[mikestar]

I've read the 2001 WBF Online Bridge laws and it is obvious that they need extensive revision. Little is actually spelled out about the special conditions of online play and much space is wasted by stating laws the do not have any relevance to online play. The online code certianly needs no laws for insufficient bids, revokes, leads out of turn, etc. -- well designed software will prevent all of these irregularities. Much focus needs to be placed on UI, failure to alert, misclicks, connection problems, and so on.

It is quite possible that the best law for claims online will be different than for f2f bridge.

[spwdo]

mikestar, on Jun 9 2004, 07:07 AM, said:

I've read the 2001 WBF Online Bridge laws and it is obvious that they need extensive revision. Little is actually spelled out about the special conditions of online play and much space is wasted by stating laws the do not have any relevance to online play. The online code certianly needs no laws for insufficient bids, revokes, leads out of turn, etc. -- well designed software will prevent all of these irregularities. Much focus needs to be placed on UI, failure to alert, misclicks, connection problems, and so on.

It is quite possible that the best law for claims online will be different than for f2f bridge.

hi,

Agree very much , these laws have been quoted and a lot of links to them have been provided, when u actually start reading them, lot of things can be skipped so an online director has more work actually rewriting,editing then actual benefits to it and several things (important issues) are not handle or at least not sufficient enough.

But it gonna be hard to create i think cause writers have to consider software for online bridge, dont know if there is any site where u can still(if ever) revoke or bid insufficient, but u understand my point.

Maybe someone with a good heart and wanting to provide tds with an actuall document that is helpfull will stand up, or edit and search lots of topics on BBOforum where critisisme wasnt spared about tds.

jajaja i know whoever wants to spend themself lots and lots of hours coud do it himself but most tds are doing tourneys while others are busy critisise their every move

[McBruce]

I agree that the Online Laws look like a project abandoned before it got serious. There are maybe five areas where there are very minimalist revisions. Surely even back in 2001 it was abundantly clear that there would be no need whatever for any reference to revoking, leading or bidding out of turn, insufficient bids, penalty cards, and other common problems. The impression is that the WBF did not want to publish Laws that dictated how bridge software should be constructed. This is wrong. There is a whole list of things that make up a obvious minimum requirement for serious online tournament bridge software, and these should be a major part of the online Laws, perhaps as a Law Zero of Online Bridge.

Many offline TDs know the Laws BY NUMBER, so I suggest that the online Laws should retain the Law numbers of those we need, but those we don't can be retained yet (what's the XHTML term? oh yes) DEPRECATED.

For example:

LAW 67 Defective Trick

This Law refers to tricks which for one reason or other have more or less than four cards in them. The minimum requirement for software, described in Law Zero of Online Bridge, eliminates defective tricks from concern for online bridge. This Law has been deprecated for online bridge, retained in this modified form only to keep the numbering of Laws of online and offline bridge similar.

[Fluffy]

I´ve seen an insuficent bid on BBO, it didn´t need any regulation since it obviously had nothign to do with player´s intentions, but it reminds me (if you are a programmer you will know) that no software is solid enough to state something won´t happen.

The compostie of rare facts that occured for a insuficent bid to happen won´t probably match together again ever, but maybe it will happen some others for a different thing?

[mikestar]

Fluffy's example shows another area the laws need to address--software bugs. Perhaps a new insufficient bid law is needed (and revoke law etc.) based on the understanding that if these occur they are due to software bugs and not any accidental or deliberate action of a player. The new laws would specify how to handle an irregularity that shouldn't be possible based on the premise that both sides are innocent.

Perhaps a catch all law would be sufficienct--if it is not possible to rectify the error without unfair advantage to either side, both sides get Ave+.