[661_Pete]

If I'm dummy, and my partner makes a claim which I don't think is 100% kosher (it depended on a "2-way-finesse-or-drop" decision, and there were no clues from preceding play or bidding) - and the opps accept it - should I speak out?

I sincerely hope that it was a genuine mistake by both partner and opponents. I just feel a little bit uneasy....

[1eyedjack]

You really ought to pose this Q in the laws subforum.

Was the contract 6H by any chance? If so, the singleton D Queen was dropping before he needs to commit to a 2-way finesse. But I agree, bad form to claim. Particularly since the contract was rigid at the point when he erred by pitching a Club instead of Diamond, so perhaps he would not think to cash a D honour before finessing.

[barmar]

Unless its in a tournament, where the TD can adjust the score, if the opponents accept the claim it's too late to do anything about it.

In general, the opponents are expected to be more careful. They get to see all the cards when declarer claims, so they can tell that there's still a guess to be made, so they shouldn't accept.

[661_Pete]

Of course I've seen more extreme examples. Like when I was kibitzing the other day, declarer in a perfectly reasonable contract saw fit to concede all 13 tricks at trick 1. Presumably as an expression of annoyance or exasperation at partner, or whatever....

If this happened at a table I was playing at (whether as winner or loser), I think the best move would be to walk. One doesn't want to encourage such behaviour.

I wonder, would it be possible for the BBO software itself to block such silly claims or concessions? Say, for example, a player has trump winners but still concedes, the software could easily figure this out, and block the concession.

[Bbradley62]

661_Pete, on 2016-November-27, 06:51, said:

If this happened at a table I was playing at (whether as winner or loser), I think the best move would be to walk report the incident to abuse@bridgebase.com, add the offender to my enemy list, and boot the offender (if I were the table host) or suggest such a boot to the table host (if that's offender's partner or mine). One doesn't want to encourage such behaviour.

FYP

[nige1]

661_Pete, on 2016-November-27, 06:51, said:

Of course I've seen more extreme examples. Like when I was kibitzing the other day, declarer in a perfectly reasonable contract saw fit to concede all 13 tricks at trick 1. Presumably as an expression of annoyance or exasperation at partner, or whatever....If this happened at a table I was playing at (whether as winner or loser), I think the best move would be to walk. One doesn't want to encourage such behaviour.I wonder, would it be possible for the BBO software itself to block such silly claims or concessions? Say, for example, a player has trump winners but still concedes, the software could easily figure this out, and block the concession.

Agree with 661_Pete. For example, after a defender leads, if you claim, the software seems to assume that you are conceding the rest, even if that is an impossible result.

[smerriman]

nige1, on 2016-November-27, 17:40, said:

Agree with 661_Pete. For example, after a defender leads, if you claim, the software seems to assume that you are conceding the rest, even if that is an impossible result.

That's only when playing with Gib. With humans, conceding all only comes up out of spite.

[661_Pete]

Bbradley62, on 2016-November-27, 16:48, said:

FYP

No. Sorry, I don't agree with your "amendments" . The abuse@ hotline doubtless has plenty of work to be getting on with, without this stuff on their plate!

If it was a case of downright cheating, and my suspicions were strong enough - then yes, of course, I'd follow the action you suggest. But what I described was clearly an expression of annoyance and exasperation, which we all feel at times (though I've never done what I witnessed as a kibitzer - i.e. deliberately thrown the contract)! And this behaviour is of course visible to all - it's not a covert action like cheating is.

I think leaving the table is a sufficient sanction in such cases - assuming the behaviour is a one-off. Maybe mark the player's profile, if I think there's a chance I might be playing with him/her one day. And for repeat offenders - yes, report maybe.

One factor which 'rogue' conceders maybe don't think about at the time, is the effect their action has on the IMP or MP scores at other tables. I remember once being puzzled at a worse-than-expected IMP score on a hand I'd defended. Looking at the traveller, the reason became obvious - on one table declarer had made one of these idiot concessions.

[jogs]

661_Pete, on 2016-November-27, 06:51, said:

Of course I've seen more extreme examples. Like when I was kibitzing the other day, declarer in a perfectly reasonable contract saw fit to concede all 13 tricks at trick 1. Presumably as an expression of annoyance or exasperation at partner, or whatever....

Kibitzers are not to be heard.

The story is once at a high stakes rubber bridge club declarer made a false claim accepted by the opponents. A kibitzer pointed that the claim was false. The owner of the club ruled that the declarer gets credit for making and opponents get credit for defeating the contract. The kibitzer must pay both parties.

[661_Pete]

jogs, on 2016-November-28, 08:51, said:

Kibitzers are not to be heard.

The story is once at a high stakes rubber bridge club declarer made a false claim accepted by the opponents. A kibitzer pointed that the claim was false. The owner of the club ruled that the declarer gets credit for making and opponents get credit for defeating the contract. The kibitzer must pay both parties.

And quite right too - well perhaps a bit harsh! I don't understand why BBO allows the option "Kibitzers may chat to table" - certainly not a function I'd ever use, especially during bidding or play of a hand. Rest assured, when I'm kibbing I only chat "-->kibitzers" which I understand is safe from being seen by any of the players.

[barmar]

661_Pete, on 2016-December-02, 11:44, said:

And quite right too - well perhaps a bit harsh! I don't understand why BBO allows the option "Kibitzers may chat to table" - certainly not a function I'd ever use, especially during bidding or play of a hand.

So that a kibbitzer can ask a player if they want to go to dinner after the game. Or congratulate them on playing the hand well. Or make any other comments that don't affect the bidding or play.

[661_Pete]

I've not yet been asked out to dinner by a kibitzer (Mrs P might have something to say about that! )

I do recall once while I was playing, a kibber being a damned nuisance (one of those guys who "knows it all" ). I think I had to ask the table host to disallow all kibitzing for the rest of the session. But that's hopefully very much the exception.

[1eyedjack]

661_Pete, on 2016-December-02, 15:48, said:

I think I had to ask the table host to disallow all kibitzing for the rest of the session.

That's the key point. Software with maximum flexibility combined with power vested in the table host to customise as desired is the optimum software configuration.

[barmar]

661_Pete, on 2016-December-02, 15:48, said:

I've not yet been asked out to dinner by a kibitzer (Mrs P might have something to say about that! )

Basically, I'm just talking about when the kibitzers and players are all friends, and they want to chat with each other, which might include making plans for later. Except at "exhibition" tables (like the JEC team games) there probably aren't lots of random kibitzers who don't know the players, and those tables usually block kibitzer chat to the table. Why should friendly chatter among friends be blocked?