Laws on Online Bridge

[hrothgar]

For anyone who cares:

 

The WBF is gearing up to ammend the Bridge Laws.

 

As I understand matters, the next six monthes or so are one of the best times to submit suggestions, recommendations, and the like. I haven't seen much discussion about revising the Laws for Online Bridge (not even sure if this is much of a priority). Even so, it might make sense to consider submitting recommendations.

 

You can peruse the Laws for Online Bridge at http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/laws_appeals/online_laws/default.asp

 

From my perspective, the existing Online Laws are highly problematic.

 

1. The Laws don't recognize the unique nature of the online playing environment

 

The Laws maintain regulations dealing with leads out of turn, revokes, and the like that are irrelvent in any electronic playing environment that I am aware off. (Personally, I'd prefer to see the authorities bite the bullet and state that software used for electronic bridge should "block" certain types of mechanical errors)

 

2. The design / organization of the Laws seems predicated on the assumption that folks will be reading hard copy. 99.9% of the folks using this document will be doing so on a computer. I'd much rather see a well designed hyperdocument of some kind.

 

3. Parallelism with the Laws for Offline Bridge is desirable, however, I would prioritize usabily for online players ahead of maintaining a parallel numbering system.

 

Thoughts?

Comments?

 

Would it be useful to try to work our way through the Laws, item by item and see what we like / would change?

[pooltuna]

The first thing that comes to mind is the requirement to "know" your system IRL. But online notes are easily and quickly available and generally near impossible to pass UI by a quick peek. So assuming enforcability is not an issue will the WBF continue to insist on "no peeking"?

[blackshoe]

The reason for "no peeking" is not to prevent passage of UI. In fact it has nothing to do with UI, and everything to do with trying to level the playing field vis-a-vis aids to memory.

[TimG]

3. Parallelism with the Laws for Offline Bridge is desirable, however, I would prioritize usability for online players ahead of maintaining a parallel numbering system.

You should be able to do both, even if that means there are gaps in the numbering of the online Laws (as when Laws for such things as revokes are left out).

[barmar]

The reason for "no peeking" is not to prevent passage of UI. In fact it has nothing to do with UI, and everything to do with trying to level the playing field vis-a-vis aids to memory.

Agreed.

 

What's unique in online bridge is the fleeting nature of partnerships. The assumption behind the "no aids to memory" is that the players have had discussions and/or shared experience, which they are expected to remember rather than look up. But in online bridge, partnerships are frequently made on the spur of the moment, very often within a few minutes of the start of the game. The "system card" may be one of the player's profiles, or a convention card that one player loads and the other agrees to play with little chance to commit it to memory.

 

It does little good to complain that this isn't "bridge". It happens every day, so we might as well accept it and regulate it to specify when it's allowed. If we specify that "instant partnerships" are allowed to refer to their notes, I think it keeps the playing field as level as can be -- they're already at a disadvantage playing against established partnerships who have a better feel for their partners' styles, it's not fair to handicap them futher by not even knowing their own "system".

[shintaro]

Online is slightly problematic

 

If you use aN FDC you may be accused of aiding partners memory

 

If you dont use an FDC then opps are agrieved if they are not told meanings of certain bids

[barmar]

When using FDC, I think there's an option to display the meanings only to opponents, not partner.

[Vampyr]

When using FDC, I think there's an option to display the meanings only to opponents, not partner.

What is FDC? In any case, in online bridge there is no way to prevent a player from having a printout of his convention card on the table next to him, so it seems that aids to memory cannot be prohibited.

 

But is there really a need for Laws for Online Bridge? Is there any reason the online bridge should be played under the aegis of the WBF? When one plays at home with beginners, the Laws are often not followed. One may look into an opponent's hand to tell her what she should bid. Who cares?

 

As far as making recommendations is concerned, ROFLMAO.

[jillybean]

Agreed.

 

What's unique in online bridge is the fleeting nature of partnerships. The assumption behind the "no aids to memory" is that the players have had discussions and/or shared experience, which they are expected to remember rather than look up. But in online bridge, partnerships are frequently made on the spur of the moment, very often within a few minutes of the start of the game. The "system card" may be one of the player's profiles, or a convention card that one player loads and the other agrees to play with little chance to commit it to memory.

 

It does little good to complain that this isn't "bridge". It happens every day, so we might as well accept it and regulate it to specify when it's allowed. If we specify that "instant partnerships" are allowed to refer to their notes, I think it keeps the playing field as level as can be -- they're already at a disadvantage playing against established partnerships who have a better feel for their partners' styles, it's not fair to handicap them futher by not even knowing their own "system".

 

I'd rather see "instant partnerships" have access to a basic system card and notes with no extra's. Bridge is a partnership game. Long standing partnerships who have worked at their agreements and style have an advantage over other partnerships but we don't level the playing field in those cases, and why should we?

 

If new partnerships are permitted full system notes, existing partnerships are immediately disadvantaged.

 

I realise online bridge is not the same as live bridge but I'd rather see the game conforming to the laws where possible rather than creating unnecessary, new rules. Of course how and if players chose to enforce the laws is completely up to the individual.

[TimG]

But is there really a need for Laws for Online Bridge? Is there any reason the online bridge should be played under the aegis of the WBF? When one plays at home with beginners, the Laws are often not followed. One may look into an opponent's hand to tell her what she should bid. Who cares?

I don't think the idea is to impose any Laws on those playing "home bridge" (BBO's equivalent being the main bridge club) but rather to set out Laws for sanctioned online tournament play (BBO's ACBL games, for instance).

[Vampyr]

I don't think the idea is to impose any Laws on those playing "home bridge" (BBO's equivalent being the main bridge club) but rather to set out Laws for sanctioned online tournament play (BBO's ACBL games, for instance).

Online bridge is a game in which partners can be on the phone with each other, or sitting next to one another, where everyone can check their own convention card, where players can watch hands before playing them themselves... if NBOs are so desperate to make money that they wish to "sanction" these games, then they have a lot more to worry about than a new set of online laws.

[Vampyr]

I'd rather see "instant partnerships" have access to a basic system card and notes with no extra's.

 

Does BBO not have this? It works well on OKBridge.

[jillybean]

Does BBO not have this? It works well on OKBridge.

No. There is no restriction to the complexity of the card and partner will see the description of all bids, both his own and his partners.

[bluejak]

But is there really a need for Laws for Online Bridge? Is there any reason the online bridge should be played under the aegis of the WBF? When one plays at home with beginners, the Laws are often not followed. One may look into an opponent's hand to tell her what she should bid. Who cares?

In Wales my partner and I are trying to get into the national team. Unfortunately one of the things they wish us to play in competes with an important English event. Since the date was not finalised I pointed this out.

 

In the selectors' reply, apart from saying the date was finalised, they offered us the chance to play online with set hands as a means of practice, and to play other online games against other good Welsh pairs. This is not playing at home with beginners. In the same way as F2F duplicate bridge is played in "ladies' afternoon sewing circles" [more men than ladies, I guess! :lol:] and in World Championships, I do not think that the fact that some people take OLB with no seriousness whatever means that the law-makers should just write it off.

 

Online bridge is a game in which partners can be on the phone with each other, or sitting next to one another, where everyone can check their own convention card, where players can watch hands before playing them themselves... if NBOs are so desperate to make money that they wish to "sanction" these games, then they have a lot more to worry about than a new set of online laws.

Do you not feel it is wrong to consider only the money NBOs make? They provide a service appreciated by hundreds of thousands of people in the duplicates they provide around the world. If that service is extended to OLB then they are providing a service to more people. Of course they make money, but reducing it to 'desperation to make money' is extremely unfair. And if they are extending their service to OLB, should we not have consistent and fair Laws for it?

[hotShot]

The problems to solve in online bridge are:

 

Absence of a TD

 

Misinformation, caused by the lack of agreements

 

Alerting, Announcing and other regulations differ a lot worldwide.

 

Misclicks during bidding and play

 

How to handle disputed claims

 

What to do if a player is disconnected/leaves during bidding and play.

 

There is no way to enforce a rule to prohibit the use of memory aids.

 

Online tournaments allow movements and scoring that would be difficult to handle in the real world.

[Vampyr]

In Wales my partner and I are trying to get into the national team. Unfortunately one of the things they wish us to play in competes with an important English event. Since the date was not finalised I pointed this out.

 

In the selectors' reply, apart from saying the date was finalised, they offered us the chance to play online with set hands as a means of practice, and to play other online games against other good Welsh pairs. This is not playing at home with beginners. In the same way as F2F duplicate bridge is played in "ladies' afternoon sewing circles" [more men than ladies, I guess! :lol:] and in World Championships, I do not think that the fact that some people take OLB with no seriousness whatever means that the law-makers should just write it off.

 

This is no argument. OLB is a good way to practise with partners and teammates. If geographical constraints did not exist you could do it instead in a pub. The Laws have little to do with this.

 

Do you not feel it is wrong to consider only the money NBOs make? They provide a service appreciated by hundreds of thousands of people in the duplicates they provide around the world. If that service is extended to OLB then they are providing a service to more people. Of course they make money, but reducing it to 'desperation to make money' is extremely unfair. And if they are extending their service to OLB, should we not have consistent and fair Laws for it?

 

I think that it is the bridge servers that provide a service. To be quite honest, I am baffled as to why people are willing to pay more to play in a game that is nominally an "ACBL" or "EBU" or etc game. What value, exactly, do the NBOs add to the service already provided?

 

But anyway, consistent and fair Laws for OLB are an illusion, and will simply create a huge gap between those who choose to follow them and those who choose otherwise.

 

Come on, David. You are aware that when there is discussion of "serious" event being played by computer, it involves all the players meeting at a central venue, players segregated by direction into different rooms, monitors... It is generally acknowledged that this is the way an online competition that bears more than a passing relationship to bridge must be played.

[TimG]

I think that it is the bridge servers that provide a service. To be quite honest, I am baffled as to why people are willing to pay more to play in a game that is nominally an "ACBL" or "EBU" or etc game. What value, exactly, do the NBOs add to the service already provided?

I occasionally play in ACBL speedballs on BBO. I do this because the game is generally more consistent and of higher quality than pick-up opponents in the main bridge club. They are also generally of better quality than the free tournaments (in my limited experience) and they are offered regularly. (I would prefer a set game, but seldom go through the effort to set those up.) It is true that the masterpoints do not add any value to the game as far as I am concerned. But, I do think there is value in ACBL games on BBO. The value added would not have to come from an NBO, but that's the way the service is currently delivered.

But anyway, consistent and fair Laws for OLB are an illusion, and will simply create a huge gap between those who choose to follow them and those who choose otherwise.

Just because it is easy to cheat does not mean that the rules are useless. It's appears to be easy to cheat at face-to-face bridge, yet there are rules that we hardly find useless.

[bluejak]

This is no argument. OLB is a good way to practise with partners and teammates. If geographical constraints did not exist you could do it instead in a pub. The Laws have little to do with this.

No, I would not. I prefer a place where we are playing to the Laws. I find serious practice impossible otherwise. You may think differently, fair enough, but that does not mean you should not allow it for other people.

 

I think that it is the bridge servers that provide a service. To be quite honest, I am baffled as to why people are willing to pay more to play in a game that is nominally an "ACBL" or "EBU" or etc game. What value, exactly, do the NBOs add to the service already provided?

Masterpoints? Tournaments? Organisation?

 

But anyway, consistent and fair Laws for OLB are an illusion, and will simply create a huge gap between those who choose to follow them and those who choose otherwise.

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

 

Come on, David. You are aware that when there is discussion of "serious" event being played by computer, it involves all the players meeting at a central venue, players segregated by direction into different rooms, monitors... It is generally acknowledged that this is the way an online competition that bears more than a passing relationship to bridge must be played.

Absolutely not. It is completely pointless playing with computers when you are all in the same place.

 

The problem is, Stef, that you expect others to want to follow your ideas. I don't: I expect lots of others do not.

 

I, on the other hand, want to provide as good a service as possible for as many people as possible, given they have different views. And one of those possibilities is serious online bridge.

[TimG]

Absolutely not. It is completely pointless playing with computers when you are all in the same place.

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.

[barmar]

What is FDC? In any case, in online bridge there is no way to prevent a player from having a printout of his convention card on the table next to him, so it seems that aids to memory cannot be prohibited.

FDC = Full Disclosure Convention Card. It's a form of convention card on BBO where you list the meaning of precise bidding sequences, and the computer displays the explanations automatically by matching the auction against the card. By default, it displays the explanations to all 4 players, but I think there's an option to display them just to the opponents (as with explanations typed by the players). I think the rationale for this is that most people use pre-written cards provided by the system (because creating your own is fairly difficult), and they may not be aware of all the treatments on the card (it's also hard to read the card thoroughly); it's not really a "memory aid" if they never knew the explanations in the first place. This excuse reminds me of the old joke about agreeing to play your opponents' convention card, since you're always allowed to look at that when it's your turn to bid.

[mjj29]

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]

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.