[DaveB]

---

From a recent team match, South was declaring 5♦X.
In the above position North lead 7♣. East ruffed with 7♦ and claimed 2 tricks. (Possibly meaning 2 more in addition to this trump trick).
West wished to contest the claim ie wanted 3 tricks but had no mechanism to do so.
By the time he had typed his objection Declarer had accepted the claim.

In accordance with L68B2 if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects no concession has occurred.
I therefor believe that for a defensive claim there should have to be acceptance by Declarer AND THE OTHER DEFENDER.

I would welcome opinions on this suggestion

[steve2005]

The director would have to rule and adjust the board if necessary.

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2017-November-16, 08:57, said:

The director would have to rule and adjust the board if necessary.

There's no director in BBO team games.

[barmar]

BBO's approach to claims is more like the rubber bridge laws rather than duplicate bridge laws. The non-claiming side gets to see all the cards and accept or reject; if they reject, they get to play double dummy for the rest of the hand.

The rubber bridge law on defensive claims doesn't allow the partner to object.

[DaveB]

Ok - then I guess I want to know the answer to the question -

Does the software define the claim laws ie if declarer accepts a claim that IS the result of the board according too BBO laws (even if the result is impossible to achieve if the hand had been played out) OR

Does the software not cope adequately with the situation and the result should be adjusted by some manual intervention.

The 2 responders so far appear not to agree on this point.

In any event it would appear to me to be an improvement (closer reflect face to face bridge) if a claim could be rejected by the partner of the claimer.

I would guess that it would not be a major programing effort to achieve this.
I am also lead to believe that this is the way it is handled on some other sites.

[barmar]

DaveB, on 2017-November-17, 14:48, said:

Ok - then I guess I want to know the answer to the question -

Does the software define the claim laws ie if declarer accepts a claim that IS the result of the board according too BBO laws (even if the result is impossible to achieve if the hand had been played out) OR

Does the software not cope adequately with the situation and the result should be adjusted by some manual intervention.

The software makes no attempt to verify that the claim is valid. The opponent(s) of the claimer get to see all the hands and are expected to be able to determine this.

If you make a mistake in a tourney and accept a bad claim, you can ask the TD to correct the score, although I can't guarantee they'll do it.

In other cases, there's no TD to make adjustments, so you're stuck with the result you agreed to.

[johnjo42]

The moral of this is that Defenders ought not to claim unless they know that they can win the rest of the tricks themselves and are claiming the lot