Table Talk

[matmat]

Reset score please.

[jnichols]

Perhaps the answer to the OP is that not every table on BBO is intended to be competitive Bridge. Sometimes people want to practice and learn. I occasionally play "kitchen" bridge with friends. Sometimes we follow the Laws closely. With other groups we are quite relaxed allowing a lot of table talk and undo's. It's all Bridge, just with different purposes. If you want strict adherence to the Laws then join a tournament with a TD who will enforce them. Otherwise, if you're not happy with the atmosphere at a table - politely excuse yourself and then find another table or start one yourself.

 

Let's stop putting people down just because they sometimes have a different approach to the game!

[duschek]

Perhaps the answer to the OP is that not every table on BBO is intended to be competitive Bridge.  Sometimes people want to practice and learn.

Bullseye! I wish you had written that 24 hours earlier :)

[LH2650]

"Forgive him, Theodotus, for he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe are laws of nature." - G.B. Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra

 

The correct quote is:

 

Caesar - Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

 

George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II

 

 

This is best used when replying to our English brethren who are quoting some illegal regulation out of the Orange Book.

 

 

It is a much better use of our time to have players in new partnerships agree on the fly as to the details of their system than it is to have them fill out a convention card.

[Trinidad]

Could you please learn that it's possible to state your opinion without automatically insulting everyone who disagrees with you?

I am shocked and disgusted at people who want to ignore the basic rules of bridge.

I guess the answer to Josh' question is: "No".

 

Rik

[mjj29]

Since recently joining BBO, I have noticed that many people resort to table talk during their bidding.  As a long time player, this practice has, to me, always been forbidden.

I think the correct answer is "it's techhnically illegal, but lots of people don't mind. You can advertise in your table that you don't want oppo to do this, but then you might get a lot fewer oppo".

 

The corrollory to this is to do what many friends of mine do, which is only play with people we know (but for whatever reason can't actually meet in person at that point).

 

I would say, however, that unless you are playing in an actual tourney, don't worry about it. If you are playing against a scratch then the IMPs will come flying in anyway, and at the end of the day what does the number at the bottom of the screen matter in a random game of online bridge.

 

I am shocked and disgusted at people who want to ignore the basic rules of bridge.

 

So, maybe it isn't bridge, but there's no forum for discussing the rules of "something that's very similar to bridge but not quite". I can image people setting up a table and announcing "no psychs please". That's also not bridge, but I also don't see a problem with it.

 

As people have said, BBO caters for everything from serious tournaments, to casual 'kitchen bridge' games to people who want to develop their system as they go before playing it in a 'real' event. Just because you can't meet in person to do the same thing doesn't mean you don't want the same approach to it. All the players do need to be clear what 'sort' of bridge they want played however.

[blackshoe]

When I first started posting on the BBO Forums, people would ask what the ruling should be in such-and-such situation, and I answered with what the laws (and regulations, as appropriate) said. I was, like David, somewhat shocked at the reactions I got - mostly along the lines of "who cares, it's online bridge", but sometimes with a lot more vehemence. That's fair enough, but this is a laws and rulings forum - if you ask a question like "what should the ruling be" you are going to get an answer consistent with what the laws say. Arguing then that the laws don't apply because... whatever... is pointless.

 

If someone wants to run a game, or play in a game, that ignores the laws, well, you go right ahead - but if you ask "what do the laws say about this?" don't expect to get the answer "who cares?" Not from David or I.

[helene_t]

That's fair enough, but this is a laws and rulings forum - if you ask a question like "what should the ruling be" you are going to get an answer consistent with what the laws say. Arguing then that the laws don't apply because... whatever... is pointless.

Maybe it's my bad but I usually don't pay much attention to which forum a thread is in.

 

I think this thread should have been moved to the general BBO forum, and I think it's better to do it now than never.

[jdonn]

When I first started posting on the BBO Forums, people would ask what the ruling should be in such-and-such situation, and I answered with what the laws (and regulations, as appropriate) said. I was, like David, somewhat shocked at the reactions I got - mostly along the lines of "who cares, it's online bridge", but sometimes with a lot more vehemence. That's fair enough, but this is a laws and rulings forum - if you ask a question like "what should the ruling be" you are going to get an answer consistent with what the laws say. Arguing then that the laws don't apply because... whatever... is pointless.

 

If someone wants to run a game, or play in a game, that ignores the laws, well, you go right ahead - but if you ask "what do the laws say about this?" don't expect to get the answer "who cares?" Not from David or I.

The objection is not to his answer, it's to his tone. He blatantly insulted anyone who might disagree with what he was saying, even though most here disagreed. When I told him not to do that, his defense amounted to "but I'm really sure I'm right so I'll just keep insulting people." I care more about that idiotic and insulting behavior than I do about preserving the purity of the forum topic, as I suspect do most.

 

He can tell people he is sure they are wrong without calling them names. That is something 6 year old children do, not adults.

[pran]

When I first started posting on the BBO Forums, people would ask what the ruling should be in such-and-such situation, and I answered with what the laws (and regulations, as appropriate) said. I was, like David, somewhat shocked at the reactions I got - mostly along the lines of "who cares, it's online bridge", but sometimes with a lot more vehemence. That's fair enough, but this is a laws and rulings forum - if you ask a question like "what should the ruling be" you are going to get an answer consistent with what the laws say. Arguing then that the laws don't apply because... whatever... is pointless.

 

If someone wants to run a game, or play in a game, that ignores the laws, well, you go right ahead - but if you ask "what do the laws say about this?" don't expect to get the answer "who cares?" Not from David or I.

The objection is not to his answer, it's to his tone. He blatantly insulted anyone who might disagree with what he was saying, even though most here disagreed. When I told him not to do that, his defense amounted to "but I'm really sure I'm right so I'll just keep insulting people." I care more about that idiotic and insulting behavior than I do about preserving the purity of the forum topic, as I suspect do most.

 

He can tell people he is sure they are wrong without calling them names. That is something 6 year old children do, not adults.

And honestly: Blackshoe is not the worst, at least not in my experience.

 

Sven

[blackshoe]

And honestly: Blackshoe is not the worst, at least not in my experience.

Say what? How did this thread become about me?

[jdonn]

And honestly: Blackshoe is not the worst, at least not in my experience.

Say what? How did this thread become about me?

I think he misunderstood my comment about someone else as being about you. Sorry for causing confusion if I did.

[pran]

And honestly: Blackshoe is not the worst, at least not in my experience.

Say what? How did this thread become about me?

I think he misunderstood my comment about someone else as being about you. Sorry for causing confusion if I did.

I am glad you say, because I have the best impression of Blackshoe and was rather surprised when you quoted him above.

 

I understand now that when you wrote "his" you didn't refer to him but rather to a third person, and I am very sorry for this misunderstanding by me. I certainly hope that Blackshoe will accept my sincere apology.

 

Regards Sven