[Vampyr]

uday, on 2014-January-10, 11:59, said:

I want more people playing more bridge, even if the bridge they play has to be deemed a bastardized version of the game. I'd rather raise a mongrel than attend a funeral.

I agree with this attitude. If online bridge brings people to the game, great. The fact that what they play online is different does not seem very important. They will learn about the Laws when they attend a club or tournament.

I don't see why anyone should be bothered by this.

[nige1]

IMO the on-line game is the main hope for Bridge. The creators of on-line bridge seem to realize that bridge is a game intended for the enjoyment of players rather than the amusement of directors. Most of their simplifications improve on the face-to-face game. For example, full-disclosure, claim-protocol, and the prevention of detectable mechanical errors. They do a great job that bodes well for the future of Bridge, as soon as face-to-face law-makers can catch up.

[barmar]

I think I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge should not prevent mechanical errors like revokes, insufficient bids, and bid/play out of turn. I hope no one considers these seriously. Infractions are not necessary parts of the game, they're just something we have to deal with if they occur, so the Laws say how to address them. Even though players can sometimes take strategic advantage of them (e.g. you've wrong-sided a contract, but then the opponent leads out of turn, allowing you to right-side it and make the contract), I think people generally would say the game would be better if we never had these infractions. And it would stilll be essentially the same game (preventing these errors is arguably less bastardization than robot tourneys).

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2014-January-10, 16:17, said:

I think I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge should not prevent mechanical errors like revokes, insufficient bids, and bid/play out of turn. I hope no one considers these seriously. ...

+1

I do not want online bridge to model a game play with bits of cardboard, I want online bridge to model an idealised form of the game which is played according to the rules.

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2014-January-10, 16:17, said:

I think I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge should not prevent mechanical errors like revokes, insufficient bids, and bid/play out of turn.

I think it's just one person that suggests it a lot, not that lots of people want it. I agree it's a bad idea.

The reason no one took the first stab at online bridge laws even remotely seriously is because all the laws about what to do to fix problems that aren't actually problems in online bridge were still there.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-January-10, 13:49, said:

Most of their simplifications improve on the face-to-face game. For example ... claim-protocol...

I don't know about other bridge sites, but the BBO practice of playing on after a claim is very, very far from an improvement.

[blackshoe]

I think the first thing the group trying to come up with an online lawbook needs to do is to see if the major sites have any significant differences in the way the software works, and also list the similarities. I think both BBO and OKBridge prevent revokes and calls and plays out of turn for example. If all such sites are going to prevent those three things, then the laws surrounding them can be deleted. If there are differences in something, then the laws need to account for that.

If we can get a reasonable set of online rules, then if for example they include not playing on after a claim, folks can feel comfortable in refusing to do so. Eventually the custom of playing on should die out. Of course, if we (I include the folks running the sites in "we") don't want playing on after claims, the software ought to be able to prevent it - and that's another thing the folks writing these laws need to consider - I should think that any law which depends on software modifications would need the concurrence of the sites, or it will be pointless.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-10, 18:07, said:

I don't know about other bridge sites, but the BBO practice of playing on after a claim is very, very far from an improvement.

blackshoe, on 2014-January-10, 21:20, said:

If we can get a reasonable set of online rules, then if for example they include not playing on after a claim, folks can feel comfortable in refusing to do so. Eventually the custom of playing on should die out.

The protocol of on-line claims resembles that of rubber-bridge. The rules are simpler and more objective than WBF duplicate laws. The on-line protocol circumvents language difficulties, encourages claims, and results in a game that is fairer, faster and more fun. I hope that a future WBFLC considers the adoption of something similar for face-to-face duplicate bridge.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-January-10, 22:07, said:

The protocol of on-line claims resembles that of rubber-bridge. The rules are simpler and more objective than WBF duplicate laws. The on-line protocol circumvents language difficulties, encourages claims, and results in a game that is fairer, faster and more fun. I hope that a future WBFLC considers the adoption of something similar for face-to-face duplicate bridge.

Nigel, why do you insist on this when you know very well that a refusal of a claim usually renders the problem obvious to declarer?

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-10, 23:06, said:

Nigel, why do you insist on this when you know very well that a refusal of a claim usually renders the problem obvious to declarer?

Groundhog warning! Rubber Bridge players aren't naive. They're aware that a few players do embark on fishing expeditions or are just lazy. Refusal of a claim doesn't signal that the claimer has miscounted or that there are bad breaks. When declarer claims, defenders play on, until they accept that declarer has a simple single-dummy certainty. But since non-claimers play double-dummy, the play is still faster. The result isn't determined by a director's play skills and subjective judgement. It's a "Bridge" result.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-January-11, 08:47, said:

Refusal of a claim doesn't signal that the claimer has miscounted or that there are bad breaks.

Well. YMMV.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-10, 21:20, said:

If we can get a reasonable set of online rules, then if for example they include not playing on after a claim, folks can feel comfortable in refusing to do so. Eventually the custom of playing on should die out.

What's the alternative in games where there's no director? I think the practice of playing on after a claim is based on the rubber bridge law.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge all assume that the game is supervised by a director, or that a director can be called when necessary. That's not always true in online bridge.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-January-11, 14:00, said:

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge all assume that the game is supervised by a director, or that a director can be called when necessary. That's not always true in online bridge.

Perhaps then the laws of online bridge should be based on the rubber laws rather than the duplicate laws.

[StevenG]

For most BBO games, the Laws of Kitchen Bridge would be appropriate.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-11, 18:15, said:

Perhaps then the laws of online bridge should be based on the rubber laws rather than the duplicate laws.

Or they should have two versions, just like the laws for f2f bridge. Or laws that depend on a director could have two versions: one with a TD, one without. In fact, it seems like this would also make sense for the f2f laws -- it would ensure that the parts that aren't dependent on a TD stay in sync (unless they do it intentionally -- IIRC there were a number of years between changing the scoring rules for duplicate and rubber).

[Vampyr]

StevenG, on 2014-January-12, 03:49, said:

For most BBO games, the Laws of Kitchen Bridge would be appropriate.

The problem would be that there would be as many sets of Laws as there are kitchens.

Not that I mean to knock the game! This is what I played for 10 years with my grandparents before I ever played a hand of duplicate!

barmar, on 2014-January-12, 20:29, said:

Or they should have two versions, just like the laws for f2f bridge. Or laws that depend on a director could have two versions: one with a TD, one without. In fact, it seems like this would also make sense for the f2f laws -- it would ensure that the parts that aren't dependent on a TD stay in sync

If the Laws were better written and more comprehensive you would need a director far less frequently. Last night we played a match held privately, and had a situation with two penalty cards. Law 51A stipulate that in such a case, when both cards could be legally played to a trick, the declarer chooses which one. Our team of two county directors and two club directors did not know what happened to the other card. We had to bother one of the EBU's top directors to find the answer. He was happy to help, but we were lucky to be able to get in touch with him, since there are few others whom we would have taken so comfortably at their word.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 09:19, said:

[...]
Last night we played a match held privately, and had a situation with two penalty cards. Law 51A stipulate that in such a case, when both cards could be legally played to a trick, the declarer chooses which one. Our team of two county directors and two club directors did not know what happened to the other card. We had to bother one of the EBU's top directors to find the answer. He was happy to help, but we were lucky to be able to get in touch with him, since there are few others whom we would have taken so comfortably at their word.

Surprising.
Law 51 isn't that difficult, in fact I have always considered it one of the easiest laws in the book, and even fresh Directors seldom have any problem with it.

How detailed do you want it?

(The penalty state for cards not explicitly mentioned in Law 51 does not change!)

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 09:19, said:

If the Laws were better written and more comprehensive you would need a director far less frequently.

I don't see how this follows. The director isn't usually required to interpret the Laws, he's needed to apply the Laws in the first place. The example you gave was a case where the director needed to consult a more experienced director, that's a totally different issue -- even if the law had been perfectly written, you still would have needed the first director to apply it. Duplicate bridge doesn't allow players to make their own rulings, even in situations where the Law is easy (although many players do so anyway -- they're violating the Laws when they do it).

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-January-13, 10:56, said:

I don't see how this follows. The director isn't usually required to interpret the Laws, he's needed to apply the Laws in the first place. The example you gave was a case where the director needed to consult a more experienced director, that's a totally different issue -- even if the law had been perfectly written, you still would have needed the first director to apply it. Duplicate bridge doesn't allow players to make their own rulings, even in situations where the Law is easy (although many players do so anyway -- they're violating the Laws when they do it).

I agree in general with what you're saying, but it is still the case that simple rulings are dealt with by the players in privately-held matches (here, anyway), even if no one is a director. So we would have handled this ourselves if we had certain what was right. When the top director started to talk about lead restrictions, we told him that we were on top of those, and he was fine with that.

I don't see an alternative (or the need for one), and I suppose that technically by the time people reach the finals of the Gold Cup or the NICKO or Crockfords or local or county leagues, they have broken the Laws a fair number of times. Unless it is specifically in EBU regulations or CoC that the director delegates his duties to the players in private matches. This may well be the case.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 13:28, said:

I don't see an alternative (or the need for one), and I suppose that technically by the time people reach the finals of the Gold Cup or the NICKO or Crockfords or local or county leagues, they have broken the Laws a fair number of times. Unless it is specifically in EBU regulations or CoC that the director delegates his duties to the players in private matches. This may well be the case.

My memory, poor though it may be, tells me it's not the case. I'm not sure it's needed. Law 80B2 says, in part, "The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include appointment of the Director. If there is no appointed Director, the players should designate a person to perform his functions". So I think what should be done in matches played privately, absent some other solution in the CoC, is for the players to agree on some one person to act as director for the match. If there's an appointed director, and he's not physically present, he should make himself available by telephone, and he should be the first called if there's a problem.