TimG

To put a light hearted spin on the matter. You may not think it effective, but that is what I thought when I read the post. But it's a tacit acknowledgment that there are some that will find it offensive, while simultaneously proving that you don't care enough not to use it. In fact, you're taking advantage of your knowledge that they'll be bothered to provide humor for others. As I said, you may not think it was effective.

In my experience, the process is very slow and requires regular requests for updates on progress.

It is clearly not analogous because 2♠ showing spades and another shows the suit bid, while 2♦ showing spades and another may not show the suit bid. I'm going to guess that the proposed 2♦ opening is not strictly forcing and it is this uncertainty which makes it more difficult to defend against. Also, by its very unfamiliarity, it will be more difficult for people to defend against. Yes, I am fully aware that by not approving a defense, and thus barring this and similar methods, they will never become familiar. A few years ago, before the Defense Database, I was playing a Multi-type 2♣ opening bid. When we came to Jan Martel's table, she found the suggested defense unacceptable and commented that Multi 2♣ was more difficult to defend against than a Multi 2♦ and that a simple adoption (with minor modification) of the Multi 2♦ defense was insufficient. I'm still not exactly clear what the problem was and I do not remember the exact details. I believe we agreed not to play the method, and scrapped it for the entire tournament. When the Defense Database came into being, I submitted a similar method for approval. There was a back and forth and a defense was eventually approved (and is still in the defense database). But, it was approved only for 12+ board segments.

To put a light hearted spin on the matter. You may not think it effective, but that is what I thought when I read the post.

I was once (not so long ago) under 40 and in a position (District 25 President) to influence policy regarding the running of local regionals. (There are also those who would describe me as a curmudgeon, but no one would mistake me for a bridge professional.) One of the few real powers I had was appointing people to committees (such as scheduling, CoC, disciplinary, etc.) that made recommendations to the District Board. I tried to appoint as many young people as I could to these committees (sometimes to the chagrin of individuals who had "always" served on these committees). Trouble is, there weren't that many young players to choose from, the ones that were appointed did not always commit the time necessary, and some, recognizing they didn't have the time, declined to serve (including at least one who has contributed to this thread). There was some of the bias by omission that you describe. But, when 90% of ACBL membership is over 55 (I don't know if that % is accurate, but probably not that far off) and many decisions are made in an effort to please the majority, the decisions are going to be seen to favor seniors even if due consideration is given to other viewpoints. Starting times might actually be a case of catering to the young crowd -- the vast majority of tournaments are run with two-session events which start afternoon and evening, the choice of the younger crowd. (Also the choice of professional bridge players since it is easier to fit three sessions into a day.) Anyway, you should not assume that those who are on the board have your best interests at heart -- board members can't have everyone's best interests at heart because not everyone has the same best interests. Which was, perhaps, your point, though I would not have framed it in terms of a conspiracy. It may seem difficult to influence ACBL's BoD, though I suspect they do consider the opinions they receive from membership. It may seem to me like they ignore my opinions when I offer them, but I have been on the losing side of enough 12-1 and 11-2 votes to know that my opinions are often not held by the majority (or even a significant minority). I do think that you can influence local policy. There are surely members of your local boards (Unit and District) who would listen to your opinions and even act on some of them. If you do show interest, it won't be long before you are asked to serve on some committee and find yourself involved in local administration.

Someone needs a set of brass balls.

Somewhere along the way, I mentioned the currently in vogue usage of "gay" or "ghay" to denote something stupid or lame. I was surprised that the reaction was mostly along the lines of "language evolves and while it's evolving we can just put up with it, pretty soon it won't be offensive so we shouldn't be offended by it now".

Kibitzers ought to be allowed to enter the playing area only between rounds/segments; once a round/segment starts, the playing area ought to be closed. A kibitzer could leave the room at any time, but would not be able to re-enter until the next between-round/segment break. Players should remain in the playing room until they have completed the current round/segment. In this way, players could not communicate to their teammates regarding hand they are about to play. (Yes, I realize signals could be transmitted via vibrating cellphones or custom hi-tech devices, but the number of boards for which useful information could be passed would be significantly reduced. And, the effort needed to cheat in this manner would be significantly increased over current conditions.) I have long thought that there ought to be a directing presence in each playing area. Directors should not be stationed in hallways or sitting behind tables at the edge of a playing area. There ought to be a director for each 2-3 sections that is actually walking the floor, observing the players, making sure things run smoothly, etc. Not only would this obviate the very annoying need to leave the playing area to call a director, but directors would have a much better feel for the happenings in the sections they are patrolling. It would be easier for them to monitor slow play situations, make quick rulings (including automatic penalties when a cell phone rings), keep the game moving in an orderly fashion and recognize less savory behavior. Think what you want, but I seriously doubt any board member ever thought along the lines of: "hey, this rule will seriously inconvenience the young folks, we ought to pass it just to annoy them."

This is a pretty bad argument, in my opinion, unless you are suggesting all mid-chart methods should be excluded from pair events. Many other mid-chart methods (and even some GCC methods) probably slow opponents down, but Multi seems targeted because it is gaining popularity -- more people are playing it, more opponents are taking extra time, and the game slows down more often as a result. Instead of slowing down the spread (and acceptance) of Multi by ushering it off to events with 7+ board rounds, let the process unfold. The more often players face the method, the more familiar they will become with it and the less time they will need to prepare at the table. By moving Multi to events with longer rounds, you are slowing down the acclimation period. If your opinion is that all mid-chart (experimental) methods ought to be restricted to events with 7+ board segments, you might as well make pair events GCC and restrict the use of mid-chart to team events. (This might be a good idea, but as I understand the current structure of convention charts, it is not the intended goal.)

It would be a good idea to remember that ACBL's Memphis management is a rather different body than the ACBL BoD.

can wait until someone invents legs You're suggesting that he could have walked to his father's house in NJ if he missed the last bus?

Actually you only have 9/10 right. Are you sure he doesn't have two?

I agree. I also agree that 4H agrees clubs and is a move toward slam.

I suspect that most of the players who cannot live without a cellphone were in diapers or elementary school 20 years ago. Not all, but most.

I don't carry a wallet or a purse...I do carry a money clip with my driver's license, one credit card, one debit card and (sometimes) a few notes of currency. I do not think a wallet is in the same category as a cell phone because a wallet is not something that people typically use to communicate. The ban on cell phones (and other devices capable of sending or receiving electronic communication) is not arbitrary.

That's a very good idea. I don't think ACBL should be responsible for handling cell phones during sessions. Sort of in the same way that they are not responsible for coats or cars during a session. Many organizers make allowances for coats and cars -- coat racks or a coat check and discounted or free parking -- but these are not, and should not be, requirements for organizers. Cell phone checking could be a small source of revenue for organizers, either by manning a desk with volunteers and charging a small fee, or by renting desk space to an entrepreneur, similar to agreements with book sellers. (Either way, there ought to be a waiver of responsibility for lost items.)

Pass, if I didn't think I was good enough to come in over 2♠, I'll go quietly now. Seriously, I figured that was the opponents' bidding until I got to your description of "Now What".

While their cell phone policy is drifting towards international standards.

Exactly. I think this point bears repeating until the people who passed this rule get a clue. When more than 70% of the 50+ people polled recently thought the new rule was bad enough to disobey it in some way, the people making the rules clearly aren't following the desires of the masses. The average player who attends a National plays for fun, hopes to do well, and doesn't come close to winning anything of note. For these players, it's clear from the recent polls and sentiment that the majority would rather have their phones accessible and unhassled, than making it merely easy to cheat (rather than very easy) for those so inclined. Perhaps this all points to a conflict of interest between the bridge professionals who often populate the ACBL governing committees and the average competitive player. The bridge pro's are the ones for whom the "integrity" of the sport means big bucks. After all, why would any one sponsor a top tier team if they thought they'd just lose to a bunch of cheaters? You could just cheat yourself and do quite well, without paying for all that hired talent. If I were a committee bridge pro and saw this as a threat to my livelihood, you can bet I'd vote for more "apparent security" (ala this ban) even if I knew it wouldn't matter much and that it would inconvenience the average player enough they wouldn't actually want the rule if given a choice... Reading this post, I can't help but think this same argument could be used in favor of strict convention restrictions -- restrictions are clearly the desire of the masses, the average player attends a NABC for fun and doesn't want to be inconvenienced by facing new and difficult to defend methods...it is clear that the sentiment of the masses is that they want strict regulation of conventions. Yet, when these are given as the reasons for convention regulation, it seems a majority of forum posters dismiss this as bad for bridge. And, some people think the pros who are on the competition committee which administers the convention charts make decisions in a way that will protect their clients from unusual methods, that is, administer with an eye towards protecting their livelihood. When they are perceived to have done this, it is viewed as a sort of corruption in the the process, not as an understandable protection of the game.

You forgot ballsie = -5.

I didn't mean to suggest the treatment was standard, just citing one expert viewpoint for consideration.

I got 7 1/2. I believe there are multiple correct answers for at least one of the questions and I got one of the less common, but likely correct answers, thus the 1/2.

Didn't they used to be in the Atlantic Ocean?

The ban specifically excludes medical devices.

So, if the auction is: 1♠-P-2♣-P; 4♣-? you're entering the auction? I don't like 2♥. But, I'm not confident that I will be able to act later, or that I'll even want to act later. Edit: added "not".