[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Dec 18 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 18 2006, 10:14 AM, said:

Which law? Your law? My law? ACBL law? Chinese law? etc.

There is only one Law Book: The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation. Well, okay, there's also The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge, but they are substantially the same (and the WBF expressed in the latter the expectation that where software limitation currently preclude playing the game according to the laws as written, it is the software, not the laws, that will have to adapt).

Every Sponsoring Organization has, under the laws, the right and duty to make and promulgate regulations supplementary to the laws. Online, that presents a difficulty for some, because they don't understand who the SO is. BBO, as I understand it, is not (generally) the SO for games on its site - BBO merely provides a place for people to play. So the tournament organizer is the SO, whoever that may be. Often the tournament organizer is also the director. In the case of the ACBL, that organization has long asserted that it is an SO for any game in which ACBL masterpoints are awarded. For club games, the ACBL acts as a "co-sponsor", leaving most of the SO decisions (and responsibilities) up to the club owner. Seems to me that would apply online as well as in f2f, but others may know more about that.

IAC, it is the responsibility of the SO to make players aware of what regulations are in effect - the laws themselves are pretty much universal.

Sorry Ben - those rules I know of but they are of no relevance to me. I am not a member and rules certainly are to be binding for members - but also certainly by members only. They are of no relevance online and most discussions in this Forum about rules a pure rubbish due to that.

BBO is not a sponsoring organization. BBO is the globe we are working at and nothing else. Therefore 'Rules for these sites' are basic rules for how to behave in a decent way - much similar to United Nations 'human rights'. Very general rules which need to be detailed. We have no organization with authority to do so.

We need such an organization! We need to challenge f2f world! We need to know what we are talking about!

That lucky day The Bermuda Bowl winner will win the right to challenge The Internet Masters running for World championchip.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Dec 18 2006, 07:26 PM, said:

Sorry Ben - those rules I know of but they are of no relevance to me. I am not a member and rules certainly are to be binding for members - but also certainly by members only. They are of no relevance online and most discussions in this Forum about rules a pure rubbish due to that.

BBO is not a sponsoring organization. BBO is the globe we are working at and nothing else. Therefore 'Rules for these sites' are basic rules for how to behave in a decent way - much similar to United Nations 'human rights'. Very general rules which need to be detailed. We have no organization with authority to do so.

We need such an organization! We need to challenge f2f world! We need to know what we are talking about!

I think that you missed my point about standards processes.

You don't create an organization out of thin air, create some arbitrary rules, and then try to impose this code of behaviour upon a group of people. You'll have better luck herding cats.

What does work is discussion. You talk about what works. You talk about what doesn't work. Over time, a set of cultural norms starts to emerge that reflects the unique nature of the new environment. Once these norms are establish, you can start to formalize them into laws.

[mycroft]

Here's a quote that has been of much help to me, Ben:

"A convention card is an agreement between partners, not a promise to opponents."

Law 40A - you are allowed to deviate from your agreements. It can be deliberate or a mistake, but you are allowed to deviate.

If that dummy tried this on with me, I would say that first; if he was going to go on with CPU, I would say I would look at the board, and (assuming what you said was right, and 3NT is going off two no matter what) return saying "I have looked at the board, and if declarer had had the correct information, he would still have lost the same tricks. I am not sure that you were misinformed, but even if you were, there was no damage. Result stands, play on."

There are people who believe that when the opponents do something wrong, they are entitled to a good board. Also, they get to decide what "wrong" is (see the 4S out-of-the-blue thread). And they get very upset when they find out the Laws aren't written that way.

Yeah, a tough skin helps. But having the authority to say "that's exactly enough, sir." and be able to stick it, also helps. So does knowing how not to abuse that power.

On another note, what I have seen from LA appeals (MI and UI) is that frequently what the experts have that the almost-experts do not is knowledge of negative inferences. I remember one case locally where we made a ruling and it all seemed right, but the first question of the appeals committee was "what would <sequence X> mean?" And given the answer, and the evidence to back it up - they played something common in the expert community but not in the global one - the "LA" was clearly illogical, and the ruling was reversed. And I've had that with certain directors in my life, because we're playing EHAA, Strong Club, 4-card Majors, or the like, and with the ruling, I point out that that couldn't happen with our system; they do look at the evidence and go back and rework it.

Michael.

[blackshoe]

csdenmark, on Dec 18 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

We need to know what we are talking about!

Yeah, we do. So let me ask you: what are you tallking about? You replied to Ben, but you quoted me. I don't understand that. You say you are not a member. Member of what? You say you are not bound by "those rules". Which rules? "BBO is not a sponsoring organization." Yeah, I said that. So?

We seem to be talking about different things here. I'm just trying to understand what you think the issue is (or issues are) and where you stand.

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Dec 18 2006, 07:49 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 18 2006, 07:26 PM, said:

Sorry Ben - those rules I know of but they are of no relevance to me. I am not a member and rules certainly are to be binding for members - but also certainly by members only. They are of no relevance online and most discussions in this Forum about rules a pure rubbish due to that.

BBO is not a sponsoring organization. BBO is the globe we are working at and nothing else. Therefore 'Rules for these sites' are basic rules for how to behave in a decent way - much similar to United Nations 'human rights'. Very general rules which need to be detailed. We have no organization with authority to do so.

We need such an organization! We need to challenge f2f world! We need to know what we are talking about!

I think that you missed my point about standards processes.

You don't create an organization out of thin air, create some arbitrary rules, and then try to impose this code of behaviour upon a group of people. You'll have better luck herding cats.

What does work is discussion. You talk about what works. You talk about what doesn't work. Over time, a set of cultural norms starts to emerge that reflects the unique nature of the new environment. Once these norms are establish, you can start to formalize them into laws.

I dont think I missed your point Richard.

Organizations, communities or whatever such is called have always been created out of the thin air. What is needed is some enthusiastic persons committed to something. When those persons have agreed that their cooperation might be benefitting for somebody/something they invite others to join. That way everything you see around has arised.

Maybe this thread is an opportunity and a moment for a creating something. Maybe we just need instead to go ahead with rubbish discussions. Hopefully something will come from that - but the rating will be poorer.

[barmar]

Claus says he's not "bound by" the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge because he's not a member of the SO. But the Laws are not specific to any SO, they're the "rules" of the game called Duplicate Bridge. If you're not following the Laws, you're essentially playing a different game. This game may be very similar to Duplicate Bridge, and you may call it that as well, but it will be difficult to tell when you're talking about real Duplicate Bridge versus this ersatz version. The ambiguity may not be a problem in casual conversation, but when you're trying to have detailed discussions like these threads it can really confuse things.

[blackshoe]

csdenmark said:

Maybe we just need instead to go ahead with rubbish discussions. Hopefully something will come from that - but the rating will be poorer.

The purpose of this forum, as I understand it, is to provide a place for TDs to get advice on how to be a good TD. Some aspects of that are unique to the online environment, some aren't. However, IMO, all such aspects are relevant, including how to rule in specific cases under the laws of bridge. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that subject, in particular, is "rubbish" and a waste of time. I disagree. Strongly. I think you do a disservice to those of us who are trying to be helpful in that regard here, as well as to those who are trying to learn.

[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Dec 18 2006, 08:56 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 18 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

We need to know what we are talking about!

Yeah, we do. So let me ask you: what are you tallking about? You replied to Ben, but you quoted me. I don't understand that. You say you are not a member. Member of what? You say you are not bound by "those rules". Which rules? "BBO is not a sponsoring organization." Yeah, I said that. So?

We seem to be talking about different things here. I'm just trying to understand what you think the issue is (or issues are) and where you stand.

Sorry I see now the post was not Ben's but yours. I dont know your identity.

For clarification. I am not a member of any bridgeorganization. Even if I was those rules were only binding to me. There are no authority and therefore no laws in effect on internet. Referring to WBF or any other organization might be for information but has no effect as a rule. Gwen's ACBL community has as the rules states ACBL laws to be applied. Therefore all signing up there must apply to that. Same if other tournament organizers do so or if a table host in MBC announces some laws to be applied for that table.

But else there are no rules but only human understandings. If you and I understand something in the same way we have no problems. If we understand something in a different way we may disagree and have to settle the matter one way or another. But there are no rules for settling the matter.

I think there ought to be some rules. I wonder why I have never seen Damiani online. I know Jens Auken, I think vice-chairman in EBU, is playing online but not active in this Forum. I know Jan Martel posts in this Forum but he seems not to involve in these kind of topics. Others I dont know of but I would appreciate very much if some of those engaged in bridge community activities would involve trying to help maturing online bridge.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Dec 18 2006, 09:03 PM, said:

Claus says he's not "bound by" the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge because he's not a member of the SO.  But the Laws are not specific to any SO, they're the "rules" of the game called Duplicate Bridge.  If you're not following the Laws, you're essentially playing a different game.  This game may be very similar to Duplicate Bridge, and you may call it that as well, but it will be difficult to tell when you're talking about real Duplicate Bridge versus this ersatz version.  The ambiguity may not be a problem in casual conversation, but when you're trying to have detailed discussions like these threads it can really confuse things.

Yes something like that. It is certainly not so I disagree with the basic of those laws. What I say is they are not in effect on internet because there is no authority and therefore nobody who are able to rule anything. I choose for myself, just as you do, which laws to be applied. Those I choose to apply are the only ones I am able to violate. Therefore all stuff discussing violating this or that law is nothing but rubbish - but it may certainly been unfriendly action.

I cannot remember where I noticed it but a week ago I read a post by Fred about rulings. I think it was one of those regarding ACBL. Fred mentioned that in his view online bridge and offline bridge are 2 different kind of games. I think he also recommended different and specific rules to be created.

[golfacer]

blackshoe, on Dec 18 2006, 10:27 AM, said:

golfacer, on Dec 18 2006, 05:24 AM, said:

I think there are several more important characteristics of a good BBO director than memorizing all of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge:

Nobody said anything about memorizing the laws. A good TD reads his rulings from the book. He doesn't need to memorize the laws, nor should he (if he tries, he might well get a ruling wrong).

I agree. I might have misinterpreted this part of sceptic's original post:

Quote

My question to you all is what do you consider makes a good TD, someone willing to study the laws

[hotShot]

The BBO environment has done a lot to ease the live of TD's.

Most of the problems a f2f TD has to solve won't happen.
Insufficient bids, bids/play out of turn, revokes, correct movement mistakes and calculate the tourney result are all solved by the software.

So only the tough problems like BIT (Break in Tempo), UI (unauthorized information) and MI (Misinformation) are left.
(And the subbing that is unknown to f2f TD's.)

Here we get to a big difference between f2f Bridge TD's and BBO TD's.

A f2f TD's job is not to practice justice, but to keep the tourney running. That is why the rules for these tough cases say, that the TD should decide fast and when in doubt favor the non offending side. The offending side should take the case to an Appeals Committee and they have the time and even additional rights to do justice.

A BBO TD has to do the judging by himself and without a proper time frame.
Unlike a committee he can't discuss the case with others.

I hope the BBO environment will improve in the following way:

1) The software should delay fast bids (they should at least take a second) and mark every bid that took longer than 3 (name a different time, if you like) seconds to make. This way fast bids are harder to detect for the players and slow bids are recorded for the TD to be seen.

2) The TD should be able to mark boards as "waiting for decision" or "under investigation" and the results given should be marked as "not final" until all boards are reviewed.

3) The TD should have some sort of bridgebrowser feature showing him, what other players of the same skill level, bid/played at that point. If the tourney is large enough there should be all LA's covered.

[DrTodd13]

The software should record how long it took to make each bid and play. I don't see the need to delay fast bids or plays, especially by only 2 seconds. A director pressed for time should be able to mark boards for further study as you suggest and when he reviews those boards he should see the time that each bid or play took. Even in a big tourney, the exact sequence may not come up and even if it does come up it might not come with enough frequency to make an effective poll. Somebody else's suggestion of having a way of asking people of a certain skill level what they would do would be a cool feature.

I don't see that much of a difference between online and f2f TDs. Sure, the f2f TDs deal mostly with mechanical problems, lead-out-of-turn, revoke, etc. They still have to deal with BIT, UI, MI as well. Both TDs goal should be to make the tournament run smoothly but also to follow the rules. Sure, we can do anything we like but unless we are following the laws of duplicate bridge I don't think it is fair to call it bridge.

Right now, I think one big problem with online TDs is their failure to adequately act as a sponsoring organization. They are in effect mini-sponsoring organizations and therefore have many rights under the laws of bridge. What online TDs tend to do however is to not tell people what the rules are until the situation arises and then they make it up on the fly rather than following the rules of bridge. Sure, they may have the authority to ban a system if they say so prior to the start of play but they can't say anything and then 5 hands in decide that forcing pass shouldn't be allowed. Many online TDs are just woefully ignorant of their responsibilities as a sponsoring organization and of the laws themselves. Perhaps along with each board a TD has under review, a flowchart should be presented to aid in the collection of facts and to guide the ruling. Where flowcharts differ legally between sponsoring organizations you can have multiple flowcharts that are selected at tourney creation time. At the end of the flowchart after questions have been answered perhaps an automatic adjustment can be made. To some degree this would solve the problem of automatically awarding an adjusted score in the absence of any damage.

[hotShot]

Favoring the NOS in the laws alway had in mind, that the OS will have to appeal. Without an appeals committee favoring the NOS is just unfair.
But the people are used to be favored by the TD and get away with it, if the OS don't care to appeal.

I agree that not all LA's might show up, but I prefer a solution that will work on it's own to one that involves other resources. It gives the TD at least some sort of hint. But i agree that it would be a cool feature.

The the main problem that some (or even a lot) of online TD's know that they have little knowledge of the laws of bridge and if a player selfskilled as Expert+ claims to have better knowledge of the laws and demands an adjustment, they make the adjustment even if it's wrong. (I have seen this with f2f TD beginners as well).

[blackshoe]

csdenmark, on Dec 18 2006, 02:13 PM, said:

Sorry I see now the post was not Ben's but yours. I dont know your identity.

Nor I yours. So? You can call me blackshoe.

Quote

For clarification. I am not a member of any bridgeorganization. Even if I was those rules were only binding to me. There are no authority and therefore no laws in effect on internet.

No? Then you can do whatever you want in any online bridge game. You took advantage of UI? So what? There's no law here, you can do what you want. You told your partner in private chat all 13 cards in your hand? So what, there's no law here, you can do what you want.

Anarchy doesn't make for a very good game, does it?

I dunno about you, but when I play bridge, I like to know under what rules I'm playing. If I can't know (because, as you say, there aren't any), well, I'll go play something else, thank you very much.

You might want to look at the WBF's Laws for Online Bridge. Or not. <shrug>

[blackshoe]

hotShot, on Dec 18 2006, 07:53 PM, said:

Most of the problems a f2f TD has to solve won't happen.
Insufficient bids, bids/play out of turn, revokes, correct movement mistakes and calculate the tourney result are all solved by the software.

So only the tough problems like BIT (Break in Tempo), UI (unauthorized information) and MI (Misinformation) are left.
(And the subbing that is unknown to f2f TD's.)

Here we get to a big difference between f2f Bridge TD's and BBO TD's.

A f2f TD's job is not to practice justice, but to keep the tourney running. That is why the rules for these tough cases say, that the TD should decide fast and when in doubt favor the non offending side. The offending side should take the case to an Appeals Committee and they have the time and even additional rights to do justice.

A BBO TD has to do the judging by himself and without a proper time frame.
Unlike a committee he can't discuss the case with others.

I hope the BBO environment will improve in the following way:

1) The software should delay fast bids (they should at least take a second) and mark every bid that took longer than 3 (name a different time, if you like) seconds to make. This way fast bids are harder to detect for the players and slow bids are recorded for the TD to be seen.

2) The TD should be able to mark boards as "waiting for decision" or "under investigation" and the results given should be marked as "not final" until all boards are reviewed.

3) The TD should have some sort of bridgebrowser feature showing him, what other players of the same skill level, bid/played at that point. If the tourney is large enough there should be all LA's covered.

That first set of problems almost all are matters of Law - that is, the ruling is mechanical, and does not require judgement on the part of the TD. In such cases, an appeals committee can do no more than recommend to the TD that he change his ruling - they cannot overrule the TD on a point of Law (see Law 93B3).

The "tough" law problems you mention all require judgement. Here the AC can overrule the TD - but they need a damn good reason.

You say "a f2f TD's job is not to practice justice, but to keep the tourney running." You're mistaken. As the Laws themselves say "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." and "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." I recommend you read Law 81, which deals with the duties and powers of the TD.

"That is why the rules for these tough cases say, that the TD should decide fast and when in doubt favor the non offending side." The rules do not say that. The only law that even approaches what you claim here is Law 85C: "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he shall make a ruling that will permit play to continue, and notify the players of their right to appeal."

You are correct that the software under which bridge is played online is continually evolving, and that is a good thing. Certainly the software should evolve in the direction of allowing us to play the game (and make rulings) in conformance with the laws. And I think it will.

[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Dec 19 2006, 05:11 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 18 2006, 02:13 PM, said:

Sorry I see now the post was not Ben's but yours. I dont know your identity.

Nor I yours. So? You can call me blackshoe.

Quote

For clarification. I am not a member of any bridgeorganization. Even if I was those rules were only binding to me. There are no authority and therefore no laws in effect on internet.

No? Then you can do whatever you want in any online bridge game. You took advantage of UI? So what? There's no law here, you can do what you want. You told your partner in private chat all 13 cards in your hand? So what, there's no law here, you can do what you want.

Anarchy doesn't make for a very good game, does it?

I dunno about you, but when I play bridge, I like to know under what rules I'm playing. If I can't know (because, as you say, there aren't any), well, I'll go play something else, thank you very much.

You might want to look at the WBF's Laws for Online Bridge. Or not. <shrug>

No certainly not. There is some basic requirements to constitute the game. Those you will normally use in any kind of private bridge and those are the guidelines online too.

Referring to WBF laws or any other specific pharagrafs are pure nonsense as such has no authority to anybody but the members and only in events under their auspicies. Thats why you may refer to ACBL, I assume it is WBF regulations, for games organized by the sanctioned ACBL club on BBO. Same if somebody else include specific laws to be applied. For anything else no specific laws are in effect - only basic requirements, good sportmanship and friendly behavior to be applied.

Referring to regulations about UI, memory aid, alerts or such are completely nonsense. Such are specific regulations from an ancient world where books were needed and therefore completely impossible to use. That kind of discussions makes no sense here and many seems to be unable to understand the two kind of bridgeworld.

As I understand you you prefer to stay incognito. I see such as an unfriendly behavior. This will therefore be my last conversation with you.

[barmar]

csdenmark, on Dec 18 2006, 03:23 PM, said:

Yes something like that. It is certainly not so I disagree with the basic of those laws. What I say is they are not in effect on internet because there is no authority and therefore nobody who are able to rule anything. I choose for myself, just as you do, which laws to be applied. Those I choose to apply are the only ones I am able to violate. Therefore all stuff discussing violating this or that law is nothing but rubbish - but it may certainly been unfriendly action.

I cannot remember where I noticed it but a week ago I read a post by Fred about rulings. I think it was one of those regarding ACBL. Fred mentioned that in his view online bridge and offline bridge are 2 different kind of games. I think he also recommended different and specific rules to be created.

The differences between online and offline bridge are mostly in minor details, like the difference between spoken bidding and bid boxes, or playing with or without screens. They don't alter the fundamentals of the game. There are some laws that are irrelevant in online bridge -- certain infractions are impossible (bid/play out of turn, insufficient bid). The biggest difference is the international nature of the Internet -- there are fewer common understandings among the players, language differences can be a problem, alerting styles differ, etc.

You frequently mention that you're not a member of the WBF, so you're not bound by their laws. But that doesn't really make sense, because the WBF is not something that individual players are members of. It's more like a treaty organization than a government -- like the UN or NATO. It's something that the tournament sponsors generally belong to, and they agree to run games according to those laws. When you play in one of these tournaments, you're implicitly agreeing to abide by those laws as well -- you don't get to pick and choose which laws you feel apply to you. If you want your own rules, play at your own table in the MBC, don't play in organized tourneys.

[blackshoe]

Well, I replied as I did, sir, because I view your "I don't know your identity" as unfriendly. As to "prefer to remain incognito", no, I have no problem with people knowing my real name. Go check out The International Bridge Laws Forum. I am the Ed Reppert mentioned there.

You say the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, presumably in either the original or the "online" version, are rubbish, pure nonsense, and have no force, and yet you also say that "there is some basic requirements to constitute the game". I hate to break it to ya, but that's what the Laws are. You seem to have some problem with that, but I don't see why.

The ACBL is, among other things, a sponsoring organization for many bridge games, including some here on BBO. As such, and under those Laws you seem to deplore so much, the ACBL may (and does) make certain regulations. Similarly, the WBF, as sponsoring organization for some games (specifically world championships) makes regulations for those games. WBF regulations do not apply in ACBL games, and vice versa. For ACBL sanctioned games at the club level, which effectively includes games here, the club is also a sponsoring organization, and can make regulations too - particularly as regards what conventions may or may not be allowed, or as to how, when and what to alert. I submit to you that if you wish to play in tournaments (including club games), here or anywhere else, you had better follow the rules laid out by the sponsoring organization than try to tell that SO that their rules are "nonsense". But hey, you do whatever you like, including ignoring me.

Blackshoe

[barmar]

I don't know why Claus claimed that you're incognito. Even before you posted your name, all he had to do was click on your handle to see your profile, then follow the homepage link. The first line there is "Hi! My name is Ed Reppert, and you have fallen into my web site. Welcome!" But we've all come to know that Claus lives in his own world, so I guess in that world anything you don't post in your signature is hidden.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Dec 19 2006, 06:46 PM, said:

The differences between online and offline bridge are mostly in minor details, like the difference between spoken bidding and bid boxes, or playing with or without screens.  They don't alter the fundamentals of the game.  There are some laws that are irrelevant in online bridge -- certain infractions are impossible (bid/play out of turn, insufficient bid).  The biggest difference is the international nature of the Internet -- there are fewer common understandings among the players, language differences can be a problem, alerting styles differ, etc.

You frequently mention that you're not a member of the WBF, so you're not bound by their laws.  But that doesn't really make sense, because the WBF is not something that individual players are members of.  It's more like a treaty organization than a government -- like the UN or NATO.  It's something that the tournament sponsors generally belong to, and they agree to run games according to those laws.  When you play in one of these tournaments, you're implicitly agreeing to abide by those laws as well -- you don't get to pick and choose which laws you feel apply to you.  If you want your own rules, play at your own table in the MBC, don't play in organized tourneys.

I dont think we need to argue very much. We are along the same lines but not in details. I think there are much differences but certainly not in basics which constitute we play bridge and not any other kind of card game.

I also think the re-itering debates about violations of non-existing rules ought to be an eyeopener to somebody that something is needed to be done. Something is needed to establish rules for online games but I also think the old world of bridge need to look over their rules updating them to modern information technology standards.

About WBF I think, but I really dont know, it is some kind of world association of national bridge federations. As I am member of no such one I think I am right.

I dont play any of those tournaments I think you are referring to but for other reasons. I am a great fan of ACBL on BBO simply because they have high standards. Those attacking them can be happy I have nothing to do with ACBL because most of those would now already have been playing their last event there.