[blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Brian]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:42:57 -0400
Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sep 8, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Brian wrote:
> 
> > The downside to your devolved system comes for those of us who play
> > online, where a substantial percentage of players seem to be of the
> > view that it's THEIR local regulations which are in force  
> > (particularly
> > the ACBL members, I have to say) and nobody really knows what is or
> > isn't alertable in a game where the players are from widely
> > differing locations.
> 
> Law 80 says, among other things, "A sponsoring organization  
> conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and  
> powers:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> F. Supplementary Regulations
> to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in  
> conflict with, these Laws."
> 
> So if somebody sets up a game online, and doesn't specify any  
> alerting regulations, then arguably *nothing* is alertable.  
> Additionally, one could argue that failure to specify certain  
> regulations, in particular as to what conventions are permitted (or  
> not permitted) and how and what to alert, is dereliction of the SO's  
> duty - for which the appropriate penalty ought, it seems to me, to
> be refusal to play in that SO's games.
> 

You misunderstand me, Ed. It's not the case that the online games don't
specify alerting regulations - they do, at least the ones with which
I'm familiar (OKBridge and BBO). The problem is that so many players
have no idea what goes on outside their own SO. The WBFLC had an
attempt at setting up an online set of Laws some while back, and I have
to say that it was met with general derision, at least on the OKBridge
mailing list. If the WBFLC really want to perform a service for online
bridge, which is at least arguably the future of the game, then set up a
set of *world-wide* alerting regulations, and publish them as an
appendix to the Laws but noted as applying to online play. And require
those SOs that publish a translation of the Laws to both preserve and
translate that appendix, too. 

> ACBL club owners/managers typically don't specify such regulations.  
> Recently, when I asked a local club owner who'd asked me to direct  
> her game (last night's game, in fact) what convention regulations
> she wished to be in place, she said "just be nice to the players".
> I'm told by some correspondents that "it's just a club game, who
> cares?" Doesn't seem a very professional attitude for a TD - or an SO
> - to take, but given that attitude it's not surprising that nobody  
> specifies what alert regulations should be in force in their online  
> games.
> 

But as above, they *do*. The problem is that many players don't seem to
understand that their own SO's regulations aren't in force worldwide. I
still maintain that bridge is the exception rather than the rule as
regards the degree to which the rules are localised, and it's that
which I would like to see changed, even if it means we have two
separate sets of Laws - which is really no bad idea, since we could
throw out large chunks of the Laws that are irrelevant to online play.
The simpler the Laws, the more likely that players are to read them,
and it's idiocy to have online players read through large chunks of
code burbling on about revokes, plays out of turn, etc. 

Yes, I remember that DWS had a bet with me about someone writing an
online game which **deliberately** allowed such irregularities. As I
recall, I gave him 100-1 on a 1 Euro bet over a 10 year period, and I
still think my money is safe. 


Brian. 

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070908/cf621d61/attachment-0001.pgp