[blackshoe]

JanM, on Dec 8 2009, 11:47 PM, said:

I don't think the convention card is in the purview of the C&C committee - I think it's management, or the tournament department or something like that. Having said that, I have a feeling that it falls under the "if it's not broken why bother to fix it" rule and won't be changed in the near future.

Okay, fair enough, on the purview. But the SC is broken, at least for those who want to play something outside the preconceptions of the design. I guess that's a small enough and not vocal enough minority that it can be ignored.

You should post your format (just a template, not necessarily any specific card of yours) on the web somewhere.

I would love to attend a CandC meeting. Heck, I'd love to attend an NABC. Can't afford it, though.

[peachy]

JoAnneM, on Dec 8 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

While everyone is busy crucifying the work these volunteers do has anyone bothered talking to one of them about the committee and it actions, minutes, etc? It seems there are enough contributors here that are so well versed in the workings of the ACBL that you must know some of the members?

I was told in very clear terms that the committee does not keep minutes, its deliberations are not disclosed, and that it would be improper to approach individual committee members in search of any information. All I had was a simple question to ask the committee:

What were the reasons why Multi was designated as an MC6 method? MC6 meaning, allowed in Mid Chart events with a round length of at least six boards.

I don't know any of the committee members. Even if I did, I find it not quite right to try to get in through the backdoor. The information should be forthcoming to the membership whether they know anybody on the committee or not.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Dec 9 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

You should post your format (just a template, not necessarily any specific card of yours) on the web somewhere.

http://usbf.org/docs...rtelStansby.jpg

blackshoe, on Dec 9 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

I would love to attend a CandC meeting. Heck, I'd love to attend an NABC. Can't afford it, though.

One of the reasons NABCs move around the country is to make it affordable for most people to attend them sometimes. Hopefully, that will happen for you.

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 9 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Dec 9 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

You should post your format (just a template, not necessarily any specific card of yours) on the web somewhere.

http://usbf.org/docs...rtelStansby.jpg

ACCESS FORBIDDEN

Quote

blackshoe, on Dec 9 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

I would love to attend a CandC meeting. Heck, I'd love to attend an NABC. Can't afford it, though.

One of the reasons NABCs move around the country is to make it affordable for most people to attend them sometimes. Hopefully, that will happen for you.

In my experience, it is not the travel (airfare) that makes a NABC expensive.

[Phil]

TimG, on Dec 9 2009, 10:36 PM, said:

ACCESS FORBIDDEN

This sums up how we feel about the C & C

[blackshoe]

I couldn't get to Jan's link either.

If the NABC comes to Buffalo or Syracuse, I'll probably make a couple of day trips. If it comes to Rochester, I'll probably attend most of it — but I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery.

[JanM]

I have no idea why that happened. I navigated to the card by going to the USBF website and clicking on 2009 USBC and then on Teams Entered and then on Chip and then on "ACBL Convention Card," but when I got there I copied the URL, which was what I pasted into the forum post. Just now, I tried copying and pasting the link into an address box, and that worked, but when I copied it from what I had pasted into the forum post and pasted that into an address box, it didn't work. I have no idea why. Maybe try typing instead of cutting and pasting from the post? The URL is
http://usbf.org/docs...rtelStansby.jpg
Maybe I messed up when I pasted before, because I just clicked on the link in "Preview Post" and got to the convention card - sorry! Hmmm, now the original link also works. I have no idea why that funny "Access Forbidden" was coming up for a few hours.

EDIT: I now know why the link didn't work - the USBF site has a prohibition on hot-linking images in order to save on bandwidth. It's been temporarily turned off because of something I did wrong someplace else, which is why you can now click on these links and get the convention card. I was right that typing in the URL would have worked even when the "Access Forbidden" page was appearing.

My personal favorite NABC was Buffalo, but I don't think there are any plans to return there soon . Wasn't Boston reasonably close to Rochester? Or is my geography-illiteracy showing?

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 10 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

Wasn't Boston reasonably close to Rochester? Or is my geography-illiteracy showing?

Google maps says Rochester to Boston is a 6 hour drive.

[Rain]

http://usbf.org/docs...usbc/acblcards/

Then click from there, and the pic of the cc shows up.

[billw55]

Am I the only one who thinks that the committee should be disbanded entirely for being unnecessary?

To my mind, any system or convention whatsoever should be legal as long as it is disclosed. You don't have a defense to it? Well, come up with one, or find one that someone else has come up with, and be ready next time. I call that learning.

Barring conventions just feels like protectionism to me. Shall we ban squeezes because they are too fancy for some players to understand? Or maybe trump promotions on defense? Perhaps flight A players should be required to announce that they are about to attempt a squeeze, and suggest to the poor defenders how they might avoid it.

grumble ...

[TimG]

billw55, on Dec 10 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

Am I the only one who thinks that the committee should be disbanded entirely for being unnecessary?

The C&C Committee is responsible for more than just the convention charts, even if you think there should be no system regulation, the committee would still be needed.

I think you are in a very small minority if you think there should be no system regulation. The vocal supporters of a more permissive environment generally agree that there should be some regulation even in top flight competition. Most, I think, have little problem with regulation at lower levels. They (we) may think it should be more consistent, but we agree that it is necessary.

[billw55]

TimG, on Dec 10 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

billw55, on Dec 10 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

Am I the only one who thinks that the committee should be disbanded entirely for being unnecessary?

The C&C Committee is responsible for more than just the convention charts, even if you think there should be no system regulation, the committee would still be needed.

I think you are in a very small minority if you think there should be no system regulation. The vocal supporters of a more permissive environment generally agree that there should be some regulation even in top flight competition. Most, I think, have little problem with regulation at lower levels. They (we) may think it should be more consistent, but we agree that it is necessary.

ah, I had not realized the full scope of their responsibilities.

I guess I can understand holding certain events with restrictions. If there is demand for that, then the organization should provide it. Personally, given a choice, I would choose an unprotected event - but I imagine many others would not.

But honestly I just don't understand it in open events.

[ArtK78]

The Game of Contract Bridge (more specifically, those who play it) prides itself on full disclosure. There is to be no information passed systemically between partners without the opponents being aware of the information being passed.

That said, if the methods being used by a partnership are unfamiliar to the opponents, and those methods are sufficiently unusual that it is not unreasonable for the partnership to know that their methods are unfamiliar to most opponents that they will meet in a given event, the very unfamiliarity of the methods being used will give the using side an unfair advantage over their opponents. Mere disclosure of the methods is insufficient to level the playing field.

This is not a matter of skilled players defeating lesser skilled players. This is a matter of an advantage gained solely by using unfamiliar methods.

It has long been held as fact that the outcome of bridge events should not be decided on surprise factors such as the use of unfamiliar methods. Hence the regulation of the methods permitted to be used at various levels of play. Judgments have been made by regulators that competitors at the highest levels are deemed to be able to handle certain methods without any special prior disclosure, and they are deemed to be able to handle certain other methods with appropriate prior disclosure. At lower levels of competition, the restrictions on methods are more severe.

As for the play of the cards by declarer, the cards speak for themselves. This is purely a matter of skill and players have to deal with skill by becoming more skillful themselves.

The idea of a no-holds-barred competition where all methods are permitted is fine in theory, but it is not really very practical as a bridge competition. The idea of full disclosure would be pushed to the breaking point.

Are you aware of any bridge competition anywhere in which there were no restrictions whatsoever on the methods to be used by the competitors?

[ggwhiz]

I remember the days when things were much more wide open and it was a bad joke.

When pairs didn't have to supply a defence or could get away with an inferior one we had a few that invented nonsense to actively circumvent the disclosure principal.

Small in number? Yup but I reject a world where they can win ANYTHING!

If you want to tweak the way the CandC committee works, OK but recognize that it is necessary and real people volunteer for a thankless task. The few that abused this open field priviledge are the real enemy.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on Dec 10 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

This is not a matter of skilled players defeating lesser skilled players. This is a matter of an advantage gained solely by using unfamiliar methods.

Well, if the methods were allowed to be used, they wouldn't be unfamiliar for very long

And if certain players want to try to "surprise" their ops at every event, they have to come up with a new screwball system every time. How successful will they really be doing that?

For myself, I would be perfectly happy with ops who, before play starts, cheerfully tell me "we play weird *****. Here's a CC/other written description of it." and in addition they alert and explain every nonstandard bid. In fact this is exactly what happened to me the first time I played against Precision and again against Canape. The ops had a 8x5 sheet with a few basic principles ("1C=16+, all others limited"), and otherwise alterted as needed. It never entered my mind that there was anything unfair afoot, and certainly not to ask them to provide me a defence to their methods - rather, only that I had an opportunity to learn something new. The alert-alert-alert all the time made me laugh a bit, and overall it was quite fun.

Apparently I am in a very small minority on this. I don't really expect it to change.

[helene_t]

ggwhiz, on Dec 10 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

If you want to tweak the way the CandC committee works, OK but recognize that it is necessary and real people volunteer for a thankless task.

Richard's proposal would make their work a lot easier.

[Codo]

billw55, on Dec 11 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 10 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

This is not a matter of skilled players defeating lesser skilled players.  This is a matter of an advantage gained solely by using unfamiliar methods.

Well, if the methods were allowed to be used, they wouldn't be unfamiliar for very long

And if certain players want to try to "surprise" their ops at every event, they have to come up with a new screwball system every time. How successful will they really be doing that?

For myself, I would be perfectly happy with ops who, before play starts, cheerfully tell me "we play weird *****. Here's a CC/other written description of it." and in addition they alert and explain every nonstandard bid. In fact this is exactly what happened to me the first time I played against Precision and again against Canape. The ops had a 8x5 sheet with a few basic principles ("1C=16+, all others limited"), and otherwise alterted as needed. It never entered my mind that there was anything unfair afoot, and certainly not to ask them to provide me a defence to their methods - rather, only that I had an opportunity to learn something new. The alert-alert-alert all the time made me laugh a bit, and overall it was quite fun.

Apparently I am in a very small minority on this. I don't really expect it to change.

Bridgewise you are in a very small minority- together with me.

I never heard that Kasparov gave a written defense to his improvements in the scot opening to Karpov, nor did I hear Tom Brady announce to the defenders that he will try a 42/8/double/double now and that this brandnew weapon in his playbook says, that he will pass to the wide receiver, who will be midfield at the 30 yard line.

In all sports, including mind sports, it is your responsability to catter for everything new the opponent tries- as long as it is within the rules. Bridge is unique- in more then one way.

But people who know the game much better then I do and whom I have the highest respect for, have good reasons to limit the use of homegrown conventions and other "weird" stuff. Fred f.e. has wrote more then once on BBF about his arguments in favour for stringent restrictions.

Ask Csaba if he can find the link- at least one of them.

[helene_t]

billw55, on Dec 11 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 10 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

This is not a matter of skilled players defeating lesser skilled players.  This is a matter of an advantage gained solely by using unfamiliar methods.

Well, if the methods were allowed to be used, they wouldn't be unfamiliar for very long

Just because one or two pairs play a method doesn't make it familiar.

You will have to make meta-agreements so that you won't have misunderstandings even when confronted with a method that you have never heard about. Or alternatively you have to be able to discuss a defense with p in about 30 seconds. Spending much more than that is impractical in a pairs tournament.

It is not much of a problem where I have played, IMO. Pairs who can't handle weird stuff generally can't handle normal stuff either.

Anyway, it sounds as if things are very different in the US. Maybe it has to do with the pro-client phenomena. Or maybe it is a question of being used to dealing with weird stuff in general. I dunno.

[awm]

In some cases full disclosure has to be advance disclosure. If we have 15 minutes to play two boards, handing us a sheet containing a dozen highly unusual conventions doesn't help much -- we won't be able to discuss and work out good defenses in the time allotted, and the particular pair playing the unusual methods will never finish their rounds on time. For long team matches where pairings are known days in advance, it's reasonable to play "anything goes" but this applies to very little except perhaps the Bermuda Bowl.

As far as the ACBL Convention Charts go, re-working the charts from the ground up isn't really feasible at this point. I'd suggest making the following changes:

General Chart:

(1) Clarify the status of natural openings. I suggest adding "Natural openings which promise ten or more high card points" under allowed openings, as well as "Openings at the two-level or above which promise five or more cards in the suit named and have a range of at most seven high card points." This will explicitly legalize natural openings that most of us use anyway.

(2) Clarify the status of natural responses. In particular, I'd like to see "Responses which show three or more cards in the suit named" under allowed, which covers for single raises and for folks who have the de facto agreement to respond 1M on three-card suits with some patterns to their minor suit openings.

(3) Remove the prohibition against playing "methods" when opening 1NT which could be less than ten points or too wide a range, or opening at the two-level with too wide a range. These were clunky and poorly-defined. The new laws allow regulation of natural calls, so instead simply ban the undesirable openings. In other words, 1NT openings must promise 10+ points and at most a five point range and two-level openings which could be weak must have at most a seven point range.

(4) Remove the prohibition against "relay systems" and against "1NT response showing invitational or better values." Both of these are poorly defined and rarely (and unevenly) enforced. They both have ridiculous "get arounds" (such as including some very unlikely weak hand type in the 1NT response, or arguing that the "relay" bid actually shows something due to highly unlikely relay breaks). Note that most "relay systems" that are non-game-forcing are banned by the illegality of artificial non-game-forcing responses on the general chart, and that most game forcing relay systems are allowed in practice (at least in my experience of the rules on the ground).

(5) Clarify the meaning of "all-purpose" minor suit openings. Personally I believe this to mean "any meaning, as long as 10+ hcp" but some people apparently differ. It may even be reasonable to restrict it to "any combination consisting only of natural hands, balanced hands, and hands with 15+ hcp" if we want a more restrictive chart that still allows simple precision and polish club type methods.

(6) Legalize 3NT opening showing a sound preempt in a major. This is easier to defend than namyats and has been around for ages (I think Danny Kleinman wrote about it years ago).

Mid-Chart:

(1) Allow calls which show five or more cards in a known suit. These are not that hard to defend; an easy defense is for double to be takeout of the suit shown, the cuebid of their suit to show the canape hand type with 4M-longer minor (one suit will be known as it's not to include the five card suit showed by opponents) and otherwise treat as natural. This legalizes a wide range of easy to defend methods.

(2) Allow calls which show either five or more cards in a known suit, or some type or types of strong hand (15+ hcp, but which may not include the known suit). The same defense above is reasonable, and again this legalizes a wide range of easy to defend methods.

(3) Amend the list of "allowed" conventions by removing from the list the specific methods legalized by the two statements above, and by the legalization of natural calls on the general chart. This actually covers almost all the specifically-listed things except for multi type openings.

(4) Remove all mention of "relay systems" from the chart -- again, these are poorly defined, rarely (and unevenly enforced), and have ridiculous loopholes.

(5) Allow any defense to 1NT openings, and do not require a pre-alert for those defenses which are not permitted on the general chart. Methods like Woolsey and Multi-Landy are very popular at the mid-chart level (and most people don't pre-alert them anyway).

(6) Allow multi, even in two-board rounds. The fact that multi is banned in the Reisinger is simply embarrassing to ACBL, as this is a convention which is popular world-wide. To simplify matters, I suggest having only one defense to multi in the defense database. Obviously players can bring their own defense and refer to it during play, but the existence of two official defenses creates unnecessary confusion (i.e. pairs who don't agree which defense to play before the auction starts, pairs who take a long time deciding which defense to play, not to mention that defense two is very complicated and has some "holes" in it).

[jdonn]

I like most of Adam's suggestions. I think simply defining 'natural' and 'relay system' in all the contexts they are used would be huge steps that would help a lot (so long as things were then enforced in that exact way).