[cherdano]

Adam, I agree that disallowing multi might make the rules more logical. But the ACBL isn't a planet on its own, and I think it is a little odd when the possibly most popular convention for the 2♦ opening is disallowed in unrestricted events at NABCs. I don't think this is desirable, given that they have become international events.

[the hog]

"This is on the general principle that a convention should be allowed if and only if opponents can be expected to know how to defend against it. (I wrote about this on my blog.) The defence to a convention like Multi is not obvious to someone who has not come across it before, so allowing Multi is only justified if people would come across it often enough that they learn how to defend against it."

david_c, this is the whole crux of the argument. How can it be obvious to someone if its use is actively discouraged.

Ok, if you and Adam want systems restrictions like this there is a very easy solution. Have two levels of events - the Open, where anything goes and which is regarded as the premier event, and a second event with heavily restricted conventions, perhaps even a common system. This point has been mentioned before, but no one has followed through on the argument presumably because people don't like the though of playing in a restricted field. Well tough! You are playing a serious competition - you should be prepared with generic defences if you are serious about the game.

We all KNOW why systems restrictions are in force. It is due to the fact that professionals who serve on administrative bodies don't wan't their clients to think too much. Without mentioning any specific names we all know about whom I am talking; this discussion has been posted many times before. We have all read about Richard's attempts to get some sensible reuling on Frelling Two bids.

[awm]

It is my opinion, and I believe that of most bridge players, that:

(1) Developing new and different bidding methods is a part of the game. Within reason, innovation should be allowed.

(2) Using bidding methods that are legitimately more effective should be advantageous, and allowed.

(3) A pair should not be allowed to obtain a substantial advantage simply because most people are unfamiliar with their methods and do not know how to defend against them well. Methods should be disclosed, and in the case of methods that are fundamentally dissimilar to what people have faced in the past, this disclosure needs to be substantially in advance of the bid occurring at the table. Simply opening with a bid and then disclosing its meaning is not sufficient.

Now, it is reasonable to argue that in a long team event, methods can be disclosed in advance and each evening I can discuss with my partner how to defend against whatever weird preempt methods tomorrow's opponents happen to be playing. I'm fine with this, and it's how the Bermuda Bowl functions.

It is not reasonable to argue that in a multi-day pairs event, I can realistically discuss the methods of each of the twenty-six pairs I will face the next day's sessions, especially because the identities of these pairs may not even be known in advance (depending on how seeding is done for the second session).

Thus in a pairs event where "anything goes" substantial advantage will accrue to the pair that designs methods where the normal "generic defense" will work particularly poorly. This is one of the reasons that assumed fit preempts work well -- the standard generic defense against a bid "showing the bid suit" (double is takeout, suit bids natural NF, etc) is not a good defense against assumed fit. Too often your own side will have too many cards in the enemy suit for either partner to be able to act when acting requires shortage in the suit opened. This does not mean that assumed fit preempts are a good method and it could easily be possible to design a defense that rips them to shreds. One should not be able to obtain an advantage by simply designing a method where the normal "generic defense" is poor and then taking advantage of the fact that opponents do not have sufficient advance disclosure of the methods to come up with a more effective defense.

In how many countries is 2♥ multi allowed? How about a forcing pass with a 2♣ FERT? I do not think many countries would allow these things. I think there is a distinction between methods which are designed to reach makeable contracts in some constructive way (and I would include MOSCITO transfer openings for example) and methods which are designed primarily to interfere with the opponents (including various preempts). The issue is that while interfering with the opponents is definitely a legitimate part of bridge, taking advantage of the fact that opponents do not have an effective defense to the artificial methods you use to interfere with them should not be a part of bridge.

As for restricted methods vs. allowing anything, I have no problem with creating separate classes of events. The issue is that most people will want to play in the "mainstream" events that are considered most prestigious. If events that restrict conventions are advertised as "special, limited convention events" and events that don't are the "national championship" events everyone will play in the national championship. If events that restrict conventions are the "national championship" events and those that don't are the "special, weird systems, anything goes" events, then everyone will play in the national championship.

What I do not agree with, is the notion that an "any methods are okay" pairs event is in any way more true to the spirit of bridge. In my opinion such an event will quickly degenerate into "who can come up with really bizarre methods that none of the generic defenses work well against, then spring them on people with no advance disclosure and minimum at-the-table disclosure, and reap big rewards from the inevitable misunderstandings that result." This really is not bridge.

[Free]

awm, on Apr 18 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

As for restricted methods vs. allowing anything, I have no problem with creating separate classes of events. The issue is that most people will want to play in the "mainstream" events that are considered most prestigious. If events that restrict conventions are advertised as "special, limited convention events" and events that don't are the "national championship" events everyone will play in the national championship. If events that restrict conventions are the "national championship" events and those that don't are the "special, weird systems, anything goes" events, then everyone will play in the national championship.

This basically means that there aren't any system regulations necessary, since everyone will just play the prestigious events. So what is the problem???

Useless discussion anyway... In "the land of the free" people want to be held by their hand to play some cards.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Thus in a pairs event where "anything goes" substantial advantage will accrue to the pair that designs methods where the normal "generic defense" will work particularly poorly. This is one of the reasons that assumed fit preempts work well -- the standard generic defense against a bid "showing the bid suit" (double is takeout, suit bids natural NF, etc) is not a good defense against assumed fit. Too often your own side will have too many cards in the enemy suit for either partner to be able to act when acting requires shortage in the suit opened. This does not mean that assumed fit preempts are a good method and it could easily be possible to design a defense that rips them to shreds.

Then, since they are popular and legal in many places, someone should already have done so. Can you point to this? If you can't, and can't explain why not, your statement is silly.

Quote

What I do not agree with, is the notion that an "any methods are okay" pairs event is in any way more true to the spirit of bridge. In my opinion such an event will quickly degenerate into "who can come up with really bizarre methods that none of the generic defenses work well against, then spring them on people with no advance disclosure and minimum at-the-table disclosure, and reap big rewards from the inevitable misunderstandings that result." This really is not bridge.

Do you have any evidence for this statement? If you can't, and can't explain why not, your statement is silly.

Adam, your posts are usually excellent. This one doesn't come close to measuring up to your standards.

Peter

[awm]

In how many pairs events, in the world am I permitted to play 2♥ multi? If everyone, or even a lot of people, or a lot of good players, were clamoring to have this convention allowed in pairs, I suspect there would be more such events? Clearly I am not the only one who believes that some convention restrictions for pairs events are in order. In fact I would say that believing some restrictions are necessary for a pairs event, I am in the vast majority.

As for unusual methods winning simply due to unfamiliarity, I believe there is a popular page about the merits of Wilkosz 2♦: Wilkosz. Note that despite playing in very high level events with a team format, there were still 18 boards out of 44 where "some atrocity by the opponents" yielded +119 total imps for the poles. This suggests that even against "pretty good" competition with advance disclosure there are a lot of people who don't know what to do against this convention. How much more extreme would this be in a pairs format? And Wilkosz is far from the weirdest thing out there.

As for playing in restricted convention events, an awful lot of people here in ACBL-land like to play in the senior events at regionals. An often-quoted reason for this is a desire to avoid "those young folks and their weird methods." Clubs occasionally run mid-chart games, which are never a big draw. Even in events that allow a wide range of methods, I don't see a lot of people taking advantage of them, which suggests that the group who really want to play this stuff is not all that big a market. Of course, in Australia where events are much more permissive, allowing these conventions is hardly driving people away from the game -- I suspect most people will play bridge either way, which is not to say that people don't have a preference.

I do recall playing in a national Fast Pairs, which was won by a pair using a home-grown system with a lot of artificial bids, that they didn't disclose very well "in the interest of time." This experience certainly left a bitter taste in my mouth -- why should they be able to play weird methods, then spring them on people in a five-minute-per-board format and call the director to complain that "opponents are playing too slowly" whenever they are asked to give an explanation? This same problem will occur in "regular" pairs events if they are opened up to allow any methods whatsoever.

As for international events, we have had posts by Fred Gitelman and Jan Martel describing what a pain it can be to prepare for world championships where brown sticker events are allowed, and how often less-prepared teams can be simply "fixed" by the methods. If these methods were allowed in pairs events these types of fixes would be vastly more frequent (no one would have time to prepare).

Sure, you can claim that "oh you can just adopt a generic defense" and to some degree that's true, but you'll be using inferior defenses. The simpler and more generic your defense, the more advantage people gain by exploiting the nuances of the methods for which they have finely tuned structures and agreements, whereas you are basically using a bludgeon to defend. This will tend to swing things in their favor regardless of actual merits.

For one more example, take the Australian national team. Since their home country has a very permissive environment, they are free to play basically anything they want. They seem to feel that even though they are the best players in their country, it works to their advantage to play transfer openings and various other methods unusual on the international stage. Of course, it could be that these methods are actually superior, but if so, wouldn't one expect the Australians to do a bit better internationally, since they are "playing better methods than everyone else"? Or could it be that these methods are good only as long as people are playing generic defenses, or are confused by them, and that in team events against expert players with a lot of time to prepare, they simply aren't that good?

[the hog]

Just a couple of comments in reply. The reason the top Australian's don't do better in international competition is the lack of available top competition due to distances, coupled with a relatively small player base. The top players want to play these methods because they feel they are intrinsically better, not because they are unfamiliar to many players.

Anyway there appears to be a big contradiction in your argument as has already been pointed out by Peter. If the players using these methods are not achieving better results anyway, then what is the problem?

Finally, if you play international competition and more particulary make your money out of bridge, then you have no right to whinge about preparing for Brown sticker conventions. That would be equivalent to Roger Federer whingeing about having to practice playing against Nadal's topspin shots.

[awm]

The claim is that people playing these methods do better against weaker or less prepared opponents. This applies even to the less-prepared opponents at the international level, as evidenced by the Wilkosz results.

If the methods were in fact intrinsically superior one would expect that international-class players using such methods would do well even against the best world-class opposition with paid coaches and time to prepare. Thus far there has been no evidence of this.

[helene_t]

AVM said:

3) A pair should not be allowed to obtain a substantial advantage simply because most people are unfamiliar with their methods and do not know how to defend against them well. Methods should be disclosed, and in the case of methods that are fundamentally dissimilar to what people have faced in the past, this disclosure needs to be substantially in advance of the bid occurring at the table. Simply opening with a bid and then disclosing its meaning is not sufficient.

Agree in principle. But I see some problems with implementing this in practice.

At a "serious" level, where players can be expected to have some sort of generic defense (I'm not talking about anti-nonsense and BSC defense, but simple stuff like when a double on an artificial bid shows the suit bid and when it shows general strength), only the most diabolic methods will cause major problems. If you have a defense against the 3♣ Lebehnsohl puppet, then you also have a defense against the 2♥ NF relay in Multi. Of course, players of some exotic preempt may have a minor advantage in that opps cannot be expected to have the optimal defense against it, and even with some degree of genericity misunderstandings will occur in rare convoluted auctions. But if you are perfectionist enough to want to get rid of those injustices, you would have to consider possible unfair advantages to players of strong diamond systems, Namyats, Gladiator etc. etc. Players of strong club systems in cultures where such systems are uncommon have an advantage in that many opps have not put much effort into developing destructive interference against it. Now the unfairness arising from the lack of destructive methods may not cause the same emotional troubles as unfairness arising from the destructive methods themselves, but in terms of fairness it's the same. I think the only solution is to force everyone to play exactly the same system.

At the coffee house level, most players are unable to make up common sense defense against artificial methods. Worse, they are unable to realize that when they make a bid that "obviously" describes the hand they happen to have, that meaning may not be obvious to partner. But banning exotic destructive methods does not make much of a difference here. Believe me, while more than 50% of Dutch coffeehouse pairs play Multi, only the white ravens have ever discussed the defense against it. This is understandable since much more IMPs are lost due to the lack of agreements against simple overcalls than due to the lack of agreements against Multi. So whether a method is exotic or not barely matters.

Case in point: we play T-Walsh which is unknown to most Dutch players except for those who participate in high-level regional and national competition. We always pre-alert this, and we used also to suggest a defense. Here are some reactions:
- The vast majority of opps, even decent pair (better than us) don't care. Not sure why. Probably systematic defense against specific methods is just not their hobby,
- A small minority already has a defense against it, or quickly confirm that they have the same understanding about how their generic methods work in this case.
- An even smaller minority make agreements.
- Nobody (we have played this weekly for six years) has ever adopted our suggested defense. Some feel insulted when we provide a defense. Presumably, suggesting a defense is like saying "you're too stupid to make a defense, we help you" or "we want you to play our defense so that we can use our own meta-defense".

All this being said, I share your impression that few people want to take advantage of the freedom to play weired methods, while much more people don't like playing against weired methods. FWIW, I think this has more to do with xenophobia than with fairness, but whatever the reason, the client is king and if people don't want weired stuff it's a good case of banning it. This is a frustration to me when I play with a system freak with whom I like to play weired methods and to make up defense against other weired methods, but the next evening I may find myself partenring a non-freak who has problems enough with bread-and-butter and may freak out and start making silly mistakes if opps alert too much.

[the hog]

Quick question Adam....Do you think Transfer Walsh should be banned from Pairs events? It is very close to playing transfer openings.

[rbforster]

awm, on Apr 17 2007, 03:04 PM, said:

Essentially bids can be classified in the following way:

(1) Strong bids
(2) Natural bids on decent hands
(3) Natural bids on lousy hands.
(4) Artificial bids that show a decent hand with a particular suit.
(5) Artificial bids that show a decent hand with no particular suit
(6) Artificial bids that show a lousy hand with a particular suit
(7) Artificial bids that show a lousy hand with no particular suit  Perhaps the most nefarious of these are bids that may or may not include the suit named.

In trying to devise a set of restrictions on opening bids (which are necessary especially for events with short rounds) it seems reasonable to basically allow types 1-4 (perhaps with some provision about minimum length), allow type 5 provided the bid is at a fairly low level, either allow or disallow type 6 (or perhaps allow it provided some length requirement in the particular suit is satisfied, like 5+) and disallow type 7.

I like your classifications, but I don't think they are nearly as hard to defend as you seem to imply by your ordering. Transfer preempts (type 6) are much easier to defend if you know what you're doing, and at worst you can just treat them like you would a regular preempt and still do pretty well.

I would suggest something like:
GCC - types 1-6 ok
Midchart - also type 7, if the known suit(s) either 1) alway include or 2) never include suit bid
Superchart - anything goes

Oh, and I like how Strong Forcing Pass systems (15+) fall under type 1, so anyone should be able to defend them!

[david_c]

The_Hog, on Apr 18 2007, 08:10 AM, said:

Quick question Adam....Do you think Transfer Walsh should be banned from Pairs events? It is very close to playing transfer openings.

I can't speak for Adam, but in my opinion it would be quite reasonable to allow Transfer Walsh while not allowing transfer openings. Indeed, here in England we are allowed any meaning for responses, but there are lots of restrictions on opening bids. So at EBU Level 3, Transfer Walsh is allowed but Moscito's transfer openings are not.

I don't think this is in any way inconsistent. There are plenty of reasons why opening bids and responses are not comparable situations:

- When there have been two bids in an auction, the opponents have much more information than when there has only been one bid. So it is not really fair to compare the opponents' problems after a response to those after an opening bid.
- Opener's LHO has already passed, and the opener's side are in a constructive auction, so there is less pressure on opener's RHO to bid.
- The opening bid must conform to the regulations. So the opponents are already protected to some extent by the fact that the opening bid cannot be too unusual.
- The frequency of the auction 1♣ : pass : 1y is much lower than the frequency of a 1y opening bid. And when the auction does come up, opponents are much less likely to want to bid over the auction 1♣ : pass : 1y than over a 1y opening bid. So, if defending against these responses is a problem, it is not one that matters so often.

The same goes for "Stayman" - if Stayman was invented today, it would be allowed, because all responses to 1NT are allowed.

Rob F said:

Oh, and I like how Strong Forcing Pass systems (15+) fall under type 1, so anyone should be able to defend them!

Yes, you probably should be able to defend against the strong Pass itself. However, you should not be expected to defend against the nebulous weakness-showing "fert" openings which nearly all Forcing Pass sytems use.

[blackshoe]

pbleighton, on Apr 16 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

The upshot is that Rick Beye got involved, and he said:

"In reading both the GCC and the MC it is clear that the intent
of the writers is to allow both 2C and 2D to show a strong
hand, not a specific strong hand (which I believe is allowed on
the MC #8).  The proposed convention below is essentially a
transfer opening bid, something not included on the GCC.  I do
not think we can allow these agreements in GCC events."

In other words, the Mid Chart exception for any bid showing 4 cards in a known suit means that the GCC doesn't mean what it says in English, which is that a 2m opening bid that is both artificial and strong is allowed. Artificial can obviously mean a bid that has specific distributional meaning, see 3b, 5a, and 5c.

Heh. This from the same guy who said ♠AKQJxxx ♥Jxx ♦- ♣ Jx is a legal "strong" 2♣ opening, so long as the bidder believes it's "strong" - whatever that word means.

If you go to the nationals, and play in the top level competitions, you can play the Mid-Chart (and in some cases, the Super-Chart). Anywhere else, you can only play the GCC, and you may have trouble with that. Personally, I think that sucks. Stifling innovation and creativity, particular amongst younger players (who are more likely, imo, to want to play such methods) is not the way to keep our favorite game going strong.

If I'm not mistaken, the authorship of the convention charts is the purview of the Tournament Committee. Maybe Rick oughta ask them what their intent was.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Apr 17 2007, 02:42 AM, said:

Stayman probably wouldn't be GCC-allowed if it was invented today.

GCC does not allow relays. Stayman is an expetion. This is because it was popular before the GCC was described.

I agree with the first statement. The second is not quite correct. Relay systems are banned under the GCC, but that chart defines such a system by "A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid." Note that the definition only applies after an opening bid of one of a suit, and only to sequences of relays. 1NT and higher openings are not included, so a sequence of relays after such bids is legal. Aside from that, most versions of Stayman are not sequences of relays, as responder's second bid is usually natural.

I'll grant that Stayman might have been banned for other reasons, had it not already been popular.

From what I've heard of bridge in Australia, if allowing innovation and creativity is key, bridge will be dead in the rest of the world long before it dies out in Oz. Maybe we should all move there.

[awm]

I don't really see a problem with transfer openings. In general it seems to me that if a particular bid is allowed to show a particular hand type, using a cheaper bid to show the same hand type is probably also okay. So if 1♥ showing "4+♥" is legal (as it should be) then 1♦ showing "4+♥" is also okay.

The bids that seem really problematic to me are:

(1) Preemptive bids that have no anchor suit. These are especially bad if they don't deny holding the suit named, like 2♥ multi. I think most people have issues with these.

(2) Preemptive bids that have an anchor suit, but show very few cards in that anchor suit. It seems to me that if 3♣ showing "a weak hand with one six-card minor" is problematic, which most people would agree it is, then 3♣ showing "either 6+♣ or 3+♣ and a 6+♦" is also problematic despite the fact that it actually guarantees a (rather small) number of clubs. So it seems reasonable to say that while a 1♣ opening that shows "3+♣" is okay, a 2♣ or 3♣ opening that shows "3+♣" may not be okay. The same issue may apply to assumed fit preempts, where a 2-level opening shows a weak hand with some minimal length in the suit bid but could easily have a longer side suit.

(3) Bids that show a decent hand with no known anchor suit aren't a big deal if at a low level, but again they may become problematic at higher levels of the auction. So while I see no particular problem with 1♣ showing "any 10-14 points" for example, it seems like an opening 2♥ that shows "10-14 with either 6♥ or 6♠" is only slightly easier to defend than 2♥ multi (the guarantee of moderate values makes it a little less likely opponents will want to pass out 2♥ when they have spades, but the possibility still exists). Similarly an opening of 3♣ that shows "3+♣ and 10-14 points" seems like a rather randomizing tactic.

I'd probably go with some rules like: "Any opening bid that shows a strong hand is okay (must guarantee 15+ hcp, i.e. some defense). Any opening bid of 1m that shows at least an average hand (10 hcp or equivalent) is okay. Any opening bid at the one level which shows four or more cards in a known suit or guarantees a balanced hand (no singleton or void), and also guarantees 8 hcp or equivalent is okay. Any opening bid at the two-level or above which shows five or more cards in a known suit is okay (even if weak). Other openings are not okay." Of course one might want to add exceptions for popular conventions (this set of rules disallows multi, precision 2♦, and mini-roman 2♦ for example) but this is going to make for a more complex set of rules.

[mycroft]

I like Adam's classifications, but they assume that everyone knows and agrees with the definitions for "strong", "decent", and "lousy". Bad assumption to make, I fear.

To argue from the extreme, AKQJT98765432 - - - is a strong hand. If you don't think it's a strong hand, then you don't play many grand slams (yes, I know about the 7NT dodge).

But if that's allowed as "strong", is AKQJT9876543 2 - -? KQJT98765432 A - -? AKQJT98765 2 2 2? Is 8.5, 9.5, whatever playing tricks "strong"?

No, you say, it needs defence (as the "2C on a solid 9-card spade suit is a psychic" side says). Okay, so then is it a decent hand or a lousy hand? Really, one-trick-from-game can't be "lousy", so I guess it's a decent hand. But (for example), KQJ7 AQJ AK4 QJ4 might not make 9 tricks in any contract (as it did not, even opposite a 5-count, last Saturday night); since it's weaker than AKQJ98765 32 2 2 opposite a misfit, that makes it a "decent" hand or worse, right?

Of course, not, that's ludicrous. We all know what a strong, a decent, and a lousy hand are (although where the decent and lousy hand barrier is is interesting; KQJxxxx and out is a much nicer hand to have than a random balanced 12 when partner is bust).

I also think that, as was brought up later in the discussion, there's an 8th class: artificial calls that may or may not have a suit, known or unknown (the fert). And what about artificial calls that could be strong, decent, or lousy (0-34 Flannery, anyone? Don't knock it, I've seen people play it).

Oh, while I'm at it, is "2M: 5+M, no 4oM, not 5332" natural? What if you disallow 6-card suits? If so, is "2M: 5M, 4+m" natural or artificial? Is "1C: clubs 4+, or hearts=4 and not 4441, or spades=4 and not 4441, or diamonds=4 and not 4441" natural or artificial? If that's not natural, then is 1C in "Majors 5, diamonds 4 and unbalanced" artificial ("I don't know, but I can't imagine opening an 18-point hand in my shortest suit", says a well-known Britisher)? How about 1C in a normal 5cM system?

Basically, defining what is "conventional" and what is not (note, the opposite of conventional is not natural - many artificial bids are "natural" in that they promise the suit bid) is very difficult, if you want to avoid boundary cases. The whole matter of conventional regulation (assuming you are going to do any, which the Laws say SOs can) has that ambiguity to deal with as well as trying to make each of their rules avoid boundary cases. No matter what you do, there will be people on the other side of the line saying "this is wrong"; almost certainly you will be unable, if you regulate at all, to create a regulation where someone could reasonably say "<X> is illegal, but that's not fair, because it's easier to understand and easier to defend against than <Y> which is legal."

Is the ACBL's regulation perfect? No. It suffers from all the above faults, in spades. Is the game classification, where "if you're not a pro, it's not worth learning a Mid-Chart system. If you're not a pro who only plays with one partner, or a very wealthy client, it's not worth learning a Superchart system. But *we're not banning them*, they're legal, in games rated for them", the best? Well, I've ranted about that before. Could the GCC use a bit of cleanup and clarification? No (a lot of cleanup and clarification? That's a different story).

They have two markets to cater for, and they do it. Those of us who find the exceptions and rail against the fences are neither of those markets. But we'll keep playing, because we're addicted. The LOLs of either gender never see the fences, and are glad that they don't have to play against "all that weird stuff". The full-time pros have the money to play full-time in Mid-Chart games, usually high brackets of KOs (so all defences are in play), so as JanM said a while ago, "I haven't played in a game where it mattered in years".

If I can use my favourite analogy again, the process of deck design of Magic makes system design in Bridge, and building defences to systems, look trivial (after all, they have thousands of cards to try to combine, rather than the very restricted language of bidding). You have to be prepared for anything or combination of things that comes up in the current cardset, and if you're not, you lose. And the cards change three times every two years, so you'd better keep up to date (Magic players *like* that, and most of them are the video-game generation that we keep wanting to recruit). But still, if, even though all the cards are tested and QA'd thoroughly, checking against this kind of brokenness, a totally lopsided card gets through, it will be banned or restricted. Don't like it? Don't play Magic.

Michael.

[mike777]

Ya Democracy sucks, if the vast majority of the idiot dues paying ACBL members want online ACBL to only be GCC and other events to be such we can only hope the elites save them from themselves.

I do not care which side wins this debate but I do respect the Majority of dues paying members.

Trying to convince the vast majority of members to change is fine but I do think their views deserve respect and an airing.

I note Murray and Kehela say the quit playing bridge for the most part in 1982 because bridge was not fun anymore with the proliferations of conventions and the need for a full time coach. Some top players do not seem to mind the restrictions, anyway along with all the old folks.

[pbleighton]

"I do not care which side wins this debate but I do respect the Majority of dues paying members."

I don't remember the ACBL ever asking me for my opinion. What makes you so certain that the various committees reflect the will of the majority? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just questioning the basis for your assumption.

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Apr 18 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

"I do not care which side wins this debate but I do respect the Majority of dues paying members."

I don't remember the ACBL ever asking me for my opinion. What makes you so certain that the various committees reflect the will of the majority? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just questioning the basis for your assumption.

Peter

In Southern Calif and Illinois we were asked our opinions very often.
In any case there are elections/email accounts in your district, etc.

I have called phone(old tech ya) Memphis myself and voiced my opinions about online stuff. I have not played f2f for many years.

[pbleighton]

Quote

"In Southern Calif and Illinois we were asked our opinions very often."

We got asked about bad attendance on Saturday night sectionals.

Quote

In any case there are elections/email accounts in your district, etc.

I've never had the opportunity to vote.

I sent my (politely worded) opinions to the President of my District a few years ago regarding proposed changes to the GCC and MC, and received a polite f**k you back.

Peter