[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 14 2007, 07:51 AM, said:

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.

Jan,

No offense, but allowing people to sit in on what should be open committee meetings is hardly a significant advancement for the cause. What we need is major structural change in the way that the Conventions Committee operates; decreasing discretionary authority and administrative fiat and replacing this with a transparent process and due precedent.

Here's one very basic suggestion (one might even consider this as a test of whether the Conventions Committee has any real interest in moving forward)

You note that significant changes are going to be made to the ACBL Midchart. (I am assuming that the Conventions Committee is finally going create one chart targetting short round events and a second chart for long matches)

It might be worthwhile to provide the membership the opportunity to comment on the suggested changes prior to the adoption process.
Any chance that we could get a rough draft posted here on the BBO forums?

[glen]

Instead of posting the draft midchart here, I suggest the committee, or a technical rep for them, set up a blog that allows comments. One of the first postings could be the draft midchart.

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Dec 14 2007, 04:50 PM, said:

Instead of posting the draft midchart here, I suggest the committee, or a technical rep for them, set up a blog that allows comments. One of the first postings could be the draft midchart.

Long term, I agree...

It would be better if the Conventions Committee were to maintain its own forum/blog/whatever. They shouldn't be beholden to an outside commercial entity. However, it takes time to set up these types of things. (It takes lots of times when you need to get funding approved from the ACBL)

From the sounds of things, the new Midchart changes will be appearing in the not too distant future. I'd like to see them ASAP while there is still some chance to make comments and suggestions.

[barmar]

JanM, on Dec 14 2007, 01:14 AM, said:

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

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.

In this context, I think his analogy was that the C&C Committee is the king/legislature.

Yes, Jan, ACBL in general has gotten many initiatives implemented, it has not been totally moribund. ACBL established a formal process to get mid-chart conventions and defenses approved, but the committee that they instituted for it seems to be a black hole. There have been numerous threads over in rec.games.bridge about problems getting anything through them (admittedly, there may have been lots of repetition in the threads -- it's often Richard complaining). Does anyone know someone who has gotten something approved by them?

The basic problem is that there are some ACBL members who would like to see some evolution of bidding conventions, but they're effectively being held hostage by the committee. It has to give the stamp of approval, and by just sitting on submissions they prevent any motion forward. If they have objections to a proposal they should respond so that the submitters can try to revise it. Silence leaves the submitters totally in the dark. Even if they're actively doing something, there's no way we can tell, and it's natural to assume the worst.

[JanM]

barmar, on Dec 14 2007, 04:35 PM, said:

In this context, I think his analogy was that the C&C Committee is the king/legislature.

Yes, I recognize that was the meaning he intended. My point is that it's not an accurate meaning. C&C doesn't have the power to implement changes, only to suggest them. It *is* a "citizens committee" not a king/legislature.
More relevantly to the rest of your comment, though, part of the problem is that the same people seem to do everything. Based on inside information , I know that one member of the convention approval committee has been spending a substantial amount of his time for the last year or two working on the new laws. The other two members of that committee also serve on the ITTC Conditions of Contest Committee, that has been very busy over the last two years adapting the Trials Conditions of Contest to the larger entry size we're now getting (don't get me wrong - I'm very happy about the number of people who are playing in the Trials, but it has meant a lot of work for the Conditions of Contest committee).
I'm working on getting a draft of the new Midchart to post, but it was pointed out to me that letting more people comment on things like that may result in more work, not less, for the drafters. It's difficult to figure out how to take advantage of good comments without spending a lot of time weeding through bad ones. (Just as it's hard for the conventions committee to respond helpfully to submissions that have what seem to them to be really bad recommended defenses ).

[blackshoe]

There's a new Midchart? Interesting. Any changes to the GCC?

[cherdano]

JanM, on Dec 15 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

I'm working on getting a draft of the new Midchart to post, but it was pointed out to me that letting more people comment on things like that may result in more work, not less, for the drafters. It's difficult to figure out how to take advantage of good comments without spending a lot of time weeding through bad ones. (Just as it's hard for the conventions committee to respond helpfully to submissions that have what seem to them to be really bad recommended defenses ).

Jan, the main purpose of a public comment phase is not to improve the new chart. The main point is to give it bigger credibility by having it based on a bigger consensus than just the 3 (?) players on the C&C committee.

I really think you have a bit of a wrong perspective, since you know probably all the committee members very well. Most of the ACBL members don't know them as well; and it is a little odd when ACBL members who care about the midchart didn't even have an idea that there was a new midchart in the making. The C&C committee has all the authority to develop a new midchart, but the new midchart also needs legitimacy and acceptance.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 15 2007, 09:58 PM, said:

More relevantly to the rest of your comment, though, part of the problem is that the same people seem to do everything. Based on inside information , I know that one member of the convention approval committee has been spending a substantial amount of his time for the last year or two working on the new laws. The other two members of that committee also serve on the ITTC Conditions of Contest Committee, that has been very busy over the last two years adapting the Trials Conditions of Contest to the larger entry size we're now getting

As I noted earlier in this discussion, the bulk of the changes that I think are necessary are related to formalizing the processes being followed by the Committee; none of which requires a World Champion level bridge player.

If your husband doesn't have enough time to serve on both the Laws Committee and the Conventions Committee he should step down from one or the other. At the very least, he should get out of the way and let some one else deal with the core problems.

In all seriousness, the Convention and Defense Approval sub committee is made up of three people: Your husband, Jeff Meckstroth, and Steve Weinstein. I would argue that there is clear evidence that this sub committee is bottle necking the process. Maybe they're over worked. Maybe its deliberate. Either way, it needs to change. When was the last time that a defense was approved?

Building a more transparent and distributed process should help everyone.

[rbforster]

JanM, on Dec 15 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

I'm working on getting a draft of the new Midchart to post, but it was pointed out to me that letting more people comment on things like that may result in more work, not less, for the drafters.

On the contrary, if they released a draft of a proposal, maybe with some indications of the motivation behind the proposed changes, one could let the community here (or rgb or where ever) discuss and come to a consensus on the issues at hand (if not how to resolve them). Seems like an easy way to get lots of free eyes to look over your proposal, find things you might have overlooked, and comment on improving it. Seems like a very good idea to me.

[barmar]

Rob F, on Dec 15 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 15 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

I'm working on getting a draft of the new Midchart to post, but it was pointed out to me that letting more people comment on things like that may result in more work, not less, for the drafters.

On the contrary, if they released a draft of a proposal, maybe with some indications of the motivation behind the proposed changes, one could let the community here (or rgb or where ever) discuss and come to a consensus on the issues at hand (if not how to resolve them). Seems like an easy way to get lots of free eyes to look over your proposal, find things you might have overlooked, and comment on improving it. Seems like a very good idea to me.

If you release an early draft for comments, you end up with a "too many cooks" problem. Lots of people will notice the same problems, and you end up being flooded with comments, many of which are redundant. You end up spending more time responding to comments than revising the text.

Processes like this exist in many industries, and from many years of experience they've all learned that the best way is for a committee of experts to work by themselves until they have something in a close to final form. THEN they publish this final draft for comments.

[rbforster]

I wasn't suggesting that everyone with a comment send the committee an email. I was thinking that we'd discuss the proposal here in a thread or two and then agree on a summary of the comments/issues. Then someone on the committee could read the summary (or the thread if they were feeling ambitious).

[cherdano]

barmar, on Dec 15 2007, 09:38 PM, said:

Processes like this exist in many industries, and from many years of experience they've all learned that the best way is for a committee of experts to work by themselves until they have something in a close to final form. THEN they publish this final draft for comments.

I think your analogy is completely flawed. It is about as good an analogy as legislature in democracy, in which from many years of experience they've all learned that fundamental changes have to be suggested and discussed long before they get implemented.

[bhall]

Let me try again:

Tournament bridge players form a large and active voluntary association based on their shared interests. We are not making anywhere near the best use of this pool at present on issues like conventions, defenses, or the Laws in general.

We resemble an aging democracy in some ways, with the majority of players being indifferent or apathetic about the administration of the games. But the rest of us do care, and will engage in constructive debate with each other, given the opportunity.

The burden of identifying weaknesses in current practice and suggesting remedies does not need to be borne by only a tiny group of players. While any final implementations need a higher level of expertise, if only to maintain consistency with the existing body of rules and assure practicality, those implementations can still benefit from scrutiny by the vitally interested core of players.

The midchart changes are a case in point. Post them, and let the debates begin.