[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

I don't play in ACBL events any more.  Its not worth investing the time/energy trying to "work" with the Convention's Committee.  (For what its worth, the straw that broke the camel's back was MOSCITO style transfer openings and not assumed fit preempts)

As to your specific question:  I think that restricting an assumed fit 2♦ opening to promise 5+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major cripples its utility.  Its frequency plummets.  Worse yet, I expect that the opening wouldn't score nearly as well.

So will you "return" when 1level xfer openings are made legal?
Because in the long run, I can not imagine that any regulatory body is going to be able to stop 1level xfer opening of the same strength and shape as their non xfer counterparts from being made legal.
IMHO, it will happen sooner or later.

As for 2♦= 5+D & 4+M (say 5-10 HCP),
a= the only reason the frequency will drop by much is that you loose 4432's. Since flat handed preempts seem to be exactly what causes the most problems with regulatory bodies, getting rid of them would seem to significantly strengthen the case for acceptance of the method.
b= A decrease in frequency does not equate to a decrease in utility.
c= Two suiters with 4+M and 5+m are a known problem type of hand (see Max Hardy on two suited overcalls. Also writing by Mike Lawrence as well as Marshall Miles.)

I am reminded of a nice comment I found while purusing that rgb thread you gave me to read:
"Optimal space use for constructive system design would reserve bidding space proportional to a complicated function of frequency, expected worth, and measurability while keeping safety issues in mind. I do not claim to have any idea what that function is, but I know it isn't just based on hand type frequency."

Seems to be a good comment with regards to bidding design.

...and of course there is the practical matter that if you get whatever methods you can passed, you will start to find out where the "wall" is and perhaps be able to start to discern what pattern or logic there is for the "wall"'s location.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 04:01 AM, said:

I am reminded of a nice comment I found while purusing that rgb thread you gave me to read:

"Optimal space use for constructive system design would reserve bidding space proportional to a complicated function of frequency, expected worth, and measurability while keeping safety issues in mind. I do not claim to have any idea what that function is, but I know it isn't just based on hand type frequency."

Seems to be a good comment with regards to bidding design.

What a shocker...

The original comments were written by Ron Peacetree.

You've now publicly resorted to stroking yourself.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2007, 08:31 PM, said:

What a shocker... 

The original comments were written by Ron Peacetree. 

You've now publicly resorted to stroking yourself.

lol. I did not notice who had made the comment. I frankly did not and do not care who did. The important thing is that it made sense.

You, OTOH, seem to have a serious case of caring more about the source of comments then about their content. Sorry for exciting you by quoting someone you object so to.

Other than the fact that this Peacetree person appears to have been a somewhat confused intermediate from his comments, I can't seem to find what horrible crime he committed against you and yours. In fact, in a couple of places in the rgb thread he claims to have played with you and to support some of your methods that the ACBL shot down.

Yet you act like he killed your pet dog or something. You seem just as angry at him as you are at Jeff Meckstroth, yet there seems no evidence that Peacetree did anything to you.
As the kids say "What's your beef?"

[Impact]

What was never addressed in all of this is the dichotomy between bidding and play.

If a player, at the table, finds a new exotic cardplay position eg Seres or Sydney squeeze - he is universally hailed.

In North America, at least, bidding is supposed to run on tramtracks apparently. It is largely a means to get to the important or real bridge: the play.

Part of the charm is running into unfamiliar positions and having to think it out there and then to find your answer : they call the game "bridge".

Objections that no one has done the work for you, or specified an "optimal" defence does not stop you composing something on the psot (with the possibility of refinement for longer sessions of play later) and working out what partner would take it to mean, based on general principles & agreements in place is what a large part of the game is about.

It often seems to me that the professional expert community has a vested interest in the status quo as it preserves their advantage to the greatest degree - but unfortunately it also limits the game to something considerably less than its definition!

OTOH a failure to give proper and full disclosure is ludicrous - yet I suggest that more so-called natural bidders do so than artificial bidders.
Experienced international partnerships have many explicit agreements and many more implicit assumptions/agreements.

It is only appropriate that at the conclusion of the auction complete explanations including negative inferences should be given: that is full disclosure.

Recently the national body here (Oz) specified that if you played HUM you had to submit 5 copies of not merely the WBF type material (card, pre-alerts, suggested defence etc) but FULL SYSTEM.

I pointed out that this was serious discrimination and should not be permitted unless the same rule applied to all systems!!!

I don't think - other than for the purposes of profit - too many top line partnerships publish their full system notes and understandings: maybe they should in the interests of transparency, but if so it should be a level playing field for all!

regards

[foo]

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all".

I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

[mike777]

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all".

I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

I strongly disagree.

I do think there is a distinction between HUM, esp a newish pair playing HUM and a 30+ year old partnership playing Precision or Eastern Sci such as meckwell or chip and Lew.

I can only hope you are not suggesting that these old old long term partnerships are not disclosing their bids in full faith to the spirit of the law and the game.

I do agree that many many partnerships do not. I see it every night on bbo.

[the hog]

mike777, on Jul 3 2007, 10:39 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all".

I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

I strongly disagree.

I do think there is a distinction between HUM, esp a newish pair playing HUM and a 30+ year old partnership playing Precision or Eastern Sci such as meckwell or chip and Lew.

I can only hope you are not suggesting that these old old long term partnerships are not disclosing their bids in full faith to the spirit of the law and the game.

I do agree that many many partnerships do not. I see it every night on bbo.

Well I strongly agree with Impact here. I generally find that it is soem long term partnerships who are loth to disclose their agreements. I have found that players of Hums, if anything, bend over backwards to disclose their methods.

How often have you heard someone say, "Its just Bridge" when you ask for an explanation of a sequence? If a Hum pair did that they would be crucified.

[foo]

mike777, on Jul 2 2007, 10:39 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all".

I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

I strongly disagree.

I do think there is a distinction between HUM, esp a newish pair playing HUM and a 30+ year old partnership playing Precision or Eastern Sci such as meckwell or chip and Lew.

I can only hope you are not suggesting that these old old long term partnerships are not disclosing their bids in full faith to the spirit of the law and the game.

I do agree that many many partnerships do not. I see it every night on bbo.

The point is that the =fair= standard is applied to =everyone=.

Regardless of status. Regardless of system. Regardless of how established or not the partnership is.

If we are going to demand that some pairs metaphorically "strip naked", then we have to demand every pair do the same or we are acting in a biased and prejudicial manner.

[TimG]

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

You should submit it to the ACBL C&C and force the issue.
It would be interesting to see the reaction.

I can tell you what the reaction has been. "Forcing the issue" is a long process. I don't believe this is due to any conspiracy* by the committee members to prevent unusual methods, but rather merely a matter of time and effort. The committee members take seriously their job to make sure suggested defenses are appropriate for the type of event where the method will be played. I have only played bridge outside of ACBLland once, so I'm just speculating, but the sense I get is that the masses in other parts of the world are more tolerant towards new or unusual methods. The ACBL masses are not tolerant, and the committee has the masses in mind when reviewing methods.

I was once playing multi in the District level Flight A GNT event. The defenses as given on the ACBL website were provided to the opponents. The opponents were, none-the-less, a bit perplexed and became frustrated at the inadequacy of the defense provided. It was later determined that a large part of the frustration resulted from not being aware that "3m" meant "three of a minor" -- if the defense had instead used "3C or 3D" much of the problem would have been avoided. You may suggest that any Flight A player ought to know what "3m" means, but in ACBLland this kind of study is not required of Flight A players. Now imagine this method being played in a pair event where a couple dozen opponents might be presented with suggested defenses. Imagine some of these frustrated players are ACBL or District officials (who have some power over determining which events are played under which convention chart) or customers paying "important" partners to play with them.

The approval process requires a back and forth between submitter and committee and this takes time, especially since committee members have real lives. Two of the defenses in the ACBL defense database are a direct result of submissions I made. Average time from submission to approval was over a year. Part of the reason for this is that the committee often wants to discuss the methods in person, rather than electronically, so they wait for meetings at NABCs. Meeting time is short and understandably there are more important matters than one pair's pet method, so the matter is deferred to the next NABC. If a method is submitted in June, after a bit of back and forth, it may find it's way onto the agenda for the Fall NABC meetings. If it gets deferred to Spring that's already nine months in the process.

The methods I have had approved have both been restricted to use in events with at least 12 boards per segment. This severely restricts the number of events in which they can be used. It's frustrating going to a Regional, getting eliminated from a mid-chart KO event, then having to use a different system in the other events being offered. In some cases, this is not simply a matter of not being able to play something of an add-on convention (like multi) which can be added or dropped without change to the fundamental system -- when you switch from natural to transfer openings, there isn't much that isn't affected, you've made a fundamental system change.

I am not currently an ACBL member, so I don't feel I have any right to use committee time to force the issue. When I rejoin (it will likely happen someday), I will revisit this issue if the convention approval process is still in place.

Tim

* There have been some notes from committee members that suggest an effort to block certain methods -- to not approve methods that would open the door to other methods. They recognize the "forcing the issue" bit-by-bit approach. I think they have what they believe are the best interests of ACBL members in mind when they do this. The submission that prompted these comments was eventually approved, so while the ramifications may have been considered, they were ultimately not a prohibiting factor. Though it may have slowed the approval the process.