csdenmark

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

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.

Yeah, we do. So let me ask you: what are you tallking about? B) 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.

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.

Could we not perhaps have a "Precision Player's Flag" or some method of identifying a precision player without having to scan profiles?) For Precision I play: Belladonna/Garozzo with Roman defense(Standard/SUPER) - Viking - Power - Icelandic - Meckwell. If you know any of above you will be welcome by me. Does anyone know of an easy way to build a conv card from a document (MSWord or Excel)? There is none. You need to invest an hour or perhaps two yourself.

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.

I very very doubt that the discussions that take place on the BBO forums have any meaningful impact on any one specific ruling. Lets assume for the moment tht some TD made the worst ruling the world has every seen. This is pointed out on the forums, and the TD actually changes his mind about the ruling. None of this matters at all. The TD doesn't have any way to change the socres after the fact. Even if he could change the scores, BBO tournaments are (essentially) meaningly. Who really cares if he gets things right or wrong? Maybe/maybe not. But there have been many complaints against ACBL. That is broadly discussed despite people signing up there have all accepted that complaints must be filed to a mail-box. I have seen no referring to a response coming from that. Often they put up complaints same or next day. I am not ACBL and have nothing with them to do. But disloyalty, as such are proof of, ought to be rejected instead of debated by those regarding themselves as fair and serious. Even so, I think that the process over discussing these types of issues is a very useful one. There is value in educating Tournaments Directors and players about the law. Which law? Your law? My law? ACBL law? Chinese law? etc. On a more global level, as you point out individual sponsoring organizations have broad lattitude in how they choose to apply the laws. At the moment, the world of online bridge is extremely chaotic because no one is quite sure who the sponsoring organizations ultimately will be. I think its completely unclear whether a single unified sponsoring organization will ever emerge representing the Online Bridge Community, or, alternatively, whether existing geographically based Zonal Organizations extend their mandate in the electronic arena... If I had to place a bet, I'd guess that both systems will emerge in parallel. I would love to join such an organization. I think they will adopt most of ordinary rules - but the really point is they are binding prescriptions to their members and nobody else. But violations of those laws will certainly be right to discuss in this Forum. (Its going to be VERY interesting when the "Internet" wants to start submitting teams for the Bermuda Bowl) Very exciting and difficult to wait for. That is going to be a real challenge from a new world - an eyeopener you may say!

The problems coming up in all of these threads about ruling and TD's arise because some think they need to apply to rules others don't know about and which have no authority on internet at all. Bridge rules which is mostly referred to applies only to the members of the respective organizations. There is no such organiazation on Internet and therefore no general rules to apply and no rules to violate. The binding rules on BBO are the general rules as outlined in 'Rules for these sites' and nothing else. Rules for tournaments are set by the organizer alone. The repeatedly appealings to BBO Forum makes no sense as we dont know the specific rules to be applied by ILACY, BBO Land, Satto, ACBL etc. What they have in common is they offer their service on BBO platform. Their rules are likely to be the same ones organizing tourneys on JBridge, Swan Bridge, Yahoo etc. but they decide for themselves. Often it looks to me that posters here appeal to BBO Forum bypassing the rules for their joined event specifying how to appeal decisions.

The FD file has impossible negative. Helene - If you want your file to be distributed as a free download from bridgeFILES you will be welcome. Please mail me the file + possible additional information. Please ensure I will receive possible updates. If you think it is a high quality product offered for purchase only that will be OK too.

According to convention card for Berkowitz-Cohen they dont play transfer-positives. It is therefore most likely they play ordinary continuation after 1♣-1NT. Those champion systems I know of playing transfer positive are Meckwell and Icelandic. They both use 1♥ as balanced. It matters very little which kind of continuations you use after 1♣. I know very well many think it matters. What matters in Precision, as well in all other strong systems, are 2 topics and those only: - Limit openings - Principle of captaincy Those takes years to get right. To put up bid sequences in BBO Forum is of no real importance. To play a good Precision you can use any version with any combination of bids. The simplest one is Kathy Wei's 'Simplified Precision.' Good as anything else. Still it is so the ultimative Precision version is Belladonna/Garozzo.

I think and hope you know that it is NOT your downloaded Bidedit version you watch on BBO. You upload the BSS-file and watch it on Bidedit version residing on BBO server which might be with different configure settings than your private version.

No matter how simple it might be to create such a tool it will be nothing than waste of time and good spirit. 95% of the players have problems to know their fairly simple basic systems adding a few conventions. None of these are relevant users - they need default card. Several of the rest, myself inclusive, have already entered the relevant system(s) and we will neither be relevant. Well for practicing programming skills the task might be useful - but for nothing else. I agree with Richard that important tasks ought to have priority. I will also be able to name a list like Richard even it will be different. What is GUI?

Exactly - therefore I often wonder why it is needed to discuss unendlessly about what looks like fairly simple to do for any solid computer-specialist. I think not everything need to be scheduled by Fred but of course the correct specifications, the correct intensions and the needed loyalty must be there. Ought not to be a problem. Unfortunately I am not a programmer - I am a banker but working with re-engineering for many years. So I have good knowledge but this kind of specific tasks I will not be able to handle. Bidedit looks like a small straightforward application(128KB + 3KB for a configure file). I think it will be fairly simple to construct such a stand-alone application in Assembler or C++. It is not needed that Fred will use it - as long it produces bss-files in correct format according to configuration file.

There are some basic problems the impact of which are popping up everywhere. They are not dealt with - they are difficult to deal with but very important. It is no solution to deal with them as individual problems - they are like water and money looking for other ways as soon you think a feasible solution to the problem has been found.

I switched my computer and installed BBO from beginning. I saw the new colour scheme - different than the old one but looks nice. There is one default colour which really matters. It is 'Who's turn'. I think we all have experienced this notification to a player is the crucial default. Unfortunately it is chosen in the new colour scheme, as it always has been, not to catch the attention of the person which need it.

Wayne you have been yellow for several years so I really wonder this can be new to you. There have never been a firm policy on moral standard on BBO. It is still so. The problems will not go away by themselves - they will grow.

Claus, the island of Mors must grow some pretty potent weed. Clearly you were smoking some when you wrote this. How can you become a novelist without reading novels? How can you get insights into filmaking without watching Bergman or Kurosawa? (John Wayne??????????????) Kibitzing is an fabulous way to improve your game. Easy solution to all this is not to play in any tournaments where kibbitzers are not allowed. No Ron I am not. I think people are upset because they think they are deprived their right to learn. And that has no sense. First they are deprived no right - In rules for these sites, as I remember, Fred states that kibitzing is a privilege. I am not sure I agree or disagree to that. But my message was that this it is not about your options to learn. It is nothing else than your option to enjoy and to have a nice time. If you want to learn bridge you need to study and to practice. By kibitzing you are mostly amazed of what is happening but rarely have the knowledge to know why you are amazed. - And that is necessary if you intend to try to do something of the same kind yourself. It is fun to watch Balicki/Zmudzinski but if you want to play Polish Club you need to study Matula.

As I understand you now is that 2 pairs online at the same time. They are in contact with each and then they agree to play for 2 hours. Perfect. Thats is rarely possible. When I am asked for a pair to join my table I often have only one seat free and when I have 2 seats free I am never asked by a pair. I want a pair but I need to accept what I am offered and that is 2 individuals. I think most table hosts try to accept 4th player to be of either same playing strenght or from same nation as the one who is already there. Simply trying to emulate a partnership. Referring to my example from above. As we will not be able to make a game today we will look forward for other o0ptions. I intend to ask my partner: 'Maybe we can find a partnership on the desk who want a game tomorrow.' Are anybody asking for a 2 hours game tomorrow evening where my partner will be available. There have earlier been wishes for something about arrangement for team matches. As I see it such is very much the same as the topic I put up here with the exception that it is in fact more complicated as at least 8 persons are needed. But I think it is the same structure to be used for a possible solution.

With respect I may misunderstand you. The problem is I am online and my partner is online. We look for a partnership. Lets say 1 of a partnership is online and he has an agreement with his partner to come in 15 minutes. Well my partner will not wait for that. This means we are 3 persons now and 3 persons in 15 minutes. - But not the same 3 persons and never 4 persons as we need to be.

I signed up at partnershipdesk.com trying to find out what is was and how it is working. But looks I cannot come very near to the point as I am no member of ACBL and that info looks necessary.

I am not asking for something very specific. Once because I am not sure of the best way, second because I want an exchange of views on this topic and third because I know Fred want the freedom to come up with solutions often with something extra. But it is more difficult to handle pairs than individuals. It is therefore we have all those random partnerships. I think very few of those evolve into partnerships leaving this table. Therefore it is difficult to find a pair at exact the time I want a pair. So some kind of pair partnership desk, similar to that what BBO Poland sat up as they ran team tournaments. Thats for establishing new pairs. But also a schedule desk to make arrangements. I think of table for Masters Club but could of course be a team tournament as well. Any other proposals with the aim of building on pairs instead of only individuals? Building on pairs I think will be needed to for all to see the benefits of their system and the benefits of creating a convention card for that.

Kibitzing is mostly a poor way spending your time. You will not be a filmmaker by watching John Wayne. You will not be an author reading books. You will not be cyclist watching Tour de France. You will not be bridge player by kibitzing. Sorry to say - there is no other way than hard work.

In fact, the first one is where I get by clicking on Help in the Lobby of BBO. The first one is a more recent one, too. It covers BBO 4.7.0 (according to a meta tag inside the HTML source). The latter one describes the behaviour of BBO version 3.6.3. Obviously the Help button gets us to different versions of the documentation. I wonder if this is because of different default browsers. Or maybe different BBO versions? I think I'm using the latest beta - at least I downloaded it ;) - but can't check now really. Opera is one of the 9.x versions I just read a notice that Firefox now releases an Alpha version of Firefox 3.0. I found a link to a survey for usage of Firefox. This may explain why you use it and I do not. This therefore also explains something about my initial response. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36252

Occasionally I am offered a pair for opps. I think I once over 4-5 years have been able to accept. I think we all are annoyed about random partnerships, no matter it is as for ourselves or for opps. Too many misunderstandings arises from that. There are other requirements for pairing pairs than pairing individuals. But the intensions are just the same. Once there were organized team tournaments where individuals tested new partnerships. As the community has atomized this seems no longer possible or perhaps the organizers have been tired. To accept pairs are of course not so complicated but much unstructured messaging is needed and mostly in languages players are not so very good at. I think a pair desk would be a good solution. I also think it will be rather simple to implement. I assume a 'php' web-site will be able to do the trick. There will need to be a visible link to such a site from Lobby.

Well done Gwen. I really support your hard work trying to push the participants into a position where they need to prove they are cooperative. We really need some who take a firm position and try to pursue their objectives. All ought to support you in this hard struggle to the benefit of all.