[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Dec 27 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Doing nothing to resolve conflicts of interest is equal to pretending there is no conflict of interest.

Why, because you declare it so? Maybe it's simply equal to pretending there are no better solutions!

Yes, I declare it so. Do you declare it so otherwise?

[shevek]

RichMor, on Dec 26 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

This is what I imagine:
1. LHO opens a Suspensor 1♠ which shows 9-12 HCP and long or short Spades.

2. Next session a second LHO opens a Suction 1♠ which shows 9-12 with Clubs or 15-18 with the red suits.

3. Next session a third LHO opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution.

Glad to help if indeed you are asking

1) X = tko of spades. Only adjustment is that all spade bids by us are natural. Also, since there is no cue, change of suit in response to an overcall is forcing. This may not be the best defence (Bal-Zmud used to advise X = spades) but it is EXACTLY the same as the defence we use vs a Precision 1♦, which is basically long or short diamonds.

2) X = takeout of clubs, the weak 1-suited option. We use this against all these random multis, like Rubin Twos (remember?). Again club bids are natural, change of suit forcing. Very trivial.

3) This is tougher. Simple is to switch to strong club methods, with X = 16+ and 2♣ negative, other responses are Precision-style. Other calls are 12-15 natural.

Enjoy the challenge & please tell us how you go!

[fred]

qwery_hi, on Dec 27 2008, 04:11 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 26 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 27 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

One doesn't have to be on the side of Y to question X's integrity.

I think you missed the point of my last post, but no matter...

I have asked several times (sometimes nicely sometimes not) that people refrain from attacking, through BBO Forums, the integrity of the people who serve on these committees.

But you just keep attacking so I will asking you explicitly:

Please either keep your integrity-attacks to yourself or post them on some other site.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, you were the one who first used "integrity". I was pointing out that there is a conflict of interest.

If pointing out that there is a conflict of interest in against the rules of this forum, then I would not like to be a part of them anyway.

I would prefer if you were more careful with your words and used "potential conflicts of interest". I see that you have done this once already.

Potential conflicts of interest exist all over the place, both in the bridge world and in the real world. People of integrity who find themselves in such positions will try to overcome such conflicts (or resign if they think they are unable to do so).

For sure it would be better if such potential conflicts could be eliminated, but in the case of the matter in question, I personally believe there are no better alternatives (and that the actual people who face these potential conflicts of interest are more than capable of rising above them).

To suggest otherwise (as you and others have) is to attack the characters of the people involved. That is what I object to people doing on this site.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge BAse Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

fred, on Dec 27 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

For sure it would be better if such potential conflicts could be eliminated, but in the case of the matter in question, I personally believe there are no better alternatives (and that the actual people who face these potential conflicts of interest are more than capable of rising above them).
To suggest otherwise (as you and others have) is to attack the characters of the people involved. That is what I object to people doing on this site.

My opinion as an outsider: Fred reassures us that committee decisions are impartial; but, obvious conflicts of interest spoil the impression of justice being seen to be done. Short of eliminating system restrictions, there is no complete solution; although membership polls and proper minutes would help.

[fred]

nige1, on Dec 27 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 27 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

For sure it would be better if such potential conflicts could be eliminated, but in the case of the matter in question, I personally believe there are no better alternatives (and that the actual people who face these potential conflicts of interest are more than capable of rising above them).
To suggest otherwise (as you and others have) is to attack the characters of the people involved. That is what I object to people doing on this site.

My opinion as an outsider: Fred reassures us that committee decisions are impartial; but, obvious conflicts of interest spoil the impression of justice being seen to be done. Short of eliminating system restrictions, there is no complete solution; although membership polls and proper minutes would help.

A reasonable opinion in my view.

The line-drawing committee will continue to exist in one form or another. As long as that is the case, there is potential for conflict of interest.

The upside of appointing top players to these committees is obvious while the downside is the potential for conflict of interest. The alternative of appointing top non-players doesn't even eliminate the potential conflict of interest - it just changes the nature of it. But even if you could eliminate this potential completely, appointing top non-players has the downside of putting unqualified people in control of important decisions.

For me this is pretty much a no-brainer, but of course I have a potential conflict of interest here.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[foo]

hrothgar, on Dec 25 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 25 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

Jeff Meckstroth once defended a hand where They only took 4 tricks while Meckwell was cold for a grand.  The pair in question got a Top.  Jeff then had a long talk with Edgar Kaplan.
The result was a change in the scoring tables to give a dis-incentive for that sort of "bridge".

Hmmm

I recall a story where Meckwell bid a grand as a sacrifice, went down lots and received a good score.

As I recall, the scoring tables were changed.

I don't recall hearing the converse (that this happened to Meckwell). Nor anything about them running off and whining to Kaplan.

Can you please point to secondary sources that document this story...

So I have managed to get more information on some of this. Unfortunately, only anecdotally and not using objective written sources.

The board in question was evidently a national MP event in the early 1980's. On one side are Edgar Kaplan and Norman Kay. On the other is Meckwell.

EK & NK bid to 7C. JM sacrificed in 7DX and got a top or near top despite only taking 4 tricks. The result evidently made a difference in the final rankings for the event.

EK was evidently on or the chair of the ACBL Laws Committee at the time. A quick perusal of your Bridge Encyclopedia will show that for many years, EK was considered =the= ultimate authority on The Laws. When he spoke, even the Portland Club listened.

The 1987 change to Law 77, scoring, of _The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge_ was a direct result of this incident and EK's involvement in it.

I have been told that I am not likely to find any written records of the meetings where the decision was made. Nor, unless it is in EK's memoirs and they are published, are there likely to ever be public records on the topic.


To the historians or older folks out there: can anyone remember or find records of the events and/or board in question?


In the course of hunting this down, I was told by a few that it was unlikely ITHO that further changes to the scoring tables would be effective in addressing this problem. IMHO it is still worth investigating since it represents a potentially fair and even handed approach to convention regulation.

EDIT: this post has been corrected to reflect the following comments by Fred and dburn.

[fred]

foo, on Dec 27 2008, 06:27 PM, said:

The board in question was evidently a national MP event in the early 1970's.

I am quite sure you have both the decade and the form of scoring wrong.

I am less sure but I think you have the final contract wrong too (I think it was 7S doubled, not 7D doubled).

Given that the anecdotes you heard got this much wrong, I do not think you should be putting much stock into the rest of what you heard.

I am fairly certain that the hand in question was written up in The Bridge World as part of a match report (probably written by Edgar). If you want to try to find it I suggest you start in the mid to late 1980s (sorry if this guess turns out to be bad).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[dburn]

fred, on Dec 27 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 27 2008, 06:27 PM, said:

The board in question was evidently a national MP event in the early 1970's.

I am quite sure you have both the decade and the form of scoring wrong.

So am I. The new scoring (300 for each doubled non-vulnerable undertrick after the third) was introduced in 1987, not 1975.

[foo]

qwery_hi, on Dec 27 2008, 12:47 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 27 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Doing nothing to resolve conflicts of interest is equal to pretending there is no conflict of interest.

Why, because you declare it so? Maybe it's simply equal to pretending there are no better solutions!

Suggest a solution. That is a good way to use these forums - we can then disucss the merits of the solution

The traditional ways of dealing with potential conflicts of interest in administrative or regulatory bodies:

=transparency in operation and decisions.

=outside oversight (eg, The ACBL Board of Governors. Unfortunately, history suggests this body may not be objective enough in some cases or have enough "teeth" for the duty in question in others. Of course, The Membership is always the ultimate oversight in a membership organization.)

=policies and regulations that forbid and prohibit those with inappropriate attitudes or interests from serving on such a body.

=policies and regulations that force those with a issue specific confilict of interest to recuse themselves.

There is most definitely an analogy to be made here to Corporate boards or to sitting judicial bodies. Perhaps the judges and lawyers amongst us can make some useful suggestions as to the best way ACBL committees should be set up and policed? krexford? mikeh? others?

[foo]

D@mn it all! I specifically asked them if the change was in the 1975 or 1987 Laws!

Fine. The particulars of the story are correct except for the years involved.

We are looking for a national, most likely MP, event in the early 1980's with those people ATT.

Since I think there is no good reason for such history to not be known to everyone in Bridge who cares about it, I do not intened to stop digging yet. I can see no downside to the truth of such matters being publicly available to the bridge community.

Any help to find and publicize the truth would be appreciated.

[fred]

foo, on Dec 27 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

D@mn it all!  I specifically asked them if the change was in the 1975 or 1987 Laws!

Fine.  The particulars of the story are correct except for the years involved.

We are looking for a national MP event in the early 1980's with those people ATT.

No. It was a team match (I think).

Probably a final or semi-final of a Spingold, Vanderbilt, or USA Team Trials.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[foo]

fred, on Dec 27 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 27 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

D@mn it all!  I specifically asked them if the change was in the 1975 or 1987 Laws!

Fine.  The particulars of the story are correct except for the years involved.

We are looking for a national MP event in the early 1980's with those people ATT.

No. It was a team match (I think).

Probably a final or semi-final of a Spingold, Vanderbilt, or USA Team Trials.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

How sure are you about the CoC? If it was a team game, perhaps Sidney Lazard remembers something since IIRC he was often the 5th on EK & NK's teams?

Folks were far less sure about the dates involved and far more sure about the CoC and those involved ATT when I asked.

*sigh* this may take longer than I hoped to reasonably, let alone authoritatively, document. I wish Norman was still alive to talk to (for many reasons, not just this one).

[eyhung]

Grant Baze wrote on the Kaplan-Meckstroth incident in one of his Tel-A-Bridge articles from the mid 90s where he decries the NV scoring change. I believe the Tel-A-Bridge articles are still available to OKBridge members. If someone here also has an OKBridge membership, they might be able to check and find some more facts about the situation.

[rbforster]

glen, on Dec 26 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

if it was up to me, either/or openings, that are non-forcing and one of the options is 4+ length in the suit bid, would be banned.

I agree - the conventional "short club" that might be a natural 4+ card suit or might be 44 in any suits not clubs (among the likely options) is clearly too difficult to defend and must be banned. Just like those other conventions that are just "too hard" to play against. Well, maybe if we can use BSC defenses to their evil either/or conventions, it'll be ok. Maybe at favorable I should start playing 2♥ multi overcalls of short club openers...

[helene_t]

Rob F, on Dec 28 2008, 01:08 AM, said:

Maybe at favorable I should start playing 2♥ multi overcalls of short club openers...

You can do that everywhere (except in Shanghai, lol). No defense against short club is hum/bsc unless opps play a strong diamond system.

[shevek]

Rob F, on Dec 27 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

glen, on Dec 26 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

if it was up to me, either/or openings, that are non-forcing and one of the options is 4+ length in the suit bid, would be banned.

I agree - the conventional "short club" that might be a natural 4+ card suit or might be 44 in any suits not clubs (among the likely options) is clearly too difficult to defend and must be banned. Just like those other conventions that are just "too hard" to play against. Well, maybe if we can use BSC defenses to their evil either/or conventions, it'll be ok. Maybe at favorable I should start playing 2♥ multi overcalls of short club openers...

Plus those dastardly Precision precision players with their either/or 1♦.

[RichMor]

glen, on Dec 26 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

<snip out you quoting me>

First, if it was up to me, either/or openings, that are non-forcing and one of the options is 4+ length in the suit bid, would be banned.  Thus you would not face case 1.  I don't believe cases 2 and 3 should stress a world class partnership out.

Second, at the top levels, strong teams have supporting individuals including non-playing captains, coaches, and advisors, and some of these are assigned the task of reviewing the methods of the opponents and preparing countermeasures.  Two of the best pairs in the world for doing this are Eric Kokish/Bev Kraft, and Chip and Jan Martel.  If you were to represent your country, I hope you would have the appropriate support for your team, and you would have had the opportunity and time to participate in practice sessions that involved some of these strange methods.

Third, for all openings that involve a suit bid (i.e. not a notrump bid, or a call) in an either/or variation, such as in cases 2 and 3, the base countermeasure is relatively consistent and straight forward (double as value showing, or passable takeout, depending on the situation, mostly natural bidding, see Countering Vexing Bids).  After a little while, you will find that your opponents, while good and experienced, are being placed in uncomfortable spots by their systems, and soon, instead of being stressed when an opponent "opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution" you are looking forward to a good result.  And then you realize these nasty methods of the opponents do not actually fundamentally change bridge, which is about bidding to your spots, and nailing the opponents if they are in a bad spot.  So your partnership is still "trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgment", except your best bidding methods include countermeasures to the opponents methods, which is nothing new to the demands of top level bridge.

RichMor, on Dec 26 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

This response composed while listening to 'Fundamental' - Bonnie Raitt.

There was a reason why I quoted my musical reference on the morning of the 25th. As to your reference, I vastly prefer the overproduced Don Was Bonnie to the Was Not barebones Bonnie. And this response was composed to the sound of the US scoring their third and fourth goals.

glen,

Roughly in order;

1. Well, we seem to agree about either/or weak openings. Nuff said I guess.

2. 'Fortune favors the prepared mind' or something like that. We hope that all teams have the same resources for preparation; coaches, trainers, computer support, etc. In real life some NBOs have more financial resources to prepare their international teams. Dunno what to suggest about that.

Even when resources are equal between teams, requirements may not be eaual. Imagine the semi-finals of some international team tournament. Each team fields 6 players in fixed partnerships. The pairs of teams 1, 2, and 3 use variations of SAYC, BWS, modern Acol, SEF, etc. The pairs of team 4 each use a different artificial weak-opening system.

Teams 2 and 3 face each other in one semi, 1 and 4 in the other. All pairs have the same resources and same abilities to prepare for their opponents methods.

(Teams 2 and 3 could decide to ignore team 4 methods, hoping not to face team 4. Dunno if a responsible captain would favor that.)

Team 4 doesn't play against itself and need not prepare any defenses to their own methods. Team 4 needs to prepare for the somewhat similar methods of teams 1, 2, and 3. Teams 1, 2, and 3 need to prepare for the methods of each other and for the methods of team 4.

This seems, at least to me, to favor team 4.

3. 'Base countermeasures'. OK, bidding is still about finding our best spot and hindering the opps from finding theirs. Offense versus defense.

With no database of personal experience or match records, I have no idea if I will be 'looking forward to a good result' when the opps open a Suspensor-style 1♠.

Maybe a sports comparison works. Basketball, professional and international, has a shot clock. The team with the ball must hit the rim within 24 seconds(in the pros) or turn over the ball to the other team.

This was not always so. Long ago a team could get a small lead and then just pass the ball around and dribble it forever. This really happened. Teams with short and quick players with good ball-handling skills were successful.

The shot clock lead to changes in the way basketball is played; changes I would call fundamental. Short - under 6 feet - and quick players are now rare in professional basketball.

Full disclosure:
basketball became more popular after the shot clock was introduced so a fundamental change can be a good thing.

This isn't a slam-dunk agrument, but it's not bad.


4. Bonnie and Donny.
Actually 'Fundamental' is not my favorite recent album. It seems like a case of different for the sake of difference.

I like 'Luck of the Draw' and 'Longing In Their Hearts' much more. Haven't checked all the liner notes so I don't know who produced them.

Back to work.

[shevek]

People overseas imagine that there are a decent number of pairs playing Forcing Pass systems in Australia but that is no longer the case.

While the regulations allow strong pass in some major teams events, few take up the challenge. At our National Open Teams in January with 200 teams, there was one pair who played HUM (not us). In the upcoming Gold Coast Teams, we will almost certainly be the only ones.

There are a few reasons for this.

1) Age. As the average age creeps up, the number of youthful players who might to try new methods declines, as the number of older players who want to avoid the hassle increases.

2) Local hoops to jump through
a) To play strong pass in Australia you need to pre-lodge the method, including a sensible defence. Fair enough.
b) The opponents can refer to their defence at the table. Also fair but slows down the game.
c) You cannot play you method in the first few rounds (usually 3) of a long Swiss event, so you need to come to the event with two systems.
d) You lose seating rights. This applies even if your team has 6 members and you are sitting out.

3) Eroding advantage
Take that last case. When you play a team with a sponsor or a weaker pair, those guys will tend to avoid you, so you and your team will face stronger line-ups.

In the 1980s, strong pass systems brought undeserved swings as opponents floundered. Some were under-prepared, others over anxious. Now the opponents are calmer and there are fewer free kicks. We still think that strong pass gives us an edge but not so marked.

4) Overseas trends
If you wish to play in an Olympiad, American Championship, Cavendish, Yeh etc, you will need to put your Yellow system away. Why work on something that will rarely see the light of day? Remember that there is no strong pass bidding forum or body of knowledge so you are largely on your own.

Nick Hughes, Sydney

[nige1]

Good luck Nick! Without players like you (prepared to brave the obstacles (that the "sour grapes" and "dog in the manger" brigade have designed to block innovation) the game would be stagnant, and its demise hastened.

[aguahombre]

The late Irv Kostal at one time toyed with a system called "irv", which could be helpful as a basis for handling the forcing pass. Of course, the FPS had not emerged when he invented this system.

After a forcing pass, the next hand pretends his RHO has opened One Club. one-level bids are overcalls, except ONE CLUb (which is a take-out double of the phantom one club bid by RHO. Two clubs would be Michaels, other two-level bids would be preemptive or whatever the partnership plays over one club. One notrump a natural overcall, with sys on. 2nt unusual, etc, etc.

It might not be perfect, but it surely would be easy to agree on with very little time consumption. what to do against the ferts is another whole matter I am not qualified to discuss.