integral part of it. And the Laws will have to reflect that.

Cart before the horse. The algorithms should reflect the Laws.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2020-June-09, 06:15, said:

Cart before the horse. The algorithms should reflect the Laws.

Indeed. And therefore it is illegal for the algorithm of the Robot to "knowingly accept a trick it cannot win". And what I meant was that the Laws need to reflect that the new medium for bridge is likely to be increasingly online.