Sky-Blue Book: regulations for bridge in the clouds
The Sky-Blue Book https://ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/skyblue-book.pdf is a Supplement to the Blue Book and White Book for online bridge. We needed something to record how the pairs games on BBO could not be the same as face-to-face bridge. Last Monday it was just a one-line email from Gordon ('we need something to ...') and a title, today it goes live. Thanks to Gordon and Frances.
Edited: new url. 2021-09-15
Comments
"Players may consult their own system card and other notes at any stage."
That seems like a scary thing to explicitly allow. Anyone worried that it opens the door to people playing complex relay systems without having any memory load?
There is a colon missing in the url BTW.
The alternative, that anyone can do this as long as they pretend not to, is worse. But there is the time question to limit what people can do in practice. And the option to prohibit it in cases where the setup allows it to be enforceable.
Sure, I understand why you did it. But there is a big difference between not being bothered that someone double-checked which RKCB they had agreed, and green-lighting some crazy system that few would dare play in live bridge. Just wondering if that was a concern.
I was somewhat surprised that BBO allows people to view their own "convention card", as the site expresses it, mid-board (I'd assumed that menu option would be restricted to showing the opponents' system card, but apparently not). Of course, it would be trivial to work around (e.g. using a printed copy of the card placed next to the computer) if someone wanted to cheat, but the majority of players are likely to be honest. I guess it's a legal Law 40B2b option, but it's not a very commonly chosen one.
Note that making this explicitly legal is likely to make it much more common than if it's left as a grey area; most players I know would never consider having a copy of their convention card handy if it weren't mentioned as explicitly legal (I know I wouldn't), but are much more likely to if told that doing so is legal.
A larger problem related to convention cards is that in human/robot partnerships, the human is shown the meaning of every possible call before they make it, automatically and with no ability to turn it off. (This may be a workaround for the fact that the robots' system has some very bizarre calls in it. For example, I observed the auction 1D, (2D Michaels), P, (2S), X, (P), 3C, (3S), X, (P), 4C; both doubles were defined as takeout, apparently asking responder to bid the unbid suit! The first one might be justifiable as showing clubs and asking about diamond support, but I think almost anyone but a robot would play the second as penalty, values, or some comparable call, because it's pointless to play it as redundant to a 4C raise. So the system reminder is needed to reduce the frequency with which the humans make a call with a standard meaning, but the robot interprets it as something utterly bizarre.)
It was worth reading about this, though, because it reminded me of Law 40B2d. I was considering the idea of "bridge with any memory aid allowed" as an interesting variant on normal bridge (where the focus would be on making accurate decisions with full information, rather than on trying to remember what had happened so far), but assumed it would be a different game. Law 40B2d implies that it is a form of actual bridge, though, that a Regulating Authority could run if they wanted to.
On another subject, the treatment of robots as participants is interesting; in particular, do you consider two robots running the same software as each other to be the same person or not? The way it currently works on BBO is that in a human/robot partnership, Advanced BBO Bot A plays (often forming parts of several different partnerships at once), and in a robot/robot partnership, Advanced BBO Bot A and Advanced BBO Bot B partner each other. This seems somewhat inconsistent to me; apparently the two bots' NGS gradings have diverged somewhat in the past, although they're quite comparable at present. (Bot B's is slightly higher, which makes sense as human/robot partnerships have more system misunderstandings.)
Fixed. But only by having the URL appear as the link text. :(
Well we will certainly be keeping an eye on how things pan out in practice and ready to act quickly if necessary, but the main thing was to get something out on which to base the sort of questions we were being asked.
I really like the Sky-Blue book. It's clear, concise and helpful. A big Thank You to all involved.
Peter Bushby Suffolk
Add my thanks and agreement to that. On a broader issue has there been any feedback on the games set up by clubs? Some of the things I'd like to know are: was it easy to set up; did many respond; was a dedicated director needed; was it OK to have a player director; were many non-club members playing and if so were they charged a different amount?
I'm sure there are many other questions but if the EBU has answers and advice it may encourage more clubs to set up on-line club games, perhaps some not on traditional club nights such as morning games. Alan.
I've played a few club games on BBO, and they appeared to be directed by one of the EBU's directors, rather than one of the club's directors. I don't know whether or not this is common.
What does the EBU charge for directing club games?
Are they actually club games, or EBU games?
(the only club games I've played on BBO have been directed by an EBU director, but that director is also a member of the club concerned anyway)
I have been training club directors of clubs in my county on behalf of the EBU and my county. Clubs have started by using EBU directors and paying £40 per session. After the training they have felt confident to run their own sessions.
There is no mention of jump bids or using a STOP message (which I have seen some people do on BBO). Presumably the rule is that as in face-to-face bridge, that you should pause for about 10 seconds after a jump bid has been made? Of course, with computer delays, it may be impossible to tell whether there was a deliberate or accidental pause. Also, of course, the ACBL has ceased to use STOP cards in face to face bridge.
I think when people say "STOP" on BBO it means "I can't find the undo button".
Although I suspect few people in the ACBL realise it, their stopping to used the STOP card does not obviate the need to pause after a jump bid.
It's usually the TD who charges rather than the organisation, but the standard fee is about £40-45.
I think there should be a pause and certainly a 10s pause should not be considered a 'significant hesitation'. I do not think it is practical to introduce a "STOP" announcement procedure. But we should say something.
I think that in the rough-and-tumble of BBO pairs games, it would not be possible to rule against a quick call over a skip bid.
Section 0.1 states "The current scope of this book is for EBU events, where the EBU is the tournament organiser,
and has been agreed by the Chief Tournament Director."
Is it worth clarifying the extent to which this applies? For example the EBU run (relaxed) daily tournaments at 11 amare not completely in line with this book. In these games you are allowing Undo and restricting systems to level 2.
Mark Humphris
As with all normal EBU events, they are subject to being superseded by event-specific regulations. As long as the specific rules for the relaxed events are clearly marked, I can't see that being a problem. Indeed, the intended audience of the relaxed events are those who just want a friendly game of bridge without being burdened by rulebooks :)
Exactly so. And it's an indication of the speed at which things change currently that the 9-high games hadn't even been planned when the Skyblue book was released.
To quote Samuel Becket:
Personally, I would love to see the end of stop cards in all forms. In my experience, its sole purpose is to say, "look partner, I've made a jump bid." Next oppo rarely takes the slightest notice.
Is there a timetable for updating the Skyblue book?
There are aspects, particularly of the approach to announcing bids, that, IMHO need updating.
There were updates in September and November, and cross-references were fixed in December.
There is a need to clarify the defaults for UNDOs on RealBridge, and alerting/anoucing/explaining on RealBridge with partner-alerts v self-alerts and screens v open-table.
I thought there were two reasons for the stop bid. One to bring attention that a 10s pause is required, the other to reduce the incidence of insufficient bids.
Since the latter is eliminated online, and pauses could be built in with a stop card being shown, it does seem it is not required online.
I find it quite difficult to remember that I need to pause for 10s when nobody is giving me a "stop!" reminder, and I'm worrying that it's creating more UI than it really should. So I appreciate platforms that have some form of built-in stop-carding (and don't think that the stop card should be eliminated for in-person games).
One big advantage of playing online, though, is that when I do remember, I can just count to 10 when the choice is obvious, rather than having to pretend I'm thinking, because nobody can see (nor, on some platforms, hear) me anyway.
At 3.4 the Sky Blue Book says that, after the 20 minute correction period:
"At that point the results become final as far as BBO is concerned but a score correction, ruling or appeal which is decided after that time will change the result for EBU."
As a TD for club sessions, how do I make such a correction to a result so that it is reflected in the uploads to the EBU and Bridgewebs?
When using BBOtoXML, there is an option in the top left corner to upload a downloaded file from BBO. From there, an adjustment can be made either to a pair's overall score or to a particular board's result. A help file is provided on the BBOtoXML page.
Thank you very much. I've just tried it and found it very simple and efficient.
Is there a plan for updating the Sky Blue book sometime? The initial arrangements felt very much about making as little change from face-to-face regulations as possible, and we can see some of the same attitude in the way RealBridge has developed. But there are serious opportunities for a better game of bridge (one with less UI) by making it normal practice to use self-announcement and removing the confusing concept of alerting altogether. Is it time to do that?
Patrick
Gloucestershire CTD