[blackshoe]

A few somewhat unstructured thoughts:

The laws require that regulations be published. The ACBL publishes their requlations on their website. The published (on the website) MidChart regulation says that a transfer 1♥ opening is allowed in segments of a certain minimum length. So as far as I'm concerned, it's legal, whatever Steve Beatty said. If the CandC committee wants it to not be legal, they better damn well get the published regulation updated ASAP.

The whole of the regulation regarding how things get added to the charts (the midchart in particular, but certainly there should be something addressing the other three charts as well) needs a complete re-write (or first write, perhaps). The existing regulation could be much clearer. Jan's point about two board rounds is easy to fix, for example: "The committee is unlikely to approve, for 2 board segments, requests for artificial openings that do not promise length in the suit bid or any weak openings for 2 board segments."

I note that "2 board segments" actually means "2, 3, 4 or 5 board segments", since the next "step" in the regulatory procedure is 6 board segments. Fair enough, I suppose.

I applaud Jan's efforts to get stuff better implemented on the web.

Butch Campbell is currently head of the Tournament Department. I don't know what kind of volume of email "candc@acbl.org" gets, but I find it hard to believe there's enough to require Butch to filter it for the intended recipients, or that it takes him more than about 5 minutes a day to do so.

It seems the approval "subcommittee" isn't actually a subcomiittee at all, as I understand the term, since its members aren't also members of the parent committee. Is that within the provisions of the ACBL Bylaws, or Robert's Rules of Order, or some other governing document or principle? If the ACBL is going to keep them separate in this way, and in practice to not inform the full CandC of requests that have been submitted to the subcommittee, then perhaps it would be a good idea to have the link for sending such requests go directly to the subcommittee. That would at least eliminate any problem with somebody else screening the mail.

Butch told me, a week or so ago, that he would see about getting the CandC web page updated. We shall see.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 15 2009, 01:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 14 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 08:08 PM, said:

As far as I know it's legal for 12 board rounds. It was approved only for 12 board rounds, along with a bunch of other things, because it needs more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment.

From the defense database:

"SUGGESTED DEFENSE
Treat the opening as a Standard American 1S opening bid and use normal defensive
methods:"

The suggested defense does not even have a meaning for the 1♠ cue-bid overcall.

Yes, it does.

"There is one additional options for those faced with a 1♥ transfer opening: a 1♠ bid. We
recommend this optional treatment:
(1♥)-1♠ 5+ hearts and 5+ in a minor, weak, a sort of mini-Michael's. Advancer can
bid any number of hearts to play or bid 1NT to ask intervenor to bid his
minor; new minor suit bids are natural and non-forcing; 2♠ is invitational
in hearts; 2NT is natural and invitational; game bids are to play. After
advancer's 1NT, new suits and raises by advancer are non-forcing, 2♠ is
invitational in intervenor's minor and 2NT is natural and invitational."

Oh its an optional treatment. I didn't scroll down that far having read a description of the defense that didn't mention it and then seemingly a complete list of the bids over 1♥ that also didn't mention it.

But anyway my point stands that this is hardly the complex defense that needs additional preparation.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Dec 15 2009, 05:19 AM, said:

The laws require that regulations be published. The ACBL publishes their requlations on their website. The published (on the website) MidChart regulation says that a transfer 1♥ opening is allowed in segments of a certain minimum length. So as far as I'm concerned, it's legal, whatever Steve Beatty said. If the CandC committee wants it to not be legal, they better damn well get the published regulation updated ASAP.

The ACBL has a precedent of showing willingness to disallow methods even though they were published on their website with approved defenses.

This post has been edited by Cascade: 2009-December-14, 15:01

[olegru]

JanM, on Dec 13 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

The USBF systems rules are that if you're playing something not GCC legal for which there isn't an ACBL approved defense, you need to post a full description and a recommended defense on the USBF website at least 4 weeks before the event in which you plan to play it. The other players then have one week to object to either the description of the method or the defense. If no one objects, everything is deemed adequate. When we put that procedure in place, I thought that after all most of the best players and systems designers were playing in the event and they'd have a strong incentive to review the submissions and object if there was something missing. But it just doesn't happen. No one ever objects to things. No, that's not fair - one or two people have mentioned that someone disclosed a method on their System Summary Form (the USBF addition to the ACBL convention card) that should have been submitted in advance with a recommended defense but wasn't. When that has happened, the USBF Systems Committee members or DICs (depending on the timing) have ruled on whether the method should be allowed and we've required a defense. But the overall method isn't working - people aren't reviewing and questioning either submissions or defenses. Why? I don't know. Maybe because the sophisticated ones know they'll be able to handle things at the table. Maybe because no one bothers.

Very nice system.
I do not think there are any reasons to worry due to lack of reviewing and questioning of suggested defences. It should not be a goal to create the very best defence against all possible convention.
What you need is to give people possibility to see the description of convention and some working (but not necessary the best) tool to use if that convention actually happening. The world class players who play in USBF tournament definitely have (or at least may create) they own defences. I guess they just do not want to share them with the rest discussing it on USBF website. Sorry, majority of them are professional bridge players and they got used to receive money for their bridge related knowledge not share it by free with competitors.
You have a completely working system and no reasons to be been disillusioned about that.

Also notice one important deference.
Your system is for the super chart conventions. Very wide range, complicated. Some of them are really difficult to defence on and there is nothing strange that people could be tempted to hide their “now-how” about defences.
We are currently talking about mid chart conventions. Convention with anchor suit, convention usually practiced in other parts of the bridge world. People will have less reservation to share their thoughts about suggested defences. Also there much more people who play in ACBL mid chart tournaments compare with USBF super chart games. Majority of ACBL mid chart tournament players just like to discus different bridge aspects and share their ideas and opinions. There is no guaranties the final suggestion will be the best possible, but it will be more or less playable.
You want to use better defence than currently suggested on the web page? Improve it for yourself. We do not have to give people cake if they ate too lazy to work by themselves, but we are going to give them bread and tools to make cakes for themselves.
The current ACBL method is to stop development because some people are happy with current state. It is make sense for a couple of decades but it is death for the game for a long run.

JanM, on Dec 13 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

What you're objecting to (or should be) is that there isn't enough "transparency." I think the reason for that is that this has been going on longer than there have been good ways, using the internet, to share things widely. I don't think even those of you who are most virulent against the conventions approval process would suggest that ten or fifteen years ago the approval committee should have sent emails to everyone who might be interested (how they'd identify those people is a whole other question) about each submitted defense.

If I officially sent some convention with suggested defence and committee actually look at my suggestion and rejected it and should not be too hard to indentify me and send me official reply with reasons why my suggestion was not approved. They do not have to send E-mail to all interested, only to actual submitter. One official reply. Without any additional request from submitter. With reasons what wrong with suggested defence. Is it too much to ask? (By the way reply “You convention is too hard to defence. ” should not be acceptable unless committee actually show why submitted defence is not playable.)

JanM, on Dec 13 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

So my bottom line on process is that the basic process that's in place is fine, all that's needed is more transparency (post the methods and proposed defenses when they're sent out to the conventions approval committee; post the committee's comments; let other people comment if they want to; post the approval or non-approval). I think this is something that could happen and I'll try to suggest it to the people who might be able to make it happen. 

Proposal is good. But I did not see answers on some important questions.
1. Who will responsible for posting of new methods? Submitter or somebody else?
2. Is some timeline will be defined for committee to make a decision? Month after submission? 3 months? Week after the next NABC after submission if suggested defence was submitted at least month before NABC? Anything work but deadline should be defined to prevent the silent veto.
3. Reasons for non-approval should be posted and they should make sense. I mean if we are talking about conventional 2 diamonds bid, committee cannot ask submitter to give defence which allow opponents to show their hands better than they can show after the natural 2 diamonds pre-emptive or avoid accidents which are not avoidable in case of natural 2 diamonds pre-emptive.

[mycroft]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2009, 07:13 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 09:02 AM, said:

However, I do know that you are wrong that the re-writing of the Midchart changed the rules about what could be aprroved. The Midchart used to contain a list of types of methods that would be Midchart legal if a defense was approved. That list, which was there to provide examples of methods that would be appropriate for the Midchart, confused people (including you, I guess; certainly some directors) into thinking that the listed types of methods were Midchart legal even though no defense had been approved. The Midchart was therefore re-written to list only those methods for which no defense was required (such as defenses to 1NT openings) and methods for which there is an approved defense. That re-writing did not change the general purpose of the Midchart and did not mean that things that had previously been listed as appropriate for Midchart approval weren't. What it (hopefully) did was to make clear to both players and directors which bids are currently legal in Midchart events. Other bids will be added to the list when defenses are approved.

Any one care to dredge up the timeline that was produced the last time Jan made these claims?

Richard, you mean this one?

Jan, before there were methods Midchart legal if a defence was approved, the Midchart used to contain a list of methods legal if you provided a defence. Starting the discussion in 2002 and ignoring what happened before may be convenient for the argument, but people will call you on it. Please stop handwaving over the fact that the requirement for an approved defence was a *change*, and in the belief of many people here, a change designed to cause what has happened to the Midchart since.

Having said that, I also want to comment on:

JanM said:

What you're objecting to (or should be) is that there isn't enough "transparency." I think the reason for that is that this has been going on longer than there have been good ways, using the internet, to share things widely. I don't think even those of you who are most virulent against the conventions approval process would suggest that ten or fifteen years ago the approval committee should have sent emails to everyone who might be interested (how they'd identify those people is a whole other question) about each submitted defense. Now, of course, if someone could be persuaded to develop a web page, it would be easy to do that. But when the process started, it wasn't.

As I said in the last thread, yes I am arguing that there isn't enough transparency - and that it's clear that the CandC committee think this is the preferred way (or something, even if it's nowhere near enough, would have been done to deal with what are clearly horrible visuals). The fact that there isn't one defence available to one Mid-Chart convention that has been labelled "this is complete and simple enough to pass our current guidelines; feel free to use this as an idea of what we're looking for. Note that most current approved defences don't meet this standard, and would not be approved today." or that there are no records of minutes for years, or records of requested Mid-Chart conventions, their suggested defences, never mind the reasons they were deemed inadequate, available, is evidence of said lack of transparency. Maybe it's not as important as the other things the CandC committee do; maybe it's not as important as the other things the pros on the CandC committee do; maybe it's just the 14 of us doing the complaining. But it's not a function of lack of availability of easy-access internet methods!

This change to requiring an approved defence (rather than a defence at the table for the opponents) happened 8 years ago - and I learned about it first from the ACBL web page, which has been around for at least 13. I used my first webforum around 2000; I was posting to USENET in 1990; I was involved in the local BBS scene in 1983. I realize that I was an early adopter, but making rec.games.bridge.acbl (moderated) about the same time that rgb.okbridge was created (1996, just before that first web page pull I have in that other post) would have worked; creating a archived mailing list was trivial even before then (I know, I was using the blml web digest in 1994. Oh by the way, that's how you would have got the emails of everyone who was interested - post a link to the mailing list on the web site, and have those interested subscribe.) It was easy to do then, and only got easier as the years went on. True, getting the right people to be able to access it would probably have been tough before 2000, but we've had 10 years since then, and there's still nothing.

It might be right, it might be wrong, but it looks bad and it looks like nobody cares that it looks bad.

Side note to JoAnneM: thanks for all you do as well, but there are some people (like me) who can't be involved in our local boards and committees, for reasons you can probably guess from my other posts. Also, a lot of the people who want change in this particular area are neither bridge pros nor retired; making it difficult to both get on the committees and get to 3 NABCs a year. So we do what we can, including trying to hash out something to make as a suggestion to the ACBL here.

[JanM]

I think that there has been an enormous change in how the internet is used today and how it was used as recently as five and certainly ten years ago. Yes, mailing lists existed ten years ago, but not very many people were comfortable with using them. About ten years ago, some of us tried to introduce a mailing list for the ITTC (the committee that works on Conditions of Contest for the Open Trials) and it completely failed - people wouldn't use it, the committee continued to send out emails to an email list maintained by a few different committee members (so the list wasn't always identical, and if people replied to an email, the reply usually just went to the person who had written it). A few months ago, we tried again, and the committee members are now happy with the mailing list method of communicating.

I'm not sure when the ACBL started having a website, but I do know that it has expanded a lot lately (including having a page about C&C that says what the C&C committee is currently considering, although I agree that page should have more information). I expect that expansion will continue. I also expect that reasoned requests will generate better responses than vituperation, but maybe I'm wrong.

Thank you for the links to old Midcharts - I didn't know that sort of thing was available and was trying to remember what it looked like when first drafted and when changes took place. It seems like more than 8 years since approved defenses were required, but I guess it just feels that way. There's always going to be a conflict between people who want to play new and different things and people who don't want to deal with them. Originally the Midchart listed a very few specific bids for which there were recommended defenses (the old "Yellow book") plus some general things that the committee thought would not cause problems (really the only ones were a call that shows 4+ cards in a specific suit, but isn't both weak and a 1-level bid, and defenses to NT openings). That was in place for a while and some of the methods used were difficult to deal with, so people complained that this was "too hard." The committee responded to that by requiring that defenses be pre-approved before a method could be used. You don't like that I guess. And I'm not going to change your mind. I think if we get a place to post all of the methods that are submitted with their defenses, you'll be surprised by how bad some of the defenses are.

Quote

it's not a function of lack of availability of easy-access internet methods!

But it is, at least where ACBL is concerned. They've been working on the website, but it's still not the easiest place to find things. When I was on the Hall of Fame Committee, I was constantly trying to find the link to the Hall of Fame. I still have to remember that it's under "About ACBL" but at least there's now a link. And about approval of new methods, there is now a description of what has to be included in a submission of a method and defense:

Quote

All proposals must include:
a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,
a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid
Submissions missing these details will not be approved.

Would an example be an improvement? Of course. Will we get one in the near future? I don't know. But this is more than used to be available, so hopefully we're moving in the right direction, even if slowly.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 16 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

I'm not sure when the ACBL started having a website, but I do know that it has expanded a lot lately (including having a page about C&C that says what the C&C committee is currently considering, although I agree that page should have more information). I expect that expansion will continue. I also expect that reasoned requests will generate better responses than vituperation, but maybe I'm wrong.

For the record, heres' the page that Jan was referring to.

http://www.acbl.org/...Convention.html

It's interesting to note that the top of the page lists the committee membership, circa 2008. Our friend the Wayback Machine indicates that there haven't been significant changes to the page since February 9th, 2007

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ac...Convention.html

The page actually dates all the way back to 2004

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612004457/...Convention.html

[blackshoe]

According to Butch Campbell, for 2009, Rick Beye was off the committee, replaced by Bill Arlinghaus and Sol Weinstein. The approval "subcomittee" consists of Barry Harper and Chip Martel, neither of whom, apparently, are on the CandC committee.

Butch said he was going to "check into the minutes and agenda postings". I predict all mention of minutes and agendas will eventually disappear from the page. I suspect the 2009 committee membership will appear "soon™", but that we won't see the 2010 membership until this time next year, or later. Maybe I'm just too cynical...

[peachy]

JanM, on Dec 16 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

I think that there has been an enormous change in how the internet is used today and how it was used as recently as five and certainly ten years ago. Yes, mailing lists existed ten years ago, but not very many people were comfortable with using them. About ten years ago, some of us tried to introduce a mailing list for the ITTC (the committee that works on Conditions of Contest for the Open Trials) and it completely failed - people wouldn't use it, the committee continued to send out emails to an email list maintained by a few different committee members (so the list wasn't always identical, and if people replied to an email, the reply usually just went to the person who had written it). A few months ago, we tried again, and the committee members are now happy with the mailing list method of communicating.

I'm not sure when the ACBL started having a website, but I do know that it has expanded a lot lately (including having a page about C&C that says what the C&C committee is currently considering, although I agree that page should have more information). I expect that expansion will continue. I also expect that reasoned requests will generate better responses than vituperation, but maybe I'm wrong.

Thank you for the links to old Midcharts - I didn't know that sort of thing was available and was trying to remember what it looked like when first drafted and when changes took place. It seems like more than 8 years since approved defenses were required, but I guess it just feels that way. There's always going to be a conflict between people who want to play new and different things and people who don't want to deal with them. Originally the Midchart listed a very few specific bids for which there were recommended defenses (the old "Yellow book") plus some general things that the committee thought would not cause problems (really the only ones were a call that shows 4+ cards in a specific suit, but isn't both weak and a 1-level bid, and defenses to NT openings). That was in place for a while and some of the methods used were difficult to deal with, so people complained that this was "too hard." The committee responded to that by requiring that defenses be pre-approved before a method could be used. You don't like that I guess. And I'm not going to change your mind. I think if we get a place to post all of the methods that are submitted with their defenses, you'll be surprised by how bad some of the defenses are.

Quote

it's not a function of lack of availability of easy-access internet methods!

But it is, at least where ACBL is concerned. They've been working on the website, but it's still not the easiest place to find things. When I was on the Hall of Fame Committee, I was constantly trying to find the link to the Hall of Fame. I still have to remember that it's under "About ACBL" but at least there's now a link. And about approval of new methods, there is now a description of what has to be included in a submission of a method and defense:

Quote

All proposals must include:
a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,
a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid
Submissions missing these details will not be approved.

Would an example be an improvement? Of course. Will we get one in the near future? I don't know. But this is more than used to be available, so hopefully we're moving in the right direction, even if slowly.

Thanks for the inside information. Nice of you to defend the CandC committee, but the bottom line is they are serving no-one with the secretive attitude, backdoor politics, lack of record keeping, and lack of accountability to either ACBL or its members. I do understand the members are volunteers. That does not IMO excuse it.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on Dec 16 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 16 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

I'm not sure when the ACBL started having a website, but I do know that it has expanded a lot lately (including having a page about C&C that says what the C&C committee is currently considering, although I agree that page should have more information). I expect that expansion will continue. I also expect that reasoned requests will generate better responses than vituperation, but maybe I'm wrong.

For the record, heres' the page that Jan was referring to.

http://www.acbl.org/...Convention.html

It's interesting to note that the top of the page lists the committee membership, circa 2008. Our friend the Wayback Machine indicates that there haven't been significant changes to the page since February 9th, 2007

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ac...Convention.html

The page actually dates all the way back to 2004

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612004457/...Convention.html

I just looked at the ACBL's page describing the Defensive Databse

http://www.acbl.org/...sedatabase.html

This does appear to be new (and I can't find any information about it using the Watback Machine)

I'd love to see an example where ANY of the ACBL's suggested defenses meet the standards described on this page.

I will note (once again) that it seems ludicrous that the defense for a convention depends on the specification of the response structure. Almost immediately, this takes you down into the chicken and the egg paradox. Whatever response structure that I choose is going to depend on the definition of the opponents direct seat overcalls. The Curse of Dimensionality is going to eat you alive in very short order.

Simply put, these regulations are designed to place an unreasonable burden on individuals wishing to introduce new methods.

There has never been a suggested defense that has met these standards, and I dare say that there never will be a suggested defense that will meet these standards.

From my own perspective, a MUCH more reasonable way to proceed is to require that individuals provide much more detail about regarding what hands do/do not qualify for an opening bid. A dealer script, a Statistically valid sample, what have you.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on Dec 16 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

Simply put, these regulations are designed to place an unreasonable burden on individuals wishing to introduce new methods.

I suspected that as well. Could it be that the ACBL is getting stodgy and stuck in its ways, to the point that they just don't want anything new used?

But developing and trying out new ideas is how we find good ones. Many, perhaps most of the new ideas are not so good; but they are the raw material from which good ideas are extracted. If ACBL, as a matter of policy, squashes attempts at new ideas in bidding theory, we are consigned to following the lead of Europe and the world. Personally, I want to see American bridge at or among the top. But if innovation is effectively barred, how can we maintain that position?

Furthermore, this may be a factor in the aging ACBL population which so many perceive as a threat to its long term viability. Young people like to try new things! If we stifle that, should we be surprised that few of them stay around?

[xcurt]

hrothgar, on Dec 16 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

From my own perspective, a MUCH more reasonable way to proceed is to require that individuals provide much more detail about regarding what hands do/do not qualify for an opening bid.  A dealer script, a Statistically valid sample, what have you.

But that means that either:

a. everyone needs to learn how to read your statistical definitions of conventions, or
b. the C&CC is approving conventions only for the specific pair that submitted them

Perhaps we should admit the C&CC is making the best out of a bad situation. Regarding some who post here, I certainly don't think that if <pick name of player> could play <latest MidChart convention they are plumping here> they would all of a sudden be winning regularly at the NABC+ level. On the other hand, I agree completely with your comment about transparency.

[TimG]

xcurt, on Dec 16 2009, 08:13 PM, said:

Perhaps we should admit the C&CC is making the best out of a bad situation.

The C&C Committee makes many of the rules that make the bad situation.

SOs the world over must deal with system regulation. Some probably do worse, but I don't think many would agree with you that ACBL's C&C Committee makes the best of it.

[TimG]

mycroft, on Dec 8 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

4) Does "all-purpose" in terms of 1m openings mean "a specific purpose"? (I know the answer to that one too, but again, with the number of arguments that come up, it needs to be answered formally)

I ventured to the Newton regional last night where someone asked me if a 1♦ opening which showed specifically 4 spades was GCC legal. I said "no" and offered that I had been told by ACBL that such an opening is not "all-purpose".

This person had convinced a director that it was GCC legal and was intending to use the method in a GCC event. Not sure whether any opponents objected, and if they did what the outcome was.

I mention this mostly as another example of it mattering who you ask.

Tim