[foo]

Elianna, on Nov 19 2007, 08:23 AM, said:

foo said:

The important issue there is that defenders have an ethical obligation to see to it that the other side has access to truly adequate defenses vs their methods.

If the opps haven't looked up/discussed defenses to NT overcalls, that's not my responsibility unless it's made to be by the regulating authority (for example, certain ACBL midchart conventions). Why should I have to tell them a defense to all natural bidding over their NT, for example?

I never said users have to hand out defenses. Especially to common conventions. But if you are using something not well known or not reasonably expected to be well known (and "natural" certainly should be), you have an ethical obligation to make sure there is a good defense available.

The average player does not know Raptor or Suction or ... vs NT. Unfamiliarity should not be the reason those conventions score well. Using them more skillfully than the opponents use the reasonable defenses to them should be.

[pclayton]

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 05:52 AM, said:

Elianna, on Nov 19 2007, 08:23 AM, said:

foo said:

The important issue there is that defenders have an ethical obligation to see to it that the other side has access to truly adequate defenses vs their methods.

If the opps haven't looked up/discussed defenses to NT overcalls, that's not my responsibility unless it's made to be by the regulating authority (for example, certain ACBL midchart conventions). Why should I have to tell them a defense to all natural bidding over their NT, for example?

I never said users have to hand out defenses. Especially to common conventions. But if you are using something not well known or not reasonably expected to be well known (and "natural" certainly should be), you have an ethical obligation to make sure there is a good defense available.

The average player does not know Raptor or Suction or ... vs NT. Unfamiliarity should not be the reason those conventions score well. Using them more skillfully than the opponents use the reasonable defenses to them should be.

Ethics doesn't enter into it. If its a defensive convention listed as Midchart, then you have to provide a defense. Otherwise you don't.

Matt and I will have at least 4 pre-alerts in SF and I'm only bringing a defense for one.

[blackshoe]

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 08:52 AM, said:

I never said users have to hand out defenses. Especially to common conventions. But if you are using something not well known or not reasonably expected to be well known (and "natural" certainly should be), you have an ethical obligation to make sure there is a good defense available.

The average player does not know Raptor or Suction or ... vs NT. Unfamiliarity should not be the reason those conventions score well. Using them more skillfully than the opponents use the reasonable defenses to them should be.

I agree with your second paragraph. I disagree with your first. Your ethical obligation is to inform your opponents of the meanings of calls in your system in sufficient time (as specified by the SO) for them to devise their own defenses. For many players the method will be reference to authority, or "by guess and by God" rather than rational thought, but that's their choice.

[kenrexford]

Well, so much for that. It was defeated 6-18-1. Not sure why someone abstained...

[JanM]

I think that the motion was defeated because a substantial majority of the ACBL BoD thought that things like this should go through the Conventions & Competitions Committee, where they can be fully discussed and combined with other changes, not decided without any serious discussion as a result of a motion before the Board because one particular Board member is in favor of his or her pet convention being allowed. The ACBL Board appoints several committees, on which players serve with no compensation and little thanks. If it starts ignoring those committees and just regulating based on what one Board member wants and can persuade others to agree to, very few players will accept appointment to these committees and they will become useless.
So if you really want change in what is and is not GCC legal, the place to go is the C&C committee, which can consider your request along with everyone else's.

[jtfanclub]

JanM, on Dec 12 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

So if you really want change in what is and is not GCC legal, the place to go is the C&C committee, which can consider your request along with everyone else's.

So, what is the method to 'go to the C&C committee'?

For example, I want Drury legal over 1♦. Easy to add (two words), simple, doesn't require a special defense, and very useful (especially for people who use GoLady across a 1st or 2nd seat 1♦ opener). But I cannot imaigne it being considered unless I got somebody big to advocate it.

Is it legal and ethical to hire an expert to advocate a change to the C&C Committee, the way that I can hire an expert to play with me?

[blackshoe]

Expert at what? Playing bridge? Submitting change requests to the C&C committee?

I expect the latter would be more useful, but I don't know of any. IAC, it seems a waste of money. Just write to the committee. See their page.

[kenrexford]

blackshoe, on Dec 12 2007, 06:17 PM, said:

Expert at what? Playing bridge? Submitting change requests to the C&C committee?

I expect the latter would be more useful, but I don't know of any. IAC, it seems a waste of money. Just write to the committee. See their page.

That page has not been updated since the first George Bush was president.

Plus, try writing to someone and getting a response. It is sort of like sending a letter to Santa Claus. Actually, worse. It turns out that people pretend to be Santa Claus and send fake responses -- you don't even get that.

[mike777]

"turns out that people pretend to be Santa Claus and send fake responses"


What???????!!!!!!!

Is nothing sacred?

[glen]

I submitted a mid-chart method (fully legal under mid-chart rules, I provided details and suggest D) 1 1/2 years ago. Nothing. No reply back ever.

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on Dec 12 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

That page has not been updated since the first George Bush was president.

That turns out not to be the case. A few weeks ago I noticed that the information on that page dated back to 2004, and queried the webmaster. You'll note that the 2007 composition of the committee is up there now. However, one of the problems I pointed out was that they had only one set of minutes (from 2004) and I wondered where the more recent ones were. Rather than make them available, they just deleted the one that had been there.

Quote

Plus, try writing to someone and getting a response.  It is sort of like sending a letter to Santa Claus.  Actually, worse.  It turns out that people pretend to be Santa Claus and send fake responses -- you don't even get that.

This does not surprise me. I sent the committee a question today. If I don't get an answer within a reasonable time, I will send another asking them to do me the courtesy of answering my question, copy to my District Director and the President of the ACBL. Probably won't make any difference, but I'll feel better.

[JanM]

I'm not sure who is in charge of answering emails to the C&C committee, but I'm surprised that you don't get answers. I'd suggest following up if you haven't heard back - sometimes email gets lost, sometimes mail programs crash, sometimes people intend to respond and forget. Another suggestion, for those who regularly attend NABCs, would be to attend a C&C meeting - I don't actually *know* that they're open, but most ACBL committee meetings are, and if you have something to suggest, that's a good way to do it.

[glen]

I submitted my request just after the Bridge World editoral/letter with Steve Bloom's input about no replies to committee requests. I got a reply from the ACBL, indicating they had my email and were forwarding it to the committee, but nothing after that. I assumed Steve's experience might be duplicated.

[jdonn]

JanM, on Dec 13 2007, 12:25 AM, said:

I'm not sure who is in charge of answering emails to the C&C committee, but I'm surprised that you don't get answers. I'd suggest following up if you haven't heard back - sometimes email gets lost, sometimes mail programs crash, sometimes people intend to respond and forget.

My experience, both from emails I've sent and from talking to people who have tried, is that this committee virtually never responds to anything. So I've just given up with them. I'm not denying their job is thankless or that they will leave lots of people unhappy whatever they do, but responses to inquiries would be nice...

[rbforster]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2007, 01:46 AM, said:

My experience ... is that this committee virtually never responds to anything. I'm not denying their job is being done, but it sure looks that way.

Fixed that for you .

Seriously, can I run for a position on this committee on the platform that I will at least send form letter replies to people who ask questions? Or that I'd publish the minutes of the meetings (assuming they've had any since 2004)? What a mess!

[paulg]

I believe that the publishing of its committee's minutes by the EBU has greatly enhanced the transparency of the organisation.

The SBU is smaller but also publishes them (under the Administration menu).

Given that the ACBL publishes minutes for the BOD and Laws Commission, it's a pity that the C&CC is so lax in doing so.

Paul

[blackshoe]

To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the removal of the one minute from 2004 is temporary, giving them time to collect and prepare for the web all the minutes they have. Or perhaps not.

I don't know any of the current members - I recognize some of the names (one is in my local unit), but that's all. I never heard of the current chairman.

[FrancesHinden]

Funnily enough, the EBU equivalent (the Laws & Ethics Committee) has 7 elected members, five of whom are regular internet posters (either here, on RGB, on IBLF or all 3). I don't know how fast the secretary replies to emails (I hadn't realised until recently quite how much stuff he has to deal with) but you'll certainly get an 'unofficial' reply very fast just by posting here...

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on Dec 13 2007, 09:41 AM, said:

To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the removal of the one minute from 2004 is temporary, giving them time to collect and prepare for the web all the minutes they have. Or perhaps not.

I don't know any of the current members - I recognize some of the names (one is in my local unit), but that's all. I never heard of the current chairman.

I recognize all of the names on the C & C committee for 2007.

They are all well-known and reputable playlers and members, and all are quite capable of serving on the C & C committee.

You may not agree with the result of any particular matter that is ruled on by the C & C committee, but you can be assured that everything is being considered on its merits.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Dec 13 2007, 06:46 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Dec 13 2007, 09:41 AM, said:

To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the removal of the one minute from 2004 is temporary, giving them time to collect and prepare for the web all the minutes they have. Or perhaps not.

I don't know any of the current members - I recognize some of the names (one is in my local unit), but that's all. I never heard of the current chairman.

I recognize all of the names on the C & C committee for 2007.

They are all well-known and reputable playlers and members, and all are quite capable of serving on the C & C committee.

You may not agree with the result of any particular matter that is ruled on by the C & C committee, but you can be assured that everything is being considered on its merits.

One quick comment from one who'se had more interactions with the Conventions Committee and the Laws Committe than most:

I think that the composition of most of the ACBL's committee's place far too much emphasis on skills related to bridge and far too little on issues related to building effective process.

I'd gladly sacrifice one or two of the multiple world champions for some folks with practical real world experience with business and Information Technology.

The short term focus needs to be on building effective, repeatable processes. Once a decent foundation has been put in place we will have the luxury of adding more domain experts.