On-line Law

[blackshoe]

Probably, yeah. Not sure that the MS site allowed the TD to adjust the score, but it was long ago so I may have forgotten some aspects.

[nige1]

I was surprised this went undiscussed so far. I fully agree that claim management should be automated completely, at least for all but top level competition and perhaps even there too. The current non-electronic rules are contorted, encourage weak players to make rash choices, deter strong players from making reasonable claims, leave room for gamesmanship on both sides and require TDs to spend much time producing verdics which rarely convince all - so an automated solution can hardly be worse. Having said that, I'm not wholly comfortable with the actual solution proposed by nige1. I like the fact that it is automated, and that it avoids the minefield of stating/following a line of play. But there is that small risk of a 'fishing expedition' by Declarer, and perhaps also the opposite risk of a 'fishing expedition' by opponents keen to defend double-dummy. More important to my eyes, this solution maintains the 'induced confusion' risk of current non-electronic rules, in that a player may be disconcerted by the request to play on and then make errors he would not have made had he omitted to claim and simply played to the end (I note on BW that even top players are wary of this risk and advise against playing on after a claim is disputed).

Does anyone else share these concerns and/or or have an alternative solution?

 

• When a f2f claim is disputed, current duplicate Bridge claim law rulings create controversy.
• Many BridgeWinner posters seem to believe that it's unethical for ordinary players to dispute inadequate expert claims.
• The BBO online claim protocol is similar to Rubber Bridge law and seems to be an improvement but it has drawbacks, as Pescetom points out.
• I think Sven Pran once suggested that declarer should lay down his claim, card by card, in the order that he intends to play the tricks.
• Charles Outred thinks claims should be outlawed. Declarer should play on to the last trick.

[pescetom]

• When a f2f claim is disputed, current duplicate Bridge claim law rulings create controversy.
• Many BridgeWinner posters seem to believe that it's unethical for ordinary players to dispute inadequate expert claims.
• The BBO online claim protocol is similar to Rubber Bridge law and seems to be an improvement but it has drawbacks, as Pescetom points out.
• I think Sven Pran once suggested that declarer should lay down his claim, card by card, in the order that he intends to play the tricks.
• Charles Outred thinks claims should be outlawed. Declarer should play on to the last trick.

 

My suggestion FWIW would be for the rules to specify a simple algorithm for declarer play: if declarer retains that there is no better way to play the rest of the hand, then he 'claims' (without specifying any number of tricks) and manual play ceases definitively. The system will then play out the rest of the hand by following the algorithm for declarer and optimal double dummy play for defence. The score obtained will be definitive.

The algorithm would be along the lines of some RA regulations for resolving disputed claims with no stated line of play: pull trumps first, then play off the other suits, always playing high cards first. It would however be a bit more sophisticated, being able to perform basics like not blocking a suit and playing off a cross ruff final, but not taking impasses or seeking end plays or whatever.

As an incentive to claim, the declarer might accrue a time bonus or even a points bonus, awarded on the basis of the number of tricks played automatically.

 

One obvious argument against this would be that it is generous to beginners and limits experts, but the majority of players are neither and in any case I'm not certain this argument is valid. Ordinary opponents might be grateful that a beginner can claim in a timely fashion rather than playing painfully slow in fear of a mistake. Experts who can see a more promising line of play can always just play it out, Outred style (and with the current rules they are well advised to do that anyway). Another argument of course is that it is incompatible with non-electronic play, except perhaps in a vugraph like situation.

[blackshoe]

Whatever algorithm you come up with, it will turn out in practice to have unexpected flaws - and so people will still bitch about claims.

[pescetom]

Whatever algorithm you come up with, it will turn out in practice to have unexpected flaws - and so people will still bitch about claims.

Well nobody should expect it to do anything more than it promises, and that should be simple enough to state in a few lines. The objective is merely to play out "boring" situations automatically in a simple predictable way. If people want better play than that then they provide it themselves. It should of course be possible to practice with the algorithm to get a better idea of what it can and cannot do in various situations. The algorithm would be public so nobody could claim it was unexpected, at most unduly dumb.

[nige1]

My suggestion FWIW would be for the rules to specify a simple algorithm for declarer play: if declarer retains that there is no better way to play the rest of the hand, then he 'claims' (without specifying any number of tricks) and manual play ceases definitively. The system will then play out the rest of the hand by following the algorithm for declarer and optimal double dummy play for defence. The score obtained will be definitive.The algorithm would be along the lines of some RA regulations for resolving disputed claims with no stated line of play: pull trumps first, then play off the other suits, always playing high cards first. It would however be a bit more sophisticated, being able to perform basics like not blocking a suit and playing off a cross ruff final, but not taking impasses or seeking end plays or whatever. As an incentive to claim, the declarer might accrue a time bonus or even a points bonus, awarded on the basis of the number of tricks played automatically. One obvious argument against this would be that it is generous to beginners and limits experts, but the majority of players are neither and in any case I'm not certain this argument is valid. Ordinary opponents might be grateful that a beginner can claim in a timely fashion rather than playing painfully slow in fear of a mistake. Experts who can see a more promising line of play can always just play it out, Outred style (and with the current rules they are well advised to do that anyway). Another argument of course is that it is incompatible with non-electronic play, except perhaps in a vugraph like situation.

If Bridge-law specified Pescetom's claim algorithm, then (as Pescetom implies) some players would do better to claim rather than to play the hand out. This practice could reduce the opportunity for such players to improve their declarer play

[pran]

If Bridge-law specified Pescetom's claim algorithm, then (as Pescetom implies) some players would do better to claim rather than to play the hand out. This practice could reduce the opportunity for such players to improve their declarer play

We have an (unwritten) "law" among directors that the Director shall never directly be involved in actually playing the cards for a player, his job is to judge the play suggested by the player.

The same rule should apply to any computerized bridge-law.

[blackshoe]

The algorithm would be public so nobody could claim it was unexpected, at most unduly dumb.

ROFL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[pescetom]

ROFL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I would save that for:

I’ve even encountered players who didn’t think it odd to open the auction with a double “because I’ve no 5 card”.

I find this genial - now Partner's redouble shows minors and 1♣ is Stayman B-)

 

Best Wishes.

[pescetom]

We have an (unwritten) "law" among directors that the Director shall never directly be involved in actually playing the cards for a player, his job is to judge the play suggested by the player.

The same rule should apply to any computerized bridge-law.

 

Under this proposal the Director is not even involved in play-out situations, let alone involved in the actual play. Note that the player when he hit the "trivial play" button wilfully chose to surrender his right to play further and entrusted the system do to so on the basis that the remaining play was trivial and time wasting. This is of course different from current Law, but not I think in contradiction with it's spirit or objectives. Claims were born to save time by eliminating pointless playing out, not to showcase Declarer's analytical skills, to take advantage of trustful opponents or to create interesting dilemmas for Directors.

[pran]

We have an (unwritten) "law" among directors that the Director shall never directly be involved in actually playing the cards for a player, his job is to judge the play suggested by the player.

The same rule should apply to any computerized bridge-law.

 

Under this proposal the Director is not even involved in play-out situations, let alone involved in the actual play. Note that the player when he hit the "trivial play" button wilfully chose to surrender his right to play further and entrusted the system do to so on the basis that the remaining play was trivial and time wasting. This is of course different from current Law, but not I think in contradiction with it's spirit or objectives. Claims were born to save time by eliminating pointless playing out, not to showcase Declarer's analytical skills, to take advantage of trustful opponents or to create interesting dilemmas for Directors.

 

That would be perfectly OK and in accordance with the (current) laws if the algorithm (as shall the Director) in any case of reasonable doubt chooses the alternative least favourable to the claimer.

[stanmaz]

Sorry if this is a silly question, but I was reading some stuff on github and ran across the following:

 

 

 

What if the meaning of my bids change by seat?

 

For example, a 2♠ opening in first seat means foo, but a 2!S opening in 4th seat means bar?

Is this supported?

New version has been released resolving the problem of seat dependent openings. Example of MOSCITO code for 1D and 2S openings :

 

Default code for all seats

, 1D, 9-14 HCP; 4+ hearts

, 2S, weak twosuiter (Muiderberg)

overriden by 3rd seat code

---- , 1D, 10-16 HCP; 11-13 balanced OR a Precision 1D

---- , 2S, 6-10 HCP in third position (fivecard possible)

and by 4th seat code

------, 1D, 10-16 HCP; 11-13 balanced OR a Precision 1D

------, 2S, 10-12 HCP with sixcard in fourth position

 

Other new features :

- wildcards in the bidding context

- Alt-key shortcuts

- on-the-fly selectable optional code blocks for defensive bidding depending on conventions used by opponents

- support for touch screen

[pescetom]

This Bridgewinners discussion stirs debate about the possible strategies of time management in bridge. A lot of the discussion is dedicated to face to face bridge but the OP and some other posters discuss the way ahead for online bridge too. In particular, if you scroll down far enough you will find the post that I quote below (sure Peter won't mind) - an appropriate reminder that all this is already feasible and just waiting to be wisely regulated.

 

 

Hi all,

 

The participants of the Hungarian top championships have not met this problem for more than a year.

 

Many of you already know that in Hungary we have played every major events on tablets with the LoveBridge system since the fall of 2018.

 

We measure everything what you need, we provide extremely detailed statistics, and we literally erased every issue regarding slow play.

 

More than just that. The TD can set a certain timeframe in the system (say 2 or 3 minutes) and the system automatically bans the next board if you don’t finish the previous board(s) in time. (Of course you can switch this feature off if you don’t like it.)

 

I have to share, that among the many statistics we already have (check https://stats.lovebridge.com/ ), the very first one was about the speed of the players. The two data was very simple: average time needed for the next bid, average time needed for a card to be played. Everyone received their own data confidentially. Of course we had our slow pairs. We all knew them. But when those pairs who frequently could not finish in time, and were not allowed to play the second board, finally understood that this is because of them: they ALL started to play faster. This is easy: you measure reliably, give consequent feedback and you get great improvement.

 

When the system takes a board away, the TD is automatically called. TDs arriving to the table, get all the data on their own tablets: showing the consumed time by NS and EW. TD can see whether the players finished the previous round in time, whether they arrived to the table in time, whether the table itself was free or not and if not, how long was the delay (at each of the previous questions). Having all these data TDs have no problem to decide who to penalize.

 

(Just to mention: it is not only about slow play, but the proof of the BIT is also there, perfectly.)