[blml] Law 12 A 1.

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> 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 

Me, too! 



-- 
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wejdz do swiata wojny wampirow!
http://link.interia.pl/f1cb4