A Question

[barmar]

Claus says he's not "bound by" the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge because he's not a member of the SO. But the Laws are not specific to any SO, they're the "rules" of the game called Duplicate Bridge. If you're not following the Laws, you're essentially playing a different game. This game may be very similar to Duplicate Bridge, and you may call it that as well, but it will be difficult to tell when you're talking about real Duplicate Bridge versus this ersatz version. The ambiguity may not be a problem in casual conversation, but when you're trying to have detailed discussions like these threads it can really confuse things.

[blackshoe]

Maybe we just need instead to go ahead with rubbish discussions. Hopefully something will come from that - but the rating will be poorer.

 

The purpose of this forum, as I understand it, is to provide a place for TDs to get advice on how to be a good TD. Some aspects of that are unique to the online environment, some aren't. However, IMO, all such aspects are relevant, including how to rule in specific cases under the laws of bridge. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that subject, in particular, is "rubbish" and a waste of time. I disagree. Strongly. I think you do a disservice to those of us who are trying to be helpful in that regard here, as well as to those who are trying to learn.

[csdenmark]

We need to know what we are talking about!

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.

[csdenmark]

Claus says he's not "bound by" the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge because he's not a member of the SO.  But the Laws are not specific to any SO, they're the "rules" of the game called Duplicate Bridge.  If you're not following the Laws, you're essentially playing a different game.  This game may be very similar to Duplicate Bridge, and you may call it that as well, but it will be difficult to tell when you're talking about real Duplicate Bridge versus this ersatz version.  The ambiguity may not be a problem in casual conversation, but when you're trying to have detailed discussions like these threads it can really confuse things.

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.

[golfacer]

I think there are several more important characteristics of a good BBO director than memorizing all of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge:

Nobody said anything about memorizing the laws. A good TD reads his rulings from the book. He doesn't need to memorize the laws, nor should he (if he tries, he might well get a ruling wrong).

I agree. I might have misinterpreted this part of sceptic's original post:

 

My question to you all is what do you consider makes a good TD, someone willing to study the laws

[hotShot]

The BBO environment has done a lot to ease the live of TD's.

 

Most of the problems a f2f TD has to solve won't happen.

Insufficient bids, bids/play out of turn, revokes, correct movement mistakes and calculate the tourney result are all solved by the software.

 

So only the tough problems like BIT (Break in Tempo), UI (unauthorized information) and MI (Misinformation) are left.

(And the subbing that is unknown to f2f TD's.)

 

Here we get to a big difference between f2f Bridge TD's and BBO TD's.

 

A f2f TD's job is not to practice justice, but to keep the tourney running. That is why the rules for these tough cases say, that the TD should decide fast and when in doubt favor the non offending side. The offending side should take the case to an Appeals Committee and they have the time and even additional rights to do justice.

 

A BBO TD has to do the judging by himself and without a proper time frame.

Unlike a committee he can't discuss the case with others.

 

I hope the BBO environment will improve in the following way:

 

1) The software should delay fast bids (they should at least take a second) and mark every bid that took longer than 3 (name a different time, if you like) seconds to make. This way fast bids are harder to detect for the players and slow bids are recorded for the TD to be seen.

 

2) The TD should be able to mark boards as "waiting for decision" or "under investigation" and the results given should be marked as "not final" until all boards are reviewed.

 

3) The TD should have some sort of bridgebrowser feature showing him, what other players of the same skill level, bid/played at that point. If the tourney is large enough there should be all LA's covered.

[DrTodd13]

The software should record how long it took to make each bid and play. I don't see the need to delay fast bids or plays, especially by only 2 seconds. A director pressed for time should be able to mark boards for further study as you suggest and when he reviews those boards he should see the time that each bid or play took. Even in a big tourney, the exact sequence may not come up and even if it does come up it might not come with enough frequency to make an effective poll. Somebody else's suggestion of having a way of asking people of a certain skill level what they would do would be a cool feature.

 

I don't see that much of a difference between online and f2f TDs. Sure, the f2f TDs deal mostly with mechanical problems, lead-out-of-turn, revoke, etc. They still have to deal with BIT, UI, MI as well. Both TDs goal should be to make the tournament run smoothly but also to follow the rules. Sure, we can do anything we like but unless we are following the laws of duplicate bridge I don't think it is fair to call it bridge.

 

Right now, I think one big problem with online TDs is their failure to adequately act as a sponsoring organization. They are in effect mini-sponsoring organizations and therefore have many rights under the laws of bridge. What online TDs tend to do however is to not tell people what the rules are until the situation arises and then they make it up on the fly rather than following the rules of bridge. Sure, they may have the authority to ban a system if they say so prior to the start of play but they can't say anything and then 5 hands in decide that forcing pass shouldn't be allowed. Many online TDs are just woefully ignorant of their responsibilities as a sponsoring organization and of the laws themselves. Perhaps along with each board a TD has under review, a flowchart should be presented to aid in the collection of facts and to guide the ruling. Where flowcharts differ legally between sponsoring organizations you can have multiple flowcharts that are selected at tourney creation time. At the end of the flowchart after questions have been answered perhaps an automatic adjustment can be made. To some degree this would solve the problem of automatically awarding an adjusted score in the absence of any damage.

[hotShot]

Favoring the NOS in the laws alway had in mind, that the OS will have to appeal. Without an appeals committee favoring the NOS is just unfair.

But the people are used to be favored by the TD and get away with it, if the OS don't care to appeal.

 

I agree that not all LA's might show up, but I prefer a solution that will work on it's own to one that involves other resources. It gives the TD at least some sort of hint. But i agree that it would be a cool feature.

 

The the main problem that some (or even a lot) of online TD's know that they have little knowledge of the laws of bridge and if a player selfskilled as Expert+ claims to have better knowledge of the laws and demands an adjustment, they make the adjustment even if it's wrong. (I have seen this with f2f TD beginners as well).

[blackshoe]

Sorry I see now the post was not Ben's but yours. I dont know your identity.

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

 

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.

 

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>

[blackshoe]

Most of the problems a f2f TD has to solve won't happen.

Insufficient bids, bids/play out of turn, revokes, correct movement mistakes and calculate the tourney result are all solved by the software.

 

So only the tough problems like BIT (Break in Tempo), UI (unauthorized information) and MI (Misinformation) are left.

(And the subbing that is unknown to f2f TD's.)

 

Here we get to a big difference between f2f Bridge TD's and BBO TD's.

 

A f2f TD's job is not to practice justice, but to keep the tourney running. That is why the rules for these tough cases say, that the TD should decide fast and when in doubt favor the non offending side. The offending side should take the case to an Appeals Committee and they have the time and even additional rights to do justice.

 

A BBO TD has to do the judging by himself and without a proper time frame.

Unlike a committee he can't discuss the case with others.

 

I hope the BBO environment will improve in the following way:

 

1) The software should delay fast bids (they should at least take a second) and mark every bid that took longer than 3 (name a different time, if you like) seconds to make. This way fast bids are harder to detect for the players and slow bids are recorded for the TD to be seen.

 

2) The TD should be able to mark boards as "waiting for decision" or "under investigation" and the results given should be marked as "not final" until all boards are reviewed.

 

3) The TD should have some sort of bridgebrowser feature showing him, what other players of the same skill level, bid/played at that point. If the tourney is large enough there should be all LA's covered.

That first set of problems almost all are matters of Law - that is, the ruling is mechanical, and does not require judgement on the part of the TD. In such cases, an appeals committee can do no more than recommend to the TD that he change his ruling - they cannot overrule the TD on a point of Law (see Law 93B3).

 

The "tough" law problems you mention all require judgement. Here the AC can overrule the TD - but they need a damn good reason.

 

You say "a f2f TD's job is not to practice justice, but to keep the tourney running." You're mistaken. As the Laws themselves say "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." and "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." I recommend you read Law 81, which deals with the duties and powers of the TD.

 

"That is why the rules for these tough cases say, that the TD should decide fast and when in doubt favor the non offending side." The rules do not say that. The only law that even approaches what you claim here is Law 85C: "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he shall make a ruling that will permit play to continue, and notify the players of their right to appeal."

 

You are correct that the software under which bridge is played online is continually evolving, and that is a good thing. Certainly the software should evolve in the direction of allowing us to play the game (and make rulings) in conformance with the laws. And I think it will.

[csdenmark]

Sorry I see now the post was not Ben's but yours. I dont know your identity.

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

 

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.

 

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.

[barmar]

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.

The differences between online and offline bridge are mostly in minor details, like the difference between spoken bidding and bid boxes, or playing with or without screens. They don't alter the fundamentals of the game. There are some laws that are irrelevant in online bridge -- certain infractions are impossible (bid/play out of turn, insufficient bid). The biggest difference is the international nature of the Internet -- there are fewer common understandings among the players, language differences can be a problem, alerting styles differ, etc.

 

You frequently mention that you're not a member of the WBF, so you're not bound by their laws. But that doesn't really make sense, because the WBF is not something that individual players are members of. It's more like a treaty organization than a government -- like the UN or NATO. It's something that the tournament sponsors generally belong to, and they agree to run games according to those laws. When you play in one of these tournaments, you're implicitly agreeing to abide by those laws as well -- you don't get to pick and choose which laws you feel apply to you. If you want your own rules, play at your own table in the MBC, don't play in organized tourneys.

[blackshoe]

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. B)

 

Blackshoe

[barmar]

I don't know why Claus claimed that you're incognito. Even before you posted your name, all he had to do was click on your handle to see your profile, then follow the homepage link. The first line there is "Hi! My name is Ed Reppert, and you have fallen into my web site. Welcome!" But we've all come to know that Claus lives in his own world, so I guess in that world anything you don't post in your signature is hidden.

[csdenmark]

The differences between online and offline bridge are mostly in minor details, like the difference between spoken bidding and bid boxes, or playing with or without screens.  They don't alter the fundamentals of the game.  There are some laws that are irrelevant in online bridge -- certain infractions are impossible (bid/play out of turn, insufficient bid).  The biggest difference is the international nature of the Internet -- there are fewer common understandings among the players, language differences can be a problem, alerting styles differ, etc.

 

You frequently mention that you're not a member of the WBF, so you're not bound by their laws.  But that doesn't really make sense, because the WBF is not something that individual players are members of.  It's more like a treaty organization than a government -- like the UN or NATO.  It's something that the tournament sponsors generally belong to, and they agree to run games according to those laws.  When you play in one of these tournaments, you're implicitly agreeing to abide by those laws as well -- you don't get to pick and choose which laws you feel apply to you.  If you want your own rules, play at your own table in the MBC, don't play in organized tourneys.

I dont think we need to argue very much. We are along the same lines but not in details. I think there are much differences but certainly not in basics which constitute we play bridge and not any other kind of card game.

 

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.

 

About WBF I think, but I really dont know, it is some kind of world association of national bridge federations. As I am member of no such one I think I am right.

 

I dont play any of those tournaments I think you are referring to but for other reasons. I am a great fan of ACBL on BBO simply because they have high standards. Those attacking them can be happy I have nothing to do with ACBL because most of those would now already have been playing their last event there.

[csdenmark]

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. B)

 

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]

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.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/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 B)

 

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. :rolleyes: 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]

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]

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]

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.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/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.