[Vampyr]

Conform to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

[pilowsky]

Vampyr, on 2020-October-13, 15:04, said:

Conform to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

There are Laws?

[patr1cks]

Vampyr, on 2020-October-13, 15:04, said:

Conform to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

I have to say YEs and NO to this.

Various of what is currently documented in the Laws is the compromise that was deemed the least harmful way forward in the face to face game. That might not be the best way in the online game. The approach should be thoughtful rather than dogmatic.

[pescetom]

patr1cks, on 2020-October-15, 12:22, said:

Various of what is currently documented in the Laws is the compromise that was deemed the least harmful way forward in the face to face game. That might not be the best way in the online game. The approach should be thoughtful rather than dogmatic.

IMO the approach should be to lay down rational and easily understandable laws for all ways of playing in the imminent future, including f2f and online.
Obviously that goes way beyond any taleban assertion of the current laws which are only related to f2f and are ambiguous and flawed even then.

[Vampyr]

patr1cks, on 2020-October-15, 12:22, said:

I have to say YEs and NO to this.

Various of what is currently documented in the Laws is the compromise that was deemed the least harmful way forward in the face to face game. That might not be the best way in the online game. The approach should be thoughtful rather than dogmatic.

One thing that would be a big improvement and very obviously easy to implement is to require all players, not just the opponents, to agree to a concession. Currently a defender cannot reject partner’s concession.

Concessions of tricks which cannot legally be lost should not occur. Can the software really not determine this?

Undos are difficult. In a game with a director, an undo in the auction should be allowed only with the director present. In the play, never.

For NBOs that want it, a pause of several seconds should be imposed whenever it is required in live play by the NBO. I realise that this is a matter of regulation, not law.

In a game with a director, after a disputed claim, declarer should not be permitted to play on if dummy objects.

Some examples.

[Vampyr]

Oh, and private chat to partner and teammates? If that is the way BBO want it, w/e but then it should be available to both teams, not just one.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2020-October-16, 12:01, said:

Oh, and private chat to partner and teammates? If that is the way BBO want it, w/e but then it should be available to both teams, not just one.

I agree that the possibility of such chat is completely unjustified.
As is the existence of 'Undo' for cards played (arguably also for bids, given a confirm mechanism).
But otherwise I think online needs new laws where appropriate, claim included.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2020-October-16, 12:48, said:

I agree that the possibility of such chat is completely unjustified.

Yes. Some people want to keep it, but some people are playing in “real” events. So at least the ability to turn it off must be possible. Also, whether it is off or on should be information available to all of the players involved

I have asked several times, but no one has given me an example of communication that cannot be visible to the whole table. Apparently some people like to be the TD (which includes seeing all of the hands) while sitting at one of the tables; I do not see why the other team would accept that.

Communication with both tables might be OK “after this board we are switching opponents”, but is not truly necessary since players will know the format before the event starts.

[nige1]

Vampyr high-lights faults in on-line protocol (e.g. undos). On balance, however, BBO on-line rules seem an improvement on f2f laws For example on-line claim-rules work well, in practice. Although, some of Vampyr's criticisms are valid .

IMO, f2f Bridge rules urgently need defragmentation, simplification, and clarification. I hope that on-line rules are pointers to the future of Bridge.