[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Dec 19 2006, 06:47 PM, said:

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

Ed sorry - I didnt click your www button. I simply didn't notice. I enjoy a lively debate on a friendly basis with any decent person. I dont like persons who are not ready to stand for their expressed views and I think most on internet, not only in bridge sites and not only BBO but also them, are doing a poor job favoring fools by giving them a much to easy ride.

I am not saying the laws are rubbish - not at all. I say they are not in effect on internet because the authority to enforce is missing. Therefore it is pure rubbish to refer to them as paragraph 1, 2, 3 etc. It is not rubbish to extract the general meaning of those. For specific organizers and events it is just perfect to include those rules or any other rules. The authority is there.

It is still a bit problematic to discuss rules not aimed for the platform where they are used. Much confusions seems to arise in this Forum due to that.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Dec 19 2006, 09:29 PM, said:

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.

In all seriousness Claus, who do you expect to do this?

1.Its not gonna be the WBF, the ACBL, the EBU or any of the existing National/Zonal bodies. None of these organizations has any significant experience with online bridge. Online bridge was created by independent entrepreneurs like Matt Clegg and Fred. To this day, they are the ones who are driving the evolution of the online game. Some of the National Organizations tried to develop their own competing offerings. The quickly discovered that they didn't have the internal competencies to take a direct role in this space (Anyone remember the ACBL's pitiful attempts to develop its own online site?). I don't believe that either the ACBL or the WBF have the knowledge or perspective to standardize a new set of Laws for the online game. If anyone disagrees, they're welcome to take a look at the WBF's Laws for http://www.worldbrid.../OnlineLaws.pdf and try to explain their relevence
2.In a similar fashion, I don't see Fred pulling a Deus Ex Machina and delivering us a set of Laws from on high. I think that he's far to smart to ever consider this type of thankless process.
3.Some day, members of this forum or the Bridge laws Mailing lists might participate in this type of process, however, I think that day is a long way off. Simply put, none of us know what we're talking about yet. (And yet is an important word). The online game is still FAR too immature to require all the overhead associated with a formal regulatory structure. Give us another decade to putz around and we might be ready to starting putting pen to paper.

If I had to make a guess, here's how I think that stuff develop over time.

Eventually, we're going to start to see some more formal tournament structures start to arise. The primary impetus could be a private club that real takes off. (Think of something like Abalucy without all the insane political drama that killed that effort). Alternatively, organizations like the ACBL might start to get enough experience under their belt to professionalize their tournament offerings. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of the team leagues like the old Riko ladder make a real contribution to the process. From my perspective, the most import issue is that individual organizations establish some kind of long last presence with an institutional memory. Over time, they'll start to figure things out. They'll make some mistakes, but something decent will emerge. However, here's what I think is the most important point to understand: I don't think that any of these organizations are going to go out and create a charter that says that they are going to develop the Laws that Govern Online Bridge. Instead, I think that they are going to try to provide some valuable bridge related services to their members. Slowly, over time, they're going to get dragging into the Laws business whether they recognize it or not...

Associated with this, we're gonna need some kind of seed crystal that brings everything together. As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a true believer when it comes to electronic bridge. I think that major events like the Cavendish pairs will inevitably transition to an electronic playing environment. If / when this happens it will require formalizing the structure...

In an ideal world, the online community will have enough experience not to botch the job.

[mike777]

I think as long as the online games are easy to access and have some integrity they will continue to gain a following.

As for 10 years, heck I hope to be playing on bbo in a hologram setting in my family room.

Long before that it should gravitate to cheap and easy HD tv access.

[pbleighton]

"I think as long as the online games are easy to access and have some integrity they will continue to gain a following.

As for 10 years, heck I hope to be playing on bbo in a hologram setting in my family room.

Long before that it should gravitate to cheap and easy HD tv access."

My goodness, I haven't dropped acid for such a LONG time

I'm keeping my PC.

Peter

[blackshoe]

The authority to enforce the rules of a game is de facto granted to the people running the game by its players. That's as true in f2f bridge as it is online. In particular, if the players disagreed with the rules as administered by the folks running the tournament (f2f or otherwise), they wouldn't play in that tournament. Not more than once, anyway. So to say that the authority to enforce the laws is missing in online bridge misses the mark completely, IMO. People don't explicitly say "I'm gonna use the laws promulgated by the WBF" because they don't think they need to do so - surely people will expect those laws to be in force. OTOH, if somebody wants to run a game on the basis "I'll make it up as I go along", they're perfectly free to do so - but they shouldn't be surprised if, after a while, they find players going elsewhere.

There are f2f clubs around here at which I do not play because IMO the director of those clubs does not run his games in accordance with the laws, but rather in accordance with his whims -- the "I''ll make it up as I go along" school.

And no individual is a member of the WBF - as Claus assumed, the members are National Bridge Organizations of various countries. Generally speaking, I believe, the members of NBOs are individuals, but that's a different kettle of fish.

[hotShot]

I don't think we need a different set of laws for online bridge.
The existing ones are good enough.
Just because a few § are no longer needed, as the software prevents the trouble from happening, no new ones are needed.

BBO tourneys are a market place and the goods offered are tourneys, with and without qualified TD's. Right now the interest in free tourneys is larger
and the interest in qualified TD's is small.

But all it would take now, is a fully qualified TD that runs (regular) tourney's. He would have to define some basics, as he is the sponsoring organization. Of cause he would not play in his tourneys and he might want to have some kind of fee for his service.

The problem I see is the kind of tournament to offer. People don't take short tourneys seriously enough and they don't want to make a commitment for a longer one. So maybe the product offered does not have a market yet.

[sceptic]

Quote

I'll make it up as I go along", they're perfectly free to do so - but they shouldn't be surprised if, after a while, they find players going elsewhere

The thing I want to say about this comment is it is the wrong way round, usually what happens is the TD's give up

I remember a star player starting tourneys (in the early days of BBO) and because of the behaviours we still see today online if free tourneys, he stopped running them, the same will probably happen with cascade.

The I dont need this s*** so why should I run them syndrome gets to a lot of the free TD's after a while, it is nice to be acknowledge for your time etc occasionally, but the constant crap some people come out with, really does make you wonder why you bother.

My personal belief is that if the directors lists worked 100% and kept out the people that are not welcome at your tourneys, then the whole issue would be manageable, as it is no one can successfully ban the spoliers of our fun.

I am about to try a new format in a BBO club, that I used to like running and as far as feedback goes people like to play in these tourneys, it may take some building up, but I am sure that it will be succesful, maybe the problem with bridge and its decline in the world, is duplicate bridge period.

I wish fred had a more friendly rubber table we could use, maybe this is not the way experts want the game to go, but it is a lot of fun and it is certainly a social side of the game that appears lacking in BBO somedays

[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Dec 19 2006, 11:50 PM, said:

The authority to enforce the rules of a game is de facto granted to the people running the game by its players. That's as true in f2f bridge as it is online. In particular, if the players disagreed with the rules as administered by the folks running the tournament (f2f or otherwise), they wouldn't play in that tournament. Not more than once, anyway.

If so Ed there would be less trouble in this Forum. People are signing up again and again for ACBL. I think they are right to do so - as I think Gwen and her staff are the only ones with high aspirations. The problem is as soon they make a mistake some people think they are justified in rallying the organizers appealing to this Forum instead of being loyal. And all too many posters paying lips to trouble makers proving nothing but disloyalty.

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Dec 19 2006, 09:13 PM, said:

In all seriousness Claus, who do you expect to do this?

1.Its not gonna be the WBF, the ACBL, the EBU or any of the existing National/Zonal bodies.  None of these organizations has any significant experience with online bridge.  Online bridge was created by independent entrepreneurs like Matt Clegg and Fred.  To this day, they are the ones who are driving the evolution of the online game.  Some of the National Organizations tried to develop their own competing offerings.  The quickly discovered that they didn't have the internal competencies to take a direct role in this space  (Anyone remember the ACBL's pitiful attempts to develop its own online site?).  I don't believe that either the ACBL or the WBF have the knowledge or perspective to standardize a new set of Laws for the online game.  If anyone disagrees, they're welcome to take a look at the WBF's Laws for http://www.worldbrid.../OnlineLaws.pdf and try to explain their relevence
2.In a similar fashion, I don't see Fred pulling a Deus Ex Machina and delivering us a set of Laws from on high.  I think that he's far to smart to ever consider this type of thankless process.
3.Some day, members of this forum or the Bridge laws Mailing lists might participate in this type of process, however, I think that day is a long way off.  Simply put, none of us know what we're talking about yet.  (And yet is an important word).  The online game is still FAR too immature to require all the overhead associated with a formal regulatory structure.  Give us another decade to putz around and we might be ready to starting putting pen to paper.

If I had to make a guess, here's how I think that stuff develop over time.

Eventually, we're going to start to see some more formal tournament structures start to arise.  The primary impetus could be a private club that real takes off.  (Think of something like Abalucy without all the insane political drama that killed that effort).  Alternatively, organizations like the ACBL might start to get enough experience under their belt to professionalize their tournament offerings.  I wouldn't be surprised to see one of the team leagues like the old Riko ladder make a real contribution to the process.  From my perspective, the most import issue is that individual organizations establish some kind of long last presence with an institutional memory.  Over time, they'll start to figure things out.  They'll make some mistakes, but something decent will emerge.  However, here's what I think is the most important point to understand:  I don't think that any of these organizations are going to go out and create a charter that says that they are going to develop the Laws that Govern Online Bridge.  Instead, I think that they are going to try to provide some valuable bridge related services to their members.  Slowly, over time, they're going to get dragging into the Laws business whether they recognize it or not...

Associated with this, we're gonna need some kind of seed crystal that brings everything together.  As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a true believer when it comes to electronic bridge.  I think that major events like the Cavendish pairs will inevitably transition to an electronic playing environment.  If / when this happens it will require formalizing the structure...

In an ideal world, the online community will have enough experience not to botch the job.

I really dont know and thats a problem. But we need to find ways for something and especially we need to establish contact to some on other playing sites, especially ZONE.

I agree it is not very likely to come from any of the present organizations. I think board members are mostly recruited from appealing commitees. I know Jens Auken is lawyer so I assume that kind of proffessions are well represented in those kind of bodies. Those kind of professions provides the ability to take some days off for international meetings. With more professions with such opportunities, homework and IT-professionals there some day will be other kind of people in such bodies too. Those from appeal commitees have a narrow perspective focussing on details/paragraphs and I hope for that other kind of skills will help to broadening the perspective.

But lets come back to what you earlier called thin air. I think some need some day to take an initiative. Not that such will be perfect and will gain success in first try. Then perhaps next time or next time again. Several re-constructions will be foreseenable in such a development process. It is unlikely there are going to be any kind of help from somebody within the establishment. Top-players with this kind of opinion also need to think of their current position and maybe carreeer within bridge. Some of the prominent ones are doing this for a living so they will not support until a success is in sight.

Nobody is well served with the present situation. We will never see people take this online game serious unless they will be forced to or at least have an offer which will be able to compete with what they think they can find locally.

This means I think it will be needed that playgrounds offer a platform according to a set of rules. BBO is probably the best one today but I doubt it will be possible to have the necessary modifications, they are many, without introducing payment subscriptions. Payments will as well be disciplining as help lifting reputation.