[hrothgar]

For anyone who cares:

The WBF is gearing up to ammend the Bridge Laws.

As I understand matters, the next six monthes or so are one of the best times to submit suggestions, recommendations, and the like. I haven't seen much discussion about revising the Laws for Online Bridge (not even sure if this is much of a priority). Even so, it might make sense to consider submitting recommendations.

You can peruse the Laws for Online Bridge at http://www.ecatsbrid...aws/default.asp

From my perspective, the existing Online Laws are highly problematic.

1. The Laws don't recognize the unique nature of the online playing environment

The Laws maintain regulations dealing with leads out of turn, revokes, and the like that are irrelvent in any electronic playing environment that I am aware off. (Personally, I'd prefer to see the authorities bite the bullet and state that software used for electronic bridge should "block" certain types of mechanical errors)

2. The design / organization of the Laws seems predicated on the assumption that folks will be reading hard copy. 99.9% of the folks using this document will be doing so on a computer. I'd much rather see a well designed hyperdocument of some kind.

3. Parallelism with the Laws for Offline Bridge is desirable, however, I would prioritize usabily for online players ahead of maintaining a parallel numbering system.

Thoughts?
Comments?

Would it be useful to try to work our way through the Laws, item by item and see what we like / would change?

[pooltuna]

The first thing that comes to mind is the requirement to "know" your system IRL. But online notes are easily and quickly available and generally near impossible to pass UI by a quick peek. So assuming enforcability is not an issue will the WBF continue to insist on "no peeking"?

[blackshoe]

The reason for "no peeking" is not to prevent passage of UI. In fact it has nothing to do with UI, and everything to do with trying to level the playing field vis-a-vis aids to memory.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2011-January-18, 07:25, said:

3. Parallelism with the Laws for Offline Bridge is desirable, however, I would prioritize usability for online players ahead of maintaining a parallel numbering system.

You should be able to do both, even if that means there are gaps in the numbering of the online Laws (as when Laws for such things as revokes are left out).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-18, 08:46, said:

The reason for "no peeking" is not to prevent passage of UI. In fact it has nothing to do with UI, and everything to do with trying to level the playing field vis-a-vis aids to memory.

Agreed.

What's unique in online bridge is the fleeting nature of partnerships. The assumption behind the "no aids to memory" is that the players have had discussions and/or shared experience, which they are expected to remember rather than look up. But in online bridge, partnerships are frequently made on the spur of the moment, very often within a few minutes of the start of the game. The "system card" may be one of the player's profiles, or a convention card that one player loads and the other agrees to play with little chance to commit it to memory.

It does little good to complain that this isn't "bridge". It happens every day, so we might as well accept it and regulate it to specify when it's allowed. If we specify that "instant partnerships" are allowed to refer to their notes, I think it keeps the playing field as level as can be -- they're already at a disadvantage playing against established partnerships who have a better feel for their partners' styles, it's not fair to handicap them futher by not even knowing their own "system".

[shintaro]

Online is slightly problematic

If you use aN FDC you may be accused of aiding partners memory

If you dont use an FDC then opps are agrieved if they are not told meanings of certain bids

[barmar]

When using FDC, I think there's an option to display the meanings only to opponents, not partner.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2011-January-26, 18:20, said:

When using FDC, I think there's an option to display the meanings only to opponents, not partner.

What is FDC? In any case, in online bridge there is no way to prevent a player from having a printout of his convention card on the table next to him, so it seems that aids to memory cannot be prohibited.

But is there really a need for Laws for Online Bridge? Is there any reason the online bridge should be played under the aegis of the WBF? When one plays at home with beginners, the Laws are often not followed. One may look into an opponent's hand to tell her what she should bid. Who cares?

As far as making recommendations is concerned, ROFLMAO.

[TimG]

Vampyr, on 2011-January-30, 18:28, said:

But is there really a need for Laws for Online Bridge? Is there any reason the online bridge should be played under the aegis of the WBF? When one plays at home with beginners, the Laws are often not followed. One may look into an opponent's hand to tell her what she should bid. Who cares?

I don't think the idea is to impose any Laws on those playing "home bridge" (BBO's equivalent being the main bridge club) but rather to set out Laws for sanctioned online tournament play (BBO's ACBL games, for instance).

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2011-January-21, 18:12, said:

Agreed.

What's unique in online bridge is the fleeting nature of partnerships. The assumption behind the "no aids to memory" is that the players have had discussions and/or shared experience, which they are expected to remember rather than look up. But in online bridge, partnerships are frequently made on the spur of the moment, very often within a few minutes of the start of the game. The "system card" may be one of the player's profiles, or a convention card that one player loads and the other agrees to play with little chance to commit it to memory.

It does little good to complain that this isn't "bridge". It happens every day, so we might as well accept it and regulate it to specify when it's allowed. If we specify that "instant partnerships" are allowed to refer to their notes, I think it keeps the playing field as level as can be -- they're already at a disadvantage playing against established partnerships who have a better feel for their partners' styles, it's not fair to handicap them futher by not even knowing their own "system".

I'd rather see "instant partnerships" have access to a basic system card and notes with no extra's. Bridge is a partnership game. Long standing partnerships who have worked at their agreements and style have an advantage over other partnerships but we don't level the playing field in those cases, and why should we?

If new partnerships are permitted full system notes, existing partnerships are immediately disadvantaged.

I realise online bridge is not the same as live bridge but I'd rather see the game conforming to the laws where possible rather than creating unnecessary, new rules. Of course how and if players chose to enforce the laws is completely up to the individual.

[Vampyr]

TimG, on 2011-January-30, 21:36, said:

I don't think the idea is to impose any Laws on those playing "home bridge" (BBO's equivalent being the main bridge club) but rather to set out Laws for sanctioned online tournament play (BBO's ACBL games, for instance).

Online bridge is a game in which partners can be on the phone with each other, or sitting next to one another, where everyone can check their own convention card, where players can watch hands before playing them themselves... if NBOs are so desperate to make money that they wish to "sanction" these games, then they have a lot more to worry about than a new set of online laws.

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2011-January-30, 21:35, said:

I'd rather see "instant partnerships" have access to a basic system card and notes with no extra's.

Does BBO not have this? It works well on OKBridge.

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2011-January-30, 23:33, said:

Does BBO not have this? It works well on OKBridge.

No. There is no restriction to the complexity of the card and partner will see the description of all bids, both his own and his partners.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-January-30, 18:28, said:

But is there really a need for Laws for Online Bridge? Is there any reason the online bridge should be played under the aegis of the WBF? When one plays at home with beginners, the Laws are often not followed. One may look into an opponent's hand to tell her what she should bid. Who cares?

In Wales my partner and I are trying to get into the national team. Unfortunately one of the things they wish us to play in competes with an important English event. Since the date was not finalised I pointed this out.

In the selectors' reply, apart from saying the date was finalised, they offered us the chance to play online with set hands as a means of practice, and to play other online games against other good Welsh pairs. This is not playing at home with beginners. In the same way as F2F duplicate bridge is played in "ladies' afternoon sewing circles" [more men than ladies, I guess! ] and in World Championships, I do not think that the fact that some people take OLB with no seriousness whatever means that the law-makers should just write it off.

Vampyr, on 2011-January-30, 23:32, said:

Online bridge is a game in which partners can be on the phone with each other, or sitting next to one another, where everyone can check their own convention card, where players can watch hands before playing them themselves... if NBOs are so desperate to make money that they wish to "sanction" these games, then they have a lot more to worry about than a new set of online laws.

Do you not feel it is wrong to consider only the money NBOs make? They provide a service appreciated by hundreds of thousands of people in the duplicates they provide around the world. If that service is extended to OLB then they are providing a service to more people. Of course they make money, but reducing it to 'desperation to make money' is extremely unfair. And if they are extending their service to OLB, should we not have consistent and fair Laws for it?

[hotShot]

The problems to solve in online bridge are:

Absence of a TD

Misinformation, caused by the lack of agreements

Alerting, Announcing and other regulations differ a lot worldwide.

Misclicks during bidding and play

How to handle disputed claims

What to do if a player is disconnected/leaves during bidding and play.

There is no way to enforce a rule to prohibit the use of memory aids.

Online tournaments allow movements and scoring that would be difficult to handle in the real world.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-January-31, 05:29, said:

In Wales my partner and I are trying to get into the national team. Unfortunately one of the things they wish us to play in competes with an important English event. Since the date was not finalised I pointed this out.

In the selectors' reply, apart from saying the date was finalised, they offered us the chance to play online with set hands as a means of practice, and to play other online games against other good Welsh pairs. This is not playing at home with beginners. In the same way as F2F duplicate bridge is played in "ladies' afternoon sewing circles" [more men than ladies, I guess! ] and in World Championships, I do not think that the fact that some people take OLB with no seriousness whatever means that the law-makers should just write it off.

This is no argument. OLB is a good way to practise with partners and teammates. If geographical constraints did not exist you could do it instead in a pub. The Laws have little to do with this.

Quote

Do you not feel it is wrong to consider only the money NBOs make? They provide a service appreciated by hundreds of thousands of people in the duplicates they provide around the world. If that service is extended to OLB then they are providing a service to more people. Of course they make money, but reducing it to 'desperation to make money' is extremely unfair. And if they are extending their service to OLB, should we not have consistent and fair Laws for it?

I think that it is the bridge servers that provide a service. To be quite honest, I am baffled as to why people are willing to pay more to play in a game that is nominally an "ACBL" or "EBU" or etc game. What value, exactly, do the NBOs add to the service already provided?

But anyway, consistent and fair Laws for OLB are an illusion, and will simply create a huge gap between those who choose to follow them and those who choose otherwise.

Come on, David. You are aware that when there is discussion of "serious" event being played by computer, it involves all the players meeting at a central venue, players segregated by direction into different rooms, monitors... It is generally acknowledged that this is the way an online competition that bears more than a passing relationship to bridge must be played.

[TimG]

Vampyr, on 2011-January-31, 12:23, said:

I think that it is the bridge servers that provide a service. To be quite honest, I am baffled as to why people are willing to pay more to play in a game that is nominally an "ACBL" or "EBU" or etc game. What value, exactly, do the NBOs add to the service already provided?

I occasionally play in ACBL speedballs on BBO. I do this because the game is generally more consistent and of higher quality than pick-up opponents in the main bridge club. They are also generally of better quality than the free tournaments (in my limited experience) and they are offered regularly. (I would prefer a set game, but seldom go through the effort to set those up.) It is true that the masterpoints do not add any value to the game as far as I am concerned. But, I do think there is value in ACBL games on BBO. The value added would not have to come from an NBO, but that's the way the service is currently delivered.

Quote

But anyway, consistent and fair Laws for OLB are an illusion, and will simply create a huge gap between those who choose to follow them and those who choose otherwise.

Just because it is easy to cheat does not mean that the rules are useless. It's appears to be easy to cheat at face-to-face bridge, yet there are rules that we hardly find useless.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-January-31, 12:23, said:

This is no argument. OLB is a good way to practise with partners and teammates. If geographical constraints did not exist you could do it instead in a pub. The Laws have little to do with this.

No, I would not. I prefer a place where we are playing to the Laws. I find serious practice impossible otherwise. You may think differently, fair enough, but that does not mean you should not allow it for other people.

Vampyr, on 2011-January-31, 12:23, said:

I think that it is the bridge servers that provide a service. To be quite honest, I am baffled as to why people are willing to pay more to play in a game that is nominally an "ACBL" or "EBU" or etc game. What value, exactly, do the NBOs add to the service already provided?

Masterpoints? Tournaments? Organisation?

Vampyr, on 2011-January-31, 12:23, said:

But anyway, consistent and fair Laws for OLB are an illusion, and will simply create a huge gap between those who choose to follow them and those who choose otherwise.

Not necessarily. Assuming people cheat and you can do nothing about it is extremely pessimistic.

Vampyr, on 2011-January-31, 12:23, said:

Come on, David. You are aware that when there is discussion of "serious" event being played by computer, it involves all the players meeting at a central venue, players segregated by direction into different rooms, monitors... It is generally acknowledged that this is the way an online competition that bears more than a passing relationship to bridge must be played.

Absolutely not. It is completely pointless playing with computers when you are all in the same place.

The problem is, Stef, that you expect others to want to follow your ideas. I don't: I expect lots of others do not.

I, on the other hand, want to provide as good a service as possible for as many people as possible, given they have different views. And one of those possibilities is serious online bridge.

[TimG]

bluejak, on 2011-January-31, 18:49, said:

Absolutely not. It is completely pointless playing with computers when you are all in the same place.

I might prefer to play face-to-face if I were at the same site as the other players, but I can see some decent reasons to play by computer. A full and complete record of the bidding and play; elimination of things such as revokes and bid out of turn; and reduced potential for UI are but a few.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2011-January-30, 18:28, said:

What is FDC? In any case, in online bridge there is no way to prevent a player from having a printout of his convention card on the table next to him, so it seems that aids to memory cannot be prohibited.

FDC = Full Disclosure Convention Card. It's a form of convention card on BBO where you list the meaning of precise bidding sequences, and the computer displays the explanations automatically by matching the auction against the card. By default, it displays the explanations to all 4 players, but I think there's an option to display them just to the opponents (as with explanations typed by the players). I think the rationale for this is that most people use pre-written cards provided by the system (because creating your own is fairly difficult), and they may not be aware of all the treatments on the card (it's also hard to read the card thoroughly); it's not really a "memory aid" if they never knew the explanations in the first place. This excuse reminds me of the old joke about agreeing to play your opponents' convention card, since you're always allowed to look at that when it's your turn to bid.