From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Subject: Re: Computer Bridge and the Law
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:07:14 GMT

In article <7803@tivoli.UUCP> taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:

> So I guess the question is, should a player be allowed to make a
> mistake like [an insufficient bid]?
>
> We are certainly allowed to misplay and misbid the hands and have
> our opponents take advantage of it.  :-)
>
> On related notes, in a computer game, should a player be
> forced to wait after a skip bid warning?
> Should a minimum overall tempo be given to the bidding?
> Should a computer game give warning to a player that
> his partner has significantly varied the tempo and that
> the players next bid will be subject to the 75% rule
> (or 25% or whatever)?
  
I don't see any reason why a computer should allow a player to make an
insufficient bid (or a revoke, or lead out of turn, etc.).  Certainly,
no one should be allowed to violate correct procedure deliberately; as
a couple people already posted, this is a serious ethical violation.
And who wouldn't appreciate having the compute prevent him or her from
making an incorrect bid or play accidentally?  I know I'd appreciate
it, and I'd also appreciate having the computer prevent my opponents
from doing something wrong.  Even if I were to profit from the
opponents' infractions, I'd prefer they just didn't happen.  Besides,
how can we expect a computer to decide whether the non-offending side
was sufficiently damaged and an adjusted score should be awarded, for
example?

Regarding your other questions, I'd like to know what type of computer
game is being considered.  If we're talking about a game (like
okbridge) where four people at different sites are playing together,
you have a lot of options that you don't have when people are sitting
at the same table.  Probably the best way (from an ethics standpoint)
to run a computer bridge game is like this:

1.  Everybody alerts their OWN bids, and gives explanations of their
    OWN bids when requested (not partner's bids).

2.  When a player alerts or explains his/her own bid, the computer
    provides this information to both of his/her opponents, but NOT to
    the bidder's partner.

3.  After you make a call, the computer waits until all three other
    players have called, and then provides all three other calls
    (together with explanations of the opponents' calls) to you at the
    same time.  This way, if one of the other players has bid out of
    tempo, you can't tell whether it's your partner or one of the
    opponents.  This gives players the freedom to think as long as
    they want before bidding, because they don't have to worry about
    partners gaining unauthorized information; and it makes skip bid
    warnings, etc., unnecessary.  (A maximum time should probably be
    imposed, though, to keep someone from slowing down the game too
    much.) 

The same principles would apply during play.

I believe that this is basically how things work when screens are used
(at least during the auction).  If a computer game worked like this,
then the questions you've asked become moot.

(By the way, I've never actually played okbridge, so I don't know how
it works.)

                                -- Adam
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge