[McBruce]

Directing virtual ACBL games and rewriting my round one announcements. One of them says this:

"Claim when the result is clear with many tricks still to play: it saves time. DON'T waste time by rejecting all claims without looking: you have no 'right' to force play to the end in hopes of a misclick."

What prompted this was watching for late-finishing pairs and discovering a three-player group (three players who play regularly two at a time is what I mean here) who did this four or five times over the course of three games. Declarer would claim with winners left, an obvious claim that required no comment, and it would be rejected within 2-5 seconds. Declarer sometimes reclaimed, even with a statement, and another rejection came very quickly. After the fifth incident, with the above announcement already in the round one script and complaints from the declarer, I intervened with a stern private comment to the players involved and I have not seen them since: but our games end about 3-5 minutes quicker as more rounds are finished ahead of time.

Is it possible that the new Laws, allowing play after a claim in some situations, is the problem here? All four players must agree for play to resume, but once we opened that loophole, there's no telling what that will put in some players' minds. If someone three tables away gets to play it out after a claim, the little detail that all four players must agree could easily be lost.

[pescetom]

McBruce, on 2020-May-05, 12:19, said:

Is it possible that the new Laws, allowing play after a claim in some situations, is the problem here? All four players must agree for play to resume, but once we opened that loophole, there's no telling what that will put in some players' minds. If someone three tables away gets to play it out after a claim, the little detail that all four players must agree could easily be lost.

The "new" 2017 face to face claim laws are not wonderful in their own right, and nobody can currently force BBO to conform to them (it does not) or argue that they are adequate for online play. I doubt there is an easy answer without better laws but the problem is not huge either, just playing out the hand is quick and painless. Yes beginners as declarer are likely to become unnerved and misplay a valid claim but as defenders they are equally likely to be spellbound and accept a speculative claim.

[mycroft]

There are just people who have come to play cards, and by gum, they will play 13 cards on every hand.

Others have made a faulty claim once, and now won't do it (or will "I'm not claiming, but...") to save a trick a year (and waste *hours*).

Others have accepted a faulty claim once, and now won't for similar reasons. Or they're of the "why should we have to work out if it's right" brigade.

Others yet will, yes, in fact, expect people to play out 13 cards hoping that "the hand's over" will cause a lack of attention.

BBO claiming has always waved at the actual claim laws (both in action and in attitude) from a reasonable distance, and the 2017 change doesn't affect that. It's effective, and usually works well.

I agree that the change to the 2017 law is resigned acceptance of an annoying behaviour that always existed, and should be treated as such (as opposed to something anybody should actually want). But there's no real relation to BBO claiming or the way it is treated by the other 0.1% of the population.

[Gerardo]

Any player who does not agree with continue playing can and should call a Director.