[rbforster]

ArtK78, on Dec 13 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

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.

I don't think most people's unhappiness with the Conventions committee stems from thinking the players are unqualified - they are all excellent players.

ArtK78, on Dec 13 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

you can be assured that everything is being considered on its merits.

How can you be assured that anything is being considered at all? Re-read all the accounts of people sending their requests into the void and hearing absolutely nothing. This is the problem.

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Dec 13 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

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.

A bunch of experts. Great. No wonder they only consider expert 'pet systems'.

I'd rather have....

-Teachers, since they have to teach the defenses.
-Directors, who have to enforce the rules.
-District and unit heads, since they'll know what their players want or can handle, and
-A lawyer and an English teacher, to look for loopholes and make sure that what's written is actually English, not poorly-defined phrases that mean different things to different people.


Having experts review the system rules is like having NASCAR drivers design traffic laws.

[bhall]

hrothgar, on Dec 13 2007, 11:04 AM, said:

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.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Do you have any ideas about how such a process might work?

A lot of our social networking/political processes are bound to methods developed when travel was difficult and long-distance communication was by Pony Express or ships on the high seas. The typical IT approach is just to replicate the older forms using the internet.

I doubt that ordinary business types have much insight into how to change our processes. Admittedly, the amatuers that run bridge organizations have even less. So, share: What are the possibilities that you see?

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Dec 13 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

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.

And you know this because....?

Also, I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with any particular decision of the Committee, as I have no idea whether they have made any decisions, ever, unless it involves a change. In other words, I have no idea about any non-changes.

[hrothgar]

bhall, on Dec 13 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 13 2007, 11:04 AM, said:

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.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Do you have any ideas about how such a process might work?

A lot of our social networking/political processes are bound to methods developed when travel was difficult and long-distance communication was by Pony Express or ships on the high seas. The typical IT approach is just to replicate the older forms using the internet.

I doubt that ordinary business types have much insight into how to change our processes. Admittedly, the amatuers that run bridge organizations have even less. So, share: What are the possibilities that you see?

Most of the changes that I would recommend hardly qualify as “bleeding edge”.

Case in point: I think that its criminal that the ACBL hasn’t been able to publish an equivalents to the EBU’s Orange Book or White Book. I haven’t played a game of bridge in EBU since a business trip to London back in 1997. None-the-less, I am far more confident that I know what treatments are legal / banned at different levels in the EBU than I am here in the United States. The primary reason is that the EBU has invested significant time and effort in creating a system to disclose this information to officials, clubs owners, and players. In contrast, it often feels like the ACBL is making things up as they go along. There is no unique/authoritative source of information about what’s legal and what isn’t.

Various players wander around with random (often contradictory) opinions issued by various sources. There are no formal mechanisms to validate any claims. For example: last week there was a discussion regarding whether a 1H response to a 1D opening could systemically show 3 Hearts in a GCC event. A number of us debated things back and forth. Someone (eventually) pointed to a post on rec.games.bridge from last year where Mike Flader stated that this is legal because a 1H response on a three bagger is a treatment and not a convention. Regretfully

1. In the course of the last 13 months, said decision doesn’t seem to ever have been communicated to players as a whole: There is no formal mechanism to release these sorts of decisions. In a similar vein, I have a ruling from Rick Beye stating that Encrypted Bidding is legal at the GCC level (BTW, I was shocked by this ruling). Anyone want to guess how long before said ruling every makes its way into circulation?

2. None of us has any way to verify whether Mike Flader ever issued said decision. I know Kurt and I trust him, but what’s to stop someone from inventing whatever decision they want and posting this on rec.games.bridge? Alternatively, I have a printer and a text editor. I could very easily create a fake email from Memphis the would allow me to do whatever I damn well please. In theory, some motivated director might actually take the time/effort to confirm said opinion. However, I’m guessing that the number of directors who would actually do so are few and far between.

Coupled with this, my impression is that the actual rulings to come down from on high are (pretty much) random. Anyone want to guess what would happen if I started using a 1H opening that promises 3+ cards and tried to claim that this is a perfectly legal “treatment”. (I suspect that the generally random nature of the average ruling is a direct consequence of the lack of an authoritative source of information)

For what its worth, since we’re talking about the Conventions Committee, here’s a few changes that I’d like to see.

1. All submissions (both Conventions and Defenses) are posted on the Internet. Use a web based forum as the preferred submission mechanism. Anything submitted using snail mail or the like gets mirrored to the web.

2. Allow open debate on all submissions. Create a mechanism by which any interested party can comment on various proposals. Migrate back channel Convention Committee debate to said forums.

3. All votes on whether or not to sanction a given convention or amend the convention chart are conducted publicly, on said forum

4. Make some VERY fundamental change to the approval process for suggested Defenses. Explicitly acknowledge that the Defensive Database is a mechanism to develop and propagate defenses to Midchart level conventions. Eliminate any capacity to use the Defensive Database to ban otherwise legal conventions.

a. New conventions / treatments are automatically sanctioned four months after they are initially posted on the Convention Committee forum. (This interval should provide players with sufficient time to develop an adequate defense)

b. If it proves impossible to generate an adequate defense, the method can be explicitly banned by amending the relevant Convention Charts.

5. Learn from Open Source development processes: try to develop collaborative methods to develop and rank defensive methods.

a. Encourage players to post their own suggested defense and comment on other individual submissions

b. Build rating systems by which players can rate the effectiveness of different defensive measures

[awm]

I agree with what Hrothgar proposed. Perhaps as a first step in this direction, I'd suggest that:

(1) There should be a final authority determining whether a particular convention or treatment is legal. This business of Rick Beye and Mike Flader issuing contradictory opinions through "official" channels needs to stop.

(2) The rulings of this final authority should be publicly available. Any director should be able to look up the official ruling on whether a particular convention is allowed (if such a ruling has ever been made). This also acts as a check that the rulings of this authority are consistent (i.e. he's not making different rulings for different players), and potentially cuts down on the authority's workload (people can look up what's been ruled upon already before bugging the authority about their pet methods).

(3) The procedure for amending the set of allowed conventions needs to be made clear. At this point it seems like people try to make changes by petitioning not only the C&C committee, but also by trying to get favorable rulings from individual directors, by petitioning the committee that approves defenses (in fact many conventions which are mid-chart legal are de facto banned by the committee approving defenses), or by proposing a vote of the board (see this last attempted change). There should be a recognized procedure for proposing and approving this type of change.

[bhall]

Well, those all sound like good suggestions. We can certainly use the capacities of the internet to much better advantage. And publishing the current guidelines in full on the ACBL site is something that could, and should, be done today.

I think that all the processes of considering, approving, and publicizing rules changes could benefit from being organized in a few layers:

1. A forum (like this one) to bring up issues and provide data to the later layers, open to all players, directors, and administrators. Threads for every issue, with full and fierce debate. The most significant ones should become obvious over time, and they should be forwarded to the next layer for action.

2. A technical discussion group that examines ways and means to achieve any goals advanced from the first layer. I'm not sure who might be best qualified to design implementations, but all members of the first layer should be able to comment on the proposals.

3. A political action group whose duties are (1) to develop the criteria for approval of changes and (2) to apply these criteria to the proposals of the second layer. Again, every interested party should be free to comment on this group's deliberations. Any changes to implementations from the second layer would have to be fed back to them for analysis, and any goal not emanating from the first layer would have to be debated in the first layer and passed up the line.

Problem is, how can we get this, or any structural change like this, to be adopted? Do we need a revolution? It ain't gonna happen.

[PassedOut]

bhall, on Dec 13 2007, 05:15 PM, said:

Problem is, how can we get this, or any structural change like this, to be adopted? Do we need a revolution? It ain't gonna happen.

Why not? How can one even argue against proposals that make so much common sense?

True, some work would be required to implement the process. Is that the reason you say it ain't gonna happen?

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Dec 13 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

bhall, on Dec 13 2007, 05:15 PM, said:

Problem is, how can we get this, or any structural change like this, to be adopted? Do we need a revolution? It ain't gonna happen.

Why not? How can one even argue against proposals that make so much common sense?

You, my friend, have clearly never tried to implement change in the ACBL.

[rbforster]

Change from within seems pretty hopeless. I'd be more inclined to just set up a new ad-hoc and self-declared Conventions Committee, set up a webpage, start threads for discussing defenses to Midchart conventions, implement a good decision process, etc.

Basically, hold yourself out to be the "New Conventions Committee." If the official one continues to ignore everything, pretty soon you're in charge by default. If they actually respond, we'll have put together a big list of suggestions for them to address when they decide to actually start doing their jobs.

[jtfanclub]

Rob F, on Dec 13 2007, 06:17 PM, said:

If they actually respond, we'll have put together a big list of suggestions for them to address when they decide to actually start doing their jobs.

We can do better than that...we can meet with the Committee directly in Detroit in March.

Fred, any interest in creating a specific "ACBL Convention Chart Changes/Questions" Forum? I don't want it getting mixed into other threads....

[JanM]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Dec 13 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

bhall, on Dec 13 2007, 05:15 PM, said:

Problem is, how can we get this, or any structural change like this, to be adopted? Do we need a revolution? It ain't gonna happen.

Why not? How can one even argue against proposals that make so much common sense?

You, my friend, have clearly never tried to implement change in the ACBL.

And you, my friend, are a mere child (I say that with a smile, remembering a million years ago (well 40) when it was said to me). You may not be aware of all the changes that have been implemented over the years. You take it as a given that there is money available to send you to the World Junior Championships. You probably also take it as "normal" that there is an Open Team Trials in which anyone can compete. You may not care, but not that long ago there wasn't a Women's Team Trials at all. You expect screens in the late rounds of the major KOs. And bidding boxes on every table. And a Competitions & Conventions Committee that tries to improve conditions of play. Should you have a child in the next few years, you will expect child care at NABCs. You know that bridge tournaments don't allow smokiing in the playing area. And internet Vugraph - can you even imagine having to wait until a day or two after a World Championship was over to find out who won? All of those things are changes that have been implemented since I was a mere child (actually, most of them in the last 20 years, so far more recently than that).
The people on the Competitions & Conventions Committee may not always do everything everyone would like. The Committee to approve defenses may sometimes be what some people consider overly demanding. But they aren't trying to do the wrong thing. They would, I am sure, welcome many of the suggestions made here.
The ACBL website is far from as good as it should be. Unfortunately, maintaining a website is a lot of work; you need manpower to make sure that things are kept up to date. I suspect that the reason you don't see the minutes of the C & C Committee is that no-one has kept good Minutes. Of course, you're right, they should, but are you prepared to volunteer to do it? The reason you don't always get good answers to your questions is also that the people who are in charge of answering them have too many other responsibilities. Maybe we need something like an Ombudsman to respond to convention questions and see that there's follow up. Maybe I'll even volunteer to do that starting in 2009 when I won't have anything else to do . I'll bet if someone volunteers to organize a forum to discuss convention issues and present a reasonable list to the Conventions & Competitions Committee, you'll find that they will discuss them sensibly and implement many of them.
And, by the way, a new Midchart is about to be released and hopefully will be more clear, eliminate some of the problems with figuring out what is allowed and reduce the number of things that need approved defenses.

[pclayton]

JanM, on Dec 13 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

I'll bet if someone volunteers to organize a forum to discuss convention issues and present a reasonable list to the Conventions & Competitions Committee, you'll find that they will discuss them sensibly and implement many of them.

Lets do it here.

Can we send a representative to sit in when they discuss the new ideas?

[jdonn]

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I assume, think, and know.... are you suggesting it would be easy, or even possible, to make a significant structural change to a committee that doesn't even reply to people the vast majority of the time?

I'm sure the committee is generally well meaning, which I would much rather have than one that isn't. Like I said before, I understand it's a rather thankless position. Personally I only complained about one thing. That requests and questions sent to them get ignored, which is frankly a terrible thing to do to people who only want to keep their game fair. Keep in mind that if they read an email and then don't reply, the person who sent it was ignored as far as they know. I'm sorry that I don't have nicer things to say about people who, judging by your replies to any criticism directed toward them, are friends of yours. But, well, it's based on fact and observation, nothing more.

If someone can change things, more power to them.

[bhall]

JanM, on Dec 13 2007, 08:19 PM, said:

I'll bet if someone volunteers to organize a forum to discuss convention issues and present a reasonable list to the Conventions & Competitions Committee, you'll find that they will discuss them sensibly and implement many of them.

Jan,

It's one thing to join in a process of constructive debate with some assurance that action will follow on the issues that have been identified as important, and quite another to try to sustain interest in the project when the best one can hope for is a sympathetic hearing. Fred could start a C&C forum here, but without a formal commitment from the ACBL and the committee to follow through with the rest of the process, it would be nearly pointless, and would ultimately die.

It's the same experience people are having with "e-democracy:" Legislatures do not want to share power with the electorate. They only allow individual citizens and citizen groups a very limited, consultative role. Sure, we can get an audience with The King (or email our MP or Representative), but we can't even begin to submit a bill or force a vote.

[JanM]

pclayton, on Dec 13 2007, 08:43 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 13 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

I'll bet if someone volunteers to organize a forum to discuss convention issues and present a reasonable list to the Conventions & Competitions Committee, you'll find that they will discuss them sensibly and implement many of them.

Lets do it here.

Can we send a representative to sit in when they discuss the new ideas?

I'll double check, but I'd be very surprised if the committee was not willing to have a representative with reasonable ideas to present sit in while the ideas were discussed.

[JanM]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2007, 08:49 PM, said:

Personally I only complained about one thing. That requests and questions sent to them get ignored, which is frankly a terrible thing to do to people who only want to keep their game fair.

That may be what you meant to be complaining about, but what you actually *said* was:

"You, my friend, have clearly never tried to implement change in the ACBL."

I replied to that statement by listing a large number of changes that have in fact been implemented as a result of the efforts of many players.

As for whether "it would be easy, or even possible, to make a significant structural change to a committee that doesn't even reply to people the vast majority of the time?"

I don't think that any significant structural change is needed - all that's needed is someone who has the time and energy to deal with communications to the committee and someone else who's willing to devote the time and energy to organize an internet discussion of the issues that face the committee. And yes, I think it would be possible, and in this particular case relatively easy, to make those changes, if there are really people with the time and energy to do the work.

[JanM]

bhall, on Dec 13 2007, 11:02 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 13 2007, 08:19 PM, said:

I'll bet if someone volunteers to organize a forum to discuss convention issues and present a reasonable list to the Conventions & Competitions Committee, you'll find that they will discuss them sensibly and implement many of them.

Jan,

It's one thing to join in a process of constructive debate with some assurance that action will follow on the issues that have been identified as important, and quite another to try to sustain interest in the project when the best one can hope for is a sympathetic hearing. Fred could start a C&C forum here, but without a formal commitment from the ACBL and the committee to follow through with the rest of the process, it would be nearly pointless, and would ultimately die.

It's the same experience people are having with "e-democracy:" Legislatures do not want to share power with the electorate. They only allow individual citizens and citizen groups a very limited, consultative role. Sure, we can get an audience with The King (or email our MP or Representative), but we can't even begin to submit a bill or force a vote.

This is quite different though, you're not proposing getting the "king" (that would be the ACBL Board of Directors) to do something, you're proposing getting a committee that is already in place and already has the authority to make recommendations that are usually implemented and already consists of "citizens" to adopt a more efficient way of doing its job. The job of getting the "legislature" to listen to the "citizens" was already done when the C&C committee was set up.

[kenrexford]

I can sympathize to a degree with the problem the Committee probably faces.

I might want to point out that the alert procedures are inconsistent and vague, or that the definition of a natural bid makes no sense, or suggest something that I think makes sense and is logical. However, I get no response. Why?

Well, maybe these people get bombarded with, or are afraid of getting bombarded with, "great ideas" that would drive them absolutely nuts. If they had a completely open forum of ideas to field, they would spend all day responding to crazy folks with pet ideas that are absurd. I can imagine 100 emails a day like:

"Dear Committee:

"My partner and I want to play that a One Club opening shows one club and 0-5 HCP, or 2 diamonds and 6-10 HCP, or 3 hearts and 11-15 HCP, or 4 spades and 16-20 HCP. Then, 1D shows [something else, blah, blah, blah. Ten pages of notes.]

"We think that this is a good idea because [senseless drivel].

"Our suggested defense is [frighteningly senseless drivel that no one would agree to play].

"Please consider this change.

"Sincerely,

"Mr. and Mrs. Dom N. Eeringhusband."

[paulg]

kenrexford, on Dec 14 2007, 08:10 AM, said:

Well, maybe these people get bombarded with, or are afraid of getting bombarded with, "great ideas" that would drive them absolutely nuts.  If they had a completely open forum of ideas to field, they would spend all day responding to crazy folks with pet ideas that are absurd.  I can imagine 100 emails a day like:

[snip]

To be fair to all our distinguished forum posters, we rarely post more than 50 times a day to a single thread ... and, of course, we are the sane ones!