bluejak Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 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.I do not see eliminating of revokes and bids out of turn as an advantage. If opponents cannot mange this without computer help, why should they have computer help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I do not see eliminating of revokes and bids out of turn as an advantage. If opponents cannot mange this without computer help, why should they have computer help? My understand is that "restoring equity" is one of the fundamental guiding principles of the Laws.One can make the argument that eliminating mechanical transgressions is an easy and effective way to help ensure equity. Equally significant, director calls are annoying and time consuming.I see a lot of benefit to the membership at large to being able to eliminate a large class of director calls, even if it does decrease bluejak's edge over the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I do not just argue personally, actually. Of course restoring equity is a big part of the Laws. Ensuring equity is completely different, however, and I do think it is fairly childish to expect the machine to have to think for you in such difficult questions as what suit to play after a club has been led. Leads can be pretty difficult: perhaps the computer should pick your lead for you? That will help to ensure equity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Mistakes are part of the game. If the software eliminates the possibility of (some) mistakes, then we have a different game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Mistakes are part of the game. If the software eliminates the possibility of (some) mistakes, then we have a different game. Potentially, this "different game" should have a different name (Online Bridge seems like a popular term)This different game might even have a different set of Laws (The Laws of Online Bridge or some such) I don't find arguments that "Online Bridge" is not identical to "F2F" Bridge compelling...I don't see why the two need to be identical in each and every way. You and Dave are more than welcome to argue that Fred Gittleman, Matt Clegg and the like should go and recode their GUIs to permit players to make mechanical errors. Perhaps, if these arguments had been advanced 20 years (and however billons of hands) ago you might have convinced people that you're right. I think that this is one of those cases where hysteresis is going to win out. I understand the arguments that eliminating mechanical errors eliminates a broad class of errors that (preferably) would be punished in a game of mental concentration. Balanced against this, eliminating mechanical errors 1. Also decreases the roll that "luck" plays. Many players do make mechanical errors when the play a card / make a bid. (I suspect that these sorts of mechanical errors are much more common when playing at a computer than at the table) 2. Makes things proceed much more smoothly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I do not see eliminating of revokes and bids out of turn as an advantage. If opponents cannot mange this without computer help, why should they have computer help? This is the stupidest comment I have ever seen you make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I don't find arguments that "Online Bridge" is not identical to "F2F" Bridge compelling...I don't see why the two need to be identical in each and every way. Nor do I. I simply pointed out that they're not. So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Nor do I. I simply pointed out that they're not. So? Cashews are not a "nut"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Really? I didn't know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I don't find arguments that "Online Bridge" is not identical to "F2F" Bridge compelling...I don't see why the two need to be identical in each and every way.I don't think they need to be or can be. I also don't think that there is anything contradictory in people playing, and NBOs sponsoring, a different game alongside bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shintaro Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Perhaps the answer is Simple Leave Online Bridge out of NBO's jurisdition :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Perhaps the answer is Simple Leave Online Bridge out of NBO's jurisdition :PThis would make sense, but I don't think that the ACBL or any other NBO involved in online bridge wants to give up the extra masterpont sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (I haven't read all the replies, so don't shoot me if I repeat something) Imo it's pretty useless to make regulations for online bridge. Since bridge programs are modified on a regular basis, the rules would have to be modified with them. Basically you'd need rules for each program seperately. Moreover, everyone can create a new program with a new approach to the game anyway. A quick example: at this moment BBO lets us explain our own alerts. What if they suddenly change their philosophy and let our partner alert and explain? The regulations would have to be modified again. If BBO doesn't change this but a new player on the market uses that concept, the rules will have to be modified as well. Making up rules that you can't make people obey is also ridiculous. Saying that nobody may peek in his notes or have any other forms of communication during play is impossible to check. Bridge programs could (in theory) install some sort of spyware to check if MSN is on, or if we have a Word file open, but that would be very restricting (I'm allowed to chat with other friends right?) and far from fool proof (people can also just print their notes). If you want to cheat, you can cheat. And I haven't even started about FD... ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Your first point, about differences, has three answers. Consider your example: Laws could be made to cover both alerting and self-alerting. Furthermore, areas that the authorities consider might have more than one approach could be covered by Regulation rather than Laws, compare rules for what to alert in F2F bridge. Furthermore, if a set of Laws was decided on and agreed I would expect OLB in future to follow it, so BBO, for example, would not introduce software that does not follow the Laws. Your second point, about ability to apply Laws, has two answers. However difficult it is to apply the Laws online, that is no reason whatever not to make them. Fewer people cheat than you suppose: the world has not yet reached the situation where people expect to cheat. But if you do not create Laws, how does anyone know whether something is cheating or not? You need to set the rules so people know what they are required to do. Second, while cheating may be easy in some cases, it is not in others, and it is no reason not to set Laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Fewer people cheat than you suppose: the world has not yet reached the situation where people expect to cheat. No, but it is undesirable to create a situation where those who do not cheat will be at a serious disadvantage to those who do. I think that the only real solution to checking your CC or notes is to make it legal in online bridge. This seems practical and sensible, and, due to the ephemeral nature of some online partnerships, certain to produce a more enjoyable game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Your first point, about differences, has three answers. Consider your example: Laws could be made to cover both alerting and self-alerting. Furthermore, areas that the authorities consider might have more than one approach could be covered by Regulation rather than Laws, compare rules for what to alert in F2F bridge. Furthermore, if a set of Laws was decided on and agreed I would expect OLB in future to follow it, so BBO, for example, would not introduce software that does not follow the Laws.Obviously software could be called 'licensed' if they follow the Laws, but that doesn't mean a new company can't start an 'unlicensed' program to play online. Who's going to stop them? Many people wouldn't care that they don't follow the online Laws by the letter. So you'd reach a situation where people can choose to obey the laws or not. Your second point, about ability to apply Laws, has two answers. However difficult it is to apply the Laws online, that is no reason whatever not to make them. Fewer people cheat than you suppose: the world has not yet reached the situation where people expect to cheat. But if you do not create Laws, how does anyone know whether something is cheating or not? You need to set the rules so people know what they are required to do. Second, while cheating may be easy in some cases, it is not in others, and it is no reason not to set Laws.Here we disagree completely. Laws should be logical (ok), but the governing body should be able penalize people breaking the rules. It's extremely hypothetical to consider cases where it's not easy to cheat while you're sitting at a computer/smartphone/ipad?/... which is online.Compare it with spitting on the pavement: it's not allowed, but still lots of people do it. I've never heard of someone getting caught or having to pay a fine for such infraction. There's no purpose of such laws if nobody takes them into account and everybody does as they please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Laws should be logical (ok), but the governing body should be able penalize people breaking the rules. It's extremely hypothetical to consider cases where it's not easy to cheat while you're sitting at a computer/smartphone/ipad?/... which is online.This is a good point. But I think there have to be limits. For example, there is no way to detect, or penalise, partners speaking on the phone together while playing. One might say that this type of behaviour would be rare, because otherwise why bother playing, and that some other things, for instance seeing or being told about hands before playing them would be too much trouble to do on a regular basis. Still, these are examples of things that really have to be illegal if the game is to have any resemblance to bridge. Perhaps resemblance to bridge is not a realistic goal, and maybe it is not really necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.