[mjj29]

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

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

Indeed, I was at a lecture some years ago presenting some very interesting research on detecting collusion in online bridge (Paper). I don't know if any of the online systems use those techniques, but there are ways to do it.

[Antraxxx]

Poker servers supposedly have mechanisms in place to detect such things. Since the details are never disclosed, odds are it's a bluff. The paper you linked to is basically a problem statement and an expression of desire for a solution, with no actual proposal, since the scheme seems to rely on the existence of an Oracle to supply answers as to what constitutes a reasonable play for varying skill level. Considering the amount of complaints about GIB and considering such a thing would also greatly simplify real life director-ing, it's safe to assume such a thing does not exist.

[paulg]

After thinking about this for a while, I don't really see the need for an online version of the laws that is significantly different from the existing approach.

I accept that a number of the laws are redundant on BBO and most other online bridge sites. But the benefit of deriving a new set of laws seems to outweigh the costs of maintaining them. I know it will not be popular but I think the WBF's approach, putting a small number of changes easily read online, is right.

A number of posters have raised issues that I believe should not be addressed in the laws, but are the remit of the Regulating Authority (RA). The problem is that much of the bridge on BBO does not have a RA, but this is not something that the laws should be addressing. In essence, this becomes a game like bridge that is unregulated. Just live with it, people seem to like it.

I don't really care about the peeking issue or people looking at their own convention card. They should not do this according to the laws. They also should not be cheating. Of course both happen in the f2f world but it is a lot more prevalent with the anonymity of the Internet. But just because people cheat is not a reason to legalise it.

I think the online laws should be used to drive the software/service providers, like BBO, to provide functionality that is compatible with the laws. I appreciate that the Full Disclosure convention card was an experiment about automating alerts and I'm sure it has provided feedback that will be useful if people look at this topic again, but, at a minimum, the default settings should not show your alerts to partner (I'm pretty sure that BBO would have done this if they had continued development of Full Disclosure).

A more fundamental example on BBO is the Undo button. This is not compatible with the laws as it should be under the control of the Director, not the opponents. Undos should be allowed in some circumstances, but often are never permitted. This is not a problem with the unregulated games, but I would have expected the ACBL, and other NBOs who run games, to pressure BBO to change its functionality. However it appears, as an outsider, that they are quite happy to run with what they have.

But I would prefer that the functionality of BBO is not the principal driver that dictates the online laws. I think it should come from the f2f game.

[blackshoe]

It has always seemed to me that the rules of the game should drive the software, rather than the other way around, but that does not seem to be the way things have evolved.

[hotShot]

 blackshoe, on 2011-February-01, 07:04, said:

It has always seemed to me that the rules of the game should drive the software, rather than the other way around, but that does not seem to be the way things have evolved.

It's not so much a problem with the software (at tournaments the TD can do a lot).

If you play an informal game with your friends, you will deal with bad claims and plays out of turn in a cooperative and friendly way.
Somehow you will solve the problem following the laws or "house rules".

A bridge site can either hire a number of TD's and implement software that allows them to do their job,
or that allows the players to solve he problem on heir own.

It seems logical that a site with TD services will require some payment to cover the costs.

The questions is should there be simplified laws to guide the players if a problem appears e.g. playing in the MBC.
Or is it possible to find regulations that could solve problems automatically.
If a board would be played often enough a software could do an automatic poll by searching for identical bidding sequences up to a possible use of an UI and find possible bids and percentages how often they were chosen.
Sooner or later a bridge site might try to come up with an automatic TD. (There are already automatic adjustments on BBO)

The question is, should WBF, EBU or ACBL try to be the regulating authority or should they allows software developers to implement their wild ideas how to approximate the regular laws.

[bluejak]

 TimG, on 2011-January-31, 19:08, said:

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.

I do not see eliminating of revokes and bids out of turn as an advantage. If opponents cannot mange this without computer help, why should they have computer help?

[hrothgar]

 bluejak, on 2011-February-01, 09:22, said:

I do not see eliminating of revokes and bids out of turn as an advantage. If opponents cannot mange this without computer help, why should they have computer help?

My understand is that "restoring equity" is one of the fundamental guiding principles of the Laws.
One can make the argument that eliminating mechanical transgressions is an easy and effective way to help ensure equity.

Equally significant, director calls are annoying and time consuming.
I see a lot of benefit to the membership at large to being able to eliminate a large class of director calls, even if it does decrease bluejak's edge over the field.

[bluejak]

I do not just argue personally, actually.

Of course restoring equity is a big part of the Laws. Ensuring equity is completely different, however, and I do think it is fairly childish to expect the machine to have to think for you in such difficult questions as what suit to play after a club has been led.

Leads can be pretty difficult: perhaps the computer should pick your lead for you? That will help to ensure equity.

[blackshoe]

Mistakes are part of the game. If the software eliminates the possibility of (some) mistakes, then we have a different game.

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-February-01, 12:48, said:

Mistakes are part of the game. If the software eliminates the possibility of (some) mistakes, then we have a different game.

Potentially, this "different game" should have a different name (Online Bridge seems like a popular term)
This different game might even have a different set of Laws (The Laws of Online Bridge or some such)

I don't find arguments that "Online Bridge" is not identical to "F2F" Bridge compelling...
I don't see why the two need to be identical in each and every way.

You and Dave are more than welcome to argue that Fred Gittleman, Matt Clegg and the like should go and recode their GUIs to permit players to make mechanical errors. Perhaps, if these arguments had been advanced 20 years (and however billons of hands) ago you might have convinced people that you're right. I think that this is one of those cases where hysteresis is going to win out.

I understand the arguments that eliminating mechanical errors eliminates a broad class of errors that (preferably) would be punished in a game of mental concentration.

Balanced against this, eliminating mechanical errors

1. Also decreases the roll that "luck" plays. Many players do make mechanical errors when the play a card / make a bid. (I suspect that these sorts of mechanical errors are much more common when playing at a computer than at the table)

2. Makes things proceed much more smoothly...

[pooltuna]

 bluejak, on 2011-February-01, 09:22, said:

I do not see eliminating of revokes and bids out of turn as an advantage. If opponents cannot mange this without computer help, why should they have computer help?

This is the stupidest comment I have ever seen you make.

[blackshoe]

 hrothgar, on 2011-February-01, 13:23, said:

I don't find arguments that "Online Bridge" is not identical to "F2F" Bridge compelling...
I don't see why the two need to be identical in each and every way.

Nor do I. I simply pointed out that they're not. So?

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-February-01, 13:50, said:

Nor do I. I simply pointed out that they're not. So?

Cashews are not a "nut"...

[blackshoe]

Really? I didn't know that.

[Vampyr]

 hrothgar, on 2011-February-01, 13:23, said:

I don't find arguments that "Online Bridge" is not identical to "F2F" Bridge compelling...
I don't see why the two need to be identical in each and every way.

I don't think they need to be or can be. I also don't think that there is anything contradictory in people playing, and NBOs sponsoring, a different game alongside bridge.

[shintaro]

Perhaps the answer is Simple

Leave Online Bridge out of NBO's jurisdition

[Vampyr]

 shintaro, on 2011-February-07, 15:11, said:

Perhaps the answer is Simple

Leave Online Bridge out of NBO's jurisdition

This would make sense, but I don't think that the ACBL or any other NBO involved in online bridge wants to give up the extra masterpont sales.

[Free]

(I haven't read all the replies, so don't shoot me if I repeat something)

Imo it's pretty useless to make regulations for online bridge. Since bridge programs are modified on a regular basis, the rules would have to be modified with them. Basically you'd need rules for each program seperately. Moreover, everyone can create a new program with a new approach to the game anyway.

A quick example: at this moment BBO lets us explain our own alerts. What if they suddenly change their philosophy and let our partner alert and explain? The regulations would have to be modified again. If BBO doesn't change this but a new player on the market uses that concept, the rules will have to be modified as well.

Making up rules that you can't make people obey is also ridiculous. Saying that nobody may peek in his notes or have any other forms of communication during play is impossible to check. Bridge programs could (in theory) install some sort of spyware to check if MSN is on, or if we have a Word file open, but that would be very restricting (I'm allowed to chat with other friends right?) and far from fool proof (people can also just print their notes). If you want to cheat, you can cheat. And I haven't even started about FD...

[bluejak]

Your first point, about differences, has three answers.

Consider your example: Laws could be made to cover both alerting and self-alerting. Furthermore, areas that the authorities consider might have more than one approach could be covered by Regulation rather than Laws, compare rules for what to alert in F2F bridge. Furthermore, if a set of Laws was decided on and agreed I would expect OLB in future to follow it, so BBO, for example, would not introduce software that does not follow the Laws.

Your second point, about ability to apply Laws, has two answers.

However difficult it is to apply the Laws online, that is no reason whatever not to make them. Fewer people cheat than you suppose: the world has not yet reached the situation where people expect to cheat. But if you do not create Laws, how does anyone know whether something is cheating or not? You need to set the rules so people know what they are required to do. Second, while cheating may be easy in some cases, it is not in others, and it is no reason not to set Laws.

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2011-February-23, 11:18, said:

Fewer people cheat than you suppose: the world has not yet reached the situation where people expect to cheat.

No, but it is undesirable to create a situation where those who do not cheat will be at a serious disadvantage to those who do.

I think that the only real solution to checking your CC or notes is to make it legal in online bridge. This seems practical and sensible, and, due to the ephemeral nature of some online partnerships, certain to produce a more enjoyable game.