[jillybean]

epeeist, on May 14 2006, 03:03 AM, said:

If a player has a claim rejected by the opponents, are they entitled to sit there and refused to play on until the TD analyzes the hand and assigns an adjusted score?

Yes,

wbflaws said:

Law 68D. Play Ceases
After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or
concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is
acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy
included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or
Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

Generally what happens on BBO is that the director is not called and play continues, I think it would be fair to say the TD is only called if:

1. A finesse is required and the defenders know that once a claim is made the declarer is not automatically allowed to take the finesse.

2. One side neither plays on or calls the TD.

In regards to a claim being made stating "devil's coup", "smother play", "vienna coup" the laws say...

wbflaws said:

Law68C. Clarification Required for Claim
A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to
the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through
which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

The TD would be called and follow "Law70 CONTESTED CLAIMS"
How do TD’s deal with these calls under the time constraints? I think we just do our best and if needed go over the decision with the players after the tournament, this type of call is not frequent.
Perhaps if players become aware of the laws calls will increase or players will correctly state a line of play.

jb

[paulg]

jillybean2, on May 14 2006, 11:10 AM, said:

epeeist, on May 14 2006, 03:03 AM, said:

If a player has a claim rejected by the opponents, are they entitled to sit there and refused to play on until the TD analyzes the hand and assigns an adjusted score?

Yes,
...
jb

In practice there is no requirement for the TD to assign the adjusted score in real time. Once I have established what facts there are, I tell the declarer to claim again and for the defence to accept so that play can commence on the next board.

I can then adjust at leisure.

Paul

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on May 13 2006, 07:59 PM, said:

I think the job of a TD is to restore equity when an irregularity has occurred.

That turns out not to be the case. The TD's job is to follow the laws. As the Scope of the Laws says "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure".

Quote

I do not believe the TD should make decisions in any way related to "teaching players the rules" – ie so that next time they will state a line of play.

You misunderstood. What I was saying is that the TD should not make a ruling that gives benefit to the OS when the laws require otherwise. That the correct ruling has a "teaching" effect is just gravy.

Quote

The question to whether it is at all likely that the declarer has forgotten only one round of trumps has been pulled or not is debatable,  a judgement call.

Indeed. I left something out of my ruling. The TD should inform the players of their right to appeal [Law 83].

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on May 13 2006, 08:03 PM, said:

I do not direct, but I believe declarer cannot be forced into an unreasonable line of play due to not stating that trumps will be pulled. 

When a player objects to an opponent's claim, the TD is required to judge whether the claim or the objection is valid. There is no question of "forcing" the claimer into anything.

What is unreasonable to one player is not necessarily so to another.

Quote

The very fact that declarer claimed to me indicates that he was aware of the situation, as a declarer so weak as to not know the spade situation or the club situation would not be in a position to claim.

I've seen people do some pretty strange things at the bridge table - including claiming when they shouldn't. Heck, I've done that myself.

Quote

Somewhere in the rules there should be some common sense that overrides rule-itis.

TDs are required to use their judgement in many rulings. Sometimes there's disagreement whether we got it right. That's hardly "rule-itis".

And, as I believe Will Rogers once said, "common sense... isn't".

[blackshoe]

I just looked at the help files someone mentioned up thread. They say "If either defender rejects the claim, it is treated as rejected and play continues with the defenders able to see all the hands."

This may be allowed by the software, but it is illegal according to the laws.

It may be faster to play it out, but that's not an option under the laws. I believe also that it is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the law to reject claims out of hand.

[PeterE]

blackshoe, on May 13 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

Telling them to play on, unless the software requires they play on (in which case the error is in the software), is clearly director error [Law 68D]. Law 82C now requires an adjusted score, both sides being treated as non-offending. So defenders get their two tricks on their side of the score, and declarer gets them on his side - but it should be made clear the reason for ruling this way is the director error, and if he hadn't said "play on" declarer wouldn't get those tricks.

In another post you claim ( ) that TD should follow the laws. While this is an incredibly honest objective, you first have to read the laws.

Law 82C, on 1997 (highlighting is mine), said:

If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose

So, if the TD mistakenly let play go on and judges this approach erronous afterwards, (s)he can allways solve this error afterwards by assigning a score on the basis of the cards left and need not consider both side as non-offending.

[epeeist]

blackshoe, on May 14 2006, 11:35 PM, said:

I just looked at the help files someone mentioned up thread. They say "If either defender rejects the claim, it is treated as rejected and play continues with the defenders able to see all the hands."

This may be allowed by the software, but it is illegal according to the laws.

It may be faster to play it out, but that's not an option under the laws. I believe also that it is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the law to reject claims out of hand.

The software allows one to alert one's own bids. And explain one's own bids to the opponents (only) if necessary.

Do any TDs here seriously require the bidder's PARTNER to alert (by table chat) and explain (likewise) bids in BBO tournaments? If not, you're violating laws 20 and 75C, if I recall correctly...it would be easy to state in tournament rules e.g. "Do NOT alert your own bids; only alert your partner's bids, using chat to the entire table, and likewise explain the partner's bid to the entire table if requested. Before the opening lead, if there was any misexplanation by one's partner of one's own bid it must be corrected and the TD called as in f2f bridge." It would be easy to state, but the consequences -- in time, annoyance, etc. -- of disallowing players from alerting their own bids would be great. There are enough problems with failing to adequately explain one's own bids on BBO, imagine how much worse it would be with explaining partner's bids!

I see this as a somewhat similar situation, the software allowing a claim to be rejected and play to proceed is a matter of practicality. I'm sure there are other examples where, for practical or other good reasons, bridge as implemented on BBO arguably (or clearly?) violates the laws of bridge (and/or the laws of online bridge). Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the laws of bridge could suggest some...

My point is, since some violations of the laws of bridge on BBO are already widely accepted for what seems (to me) to be good reasons (e.g. the prospect of self-alerts and explanations which would be invisible/inaudible to partner were not in contemplation of the law-makers), is the fact that something on BBO violates the laws of bridge that didn't have this form of bridge in mind always determinative? Even the online bridge laws are fairly "primitive" in many respects (how do you manage to forbid online players from using memory aids?! People may have a pile of books and their Internet browser open to a bridge site while playing, for all you know).

As for it being contrary to the spirit (if not letter) of the rules to reject claims out of hand, isn't the point the laws are about the laws, not equity or the spirit of the laws? Glib remarks aside, I think it depends on the reason. I am comfortable with automatically rejecting claims from people who have in my personal experience deliberately (obviously, that's an inference) or negligently misclaimed against me frequently enough for me to make a profile note about it. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf, at some point you're justified in ignoring them, sure maybe eventually there really will be a wolf (valid claim), but they're just not trustworthy. I understand you may disagree.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on May 14 2006, 11:35 PM, said:

I just looked at the help files someone mentioned up thread. They say "If either defender rejects the claim, it is treated as rejected and play continues with the defenders able to see all the hands."

This may be allowed by the software, but it is illegal according to the laws.

It may be faster to play it out, but that's not an option under the laws. I believe also that it is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the law to reject claims out of hand.

I believe the intent of that section of the help file is for playing in the MBC, not tournaments. There's no TD available in the MBC, so the only options would be to play on or redeal. I suggest you look at the laws of rubber bridge for inspiration, as the laws of duplicate bridge assume a more formal setting.

[blackshoe]

PeterE, on May 15 2006, 02:57 AM, said:

blackshoe, on May 13 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

Telling them to play on, unless the software requires they play on (in which case the error is in the software), is clearly director error [Law 68D]. Law 82C now requires an adjusted score, both sides being treated as non-offending. So defenders get their two tricks on their side of the score, and declarer gets them on his side - but it should be made clear the reason for ruling this way is the director error, and if he hadn't said "play on" declarer wouldn't get those tricks.

In another post you claim ( ) that TD should follow the laws. While this is an incredibly honest objective, you first have to read the laws.

Law 82C, on 1997 (highlighting is mine), said:

If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose

So, if the TD mistakenly let play go on and judges this approach erronous afterwards, (s)he can allways solve this error afterwards by assigning a score on the basis of the cards left and need not consider both side as non-offending.

If you think I haven't read the laws, you are mistaken.

You have a point regarding the hightlighted phrase in Law 82C, but I'm not so sure I agree with your conclusion.

[PeterE]

no ? That's a pity ... I think my conclusion is literally in the laws.

Law 68 D (highlighting by me again) said:

After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

[blackshoe]

We seem to be talking at cross purposes, so I suggest we just drop it.

[bid_em_up]

In an amusing side note:

In a tourny the other nite, my LHO was declarer in a 3 card ending with dummy holding:

♦A10
♣A

and played a club to dummy.

At this time, I'm holding:

♦Kx
♣x

and claimed one of the last 3 tricks. Declarer rejected this claim, told me I am not allowed to claim in mid-trick, and that I needed to read/learn the rules, that I could ask any director or yellow who would verify that he was correct.

Oh boy.

[mycroft]

It took me less than two minutes to google up

http://web2.acbl.org.../play.htm#law68

...and I'm the type to reply in just that way to Rules Lawyers - especially those who produce this kind of everybody knows, but it's not really true "rulings".

Michael ("um, I am a director - here's the Law. Feel free to show me where it says I can't claim")