[blml] Law 12 A 1.

[Brian]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:59:46 -0000
"John Probst" <john at asimere.com> wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 4:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 A 1.
> 
> 
> >
> > On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:17 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
> >
> >> Any application of the current laws to online
> >> bridge is nonsensical per se
> >
> > *That* is a serious overbid, Konrad. Some laws, yes. Not all laws.
> >
> > Online bridge *has* laws of its own. They were published by the WBF
> > - in 2001, iirc. Many of them are identical to the f2f version.
> >
> > Online bridge also has a number of vocal advocates of the position
> > that "nobody cares" what the laws of the game are, or that they are
> > "irrelevant". I wonder though - if that's true, why do people keep
> > asking whether such-and-such action is legal?
> 
> There's absolutely no reason why online software should actually
> provide you with 13 cards; no reason why insufficient bids shouldn't
> be permitted, nor revokes allowed. If anything it detracts from the
> charm of the game that mechanical errors aren't permitted. The
> trouble is that it's far harder to write software that works this
> way.  Imagine autoruling an insufficient BOOT when an opponent hits
> the TD button :)  

Absolutely. I gave Stevenson 100-1 on a 1 Euro bet some years ago that
an online site that *deliberately* permitted such errors wouldn't
appear within 10 years (there are probably 2 or 3 years left on the
bet, AFAIR). Nobody in their right minds is going to invest the time
and money into writing the code to allow such errors, and then invest
further time and money in writing code to provide corrections. 

As regards the WBF's attempt at online laws, Ed hits the nail right on
the head, "Many of them are identical to the f2f version". Yes, many
online players *DO* want to play a fair game, but (IMO) by leaving all
the irrelevant stuff in, such as dealing the cards, incorrect number of
cards, revokes, insufficient bids, etc, etc, the WBF ensured that VERY
few online players are going to be bothered actually reading those
laws, and as John says and I fully agree, it's far harder to write the
code for the online site to permit such errors rather than to prevent
them in the first place. 

I've seen more than 11,000 players on Bridge Base Online at one time,
and that was **NOT** with a VuGraph in operation. Can you imagine how
many volunteer TDs you'd need for that lot if the game were played in
accordance with the F2F laws? For example, any set of laws which says
that play must cease after a claim is simply not workable. You *don't*
have the coffee-housing trick of a deliberate bad claim in order to see
which opponent turns it down, because you don't know (on BBO) which
opponent rejected the claim. The simplest way of resolving it is to do
as happens, the hand is played out, defenders can see all four hands,
declarer can still only see his hand and dummy's. Defender claims work
in reverse, of course. No TD, and very little extra coding, required. 


Brian. 


--