TimG

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid". Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction Wrong Tim - now you are talking against better knowledge - at least I hope. In this thread you have had the option to be enlightened. Condescension is not going to help your case. I think you are confused. The "their" is Meckstroth-Rodwell, who I don't believe use any ferts (0-7 openings) Again, I think you are confused. If a member of the FP pair is in first seat, they will either be opening a non-standard (be it a fert or a light initial action bid of some sort) or passing with a 13+ hand. Either way you are in am "unnormal" situation. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to ban FP systems at some levels. I'm sure I could be convinced that the ban should extend to most or all levels. I really wasn't offering an opinion on whether FP should be banned, but trying to explain how the regulators see RM Precision as different from a FP system and thus treat them differently in the regulations. Look at the quote from Codo that I was referring to.

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".

Maybe you have some experiences you could offer up to Frances in this thread. I don't imagine your partnerships last that long if a result like this might end them, or if you are regularly looking to assign blame to partner.

It has been my experience that methods which may have a tendency to pick off the opponents' suit are more likely to be considered destructive. If your 1H opening shows 4+ hearts and 0-5 points, the opponents will want to play in hearts some non-negligible percentage of the time. This means that defenses are harder to devise. I believe this was one of the significant objections to 2D = weak with 4+-4+ in the majors. No cue-bids because the opponents have to cater to playing in one of the majors is a killer for getting a defense approved (in ACBL). Or, was, the method is simply banned now.

I doubt the "molly-coddling" has much of an effect at the top levels. As Fred points out, the US teams have people who work 100s of hours on preparing counter methods and the players are likely skilled enough to be able to easily adopt them for the most part, especially given that they can decide which pairs face which HUMs. If you were talking about throwing average ACBL up and comers and average Australian up and comers into an event with liberal system/convention allowances, I would expect the ACBL players to have a bit of a handicap. But, I don't think the handicap would last that long. Whether the ACBL rank and file would be able to adjust quickly and how much loss of entries would result in a more permissive atmosphere is unknown. This unknown seems to be something ACBL is (somewhat understandably) reluctant to test.

I'm surprised that the number of signatures is that low and imagine if this were a practical method then it would have been used before. Back in the days of the COI, they would have easily been able to put bylaw amendments before this body.

I think you are right and that this is one of the flaws in the creation of "adequate" defenses. Consider the bridge world before there were weak two-bids. I suspect that you will agree that the defense often has trouble getting back to where they "would have been" had the opponents passed rather than opened a weak two-bid. The standard, natural, single-suited, preempts are accepted, not because the opponents can brush them aside as if nothing had happened, but because they are familiar. If the ability to brush aside the method were the primary consideration, transfer openings would be allowed, and allowed in events with short segments. While defending against a transfer opening is not identical to defending against a natural opening, it can be very close and, if anything, the transfer opening provides the defense with extra space so the defender's should have a theoretical advantage vs a natural opening if they choose to make use of the extra space. I cannot see how restricting a transfer opening to 12+ board segments is a reflection of the opponents' inability to get back to where they would have been had we opened something normal. Can you see what the rationale is?

I recently read Jonathan Steinberg's Boston NABC report and found that there is a proposal to change the NABC event schedule. Aside from the addition of a new event at the Spring NABC (the Platinum Pairs) the Open/Women's BAM at the Fall NABC and the Mixed Pairs at the Spring NABC are basically switching places (pending approval). The effect of this is to make the Mixed Pairs at the Fall NABC the premier NABC event for those two days, it starts on day three of the Senior KOs, and those will be the only NABC events offered on Sunday-Monday. I think this is bad for two reasons: it elevates the status of the Mixed Pairs when sexed events should be going in the other directions; and it means that a partnership made up of two males under 55 won't have any NABC events to enter those two days. I wonder what others think.

One trouble with this is that there is not currently a great variety of events offered; I can't go to a regional and decide between the GCC Swiss and the mid-chart Swiss. It's sort of a one-size fits all approach.

As an aside, I've often wondered whether a slight change in methods would invalidate the approved defense. Suppose we decided to play penalty doubles instead of negative doubles, for instance, or change our jump raise from preemptive to limit, would this require a new approval, or would it be OK to simply note this change in the methods section and carry the suggested defense as modified.

The detailed responses were required by the C&C Committee. The original submission was meant to be much more generic in terms of method and defense. For instance, the defense presented for the 1H transfer opening assumes the opening was 1S for all intervenor actions of 1NT and above. That is, (1H)-2S is a cue-bid overcall, specified as Michaels (showing hearts and a minor) in the defense. It was not sufficient to suggest that (1H)-2S meant whatever (1S)-2S meant in the defenders' methods. The original defense specified that defenders should use their normal defenses to a 1S opening for all calls 1NT and higher, but the committee rejected that in favor of spelling out a specific meaning for each call. To me, this makes the suggested defense more confusing. Suppose you play (1S)-2S to show top and bottom, if you use the suggested defense you have to switch methods or risk being on a different page than your partner. It was also required that I spell out the competitive methods the opening side would use. So, I had to list things like negative doubles and unusual vs unusual. In my opinion listing those sort of things has no benefit and makes the suggested defense longer, more intimidating, and more time consuming to use. Yes, if more methods that require suggested defenses were allowed, I believe there would be a short adjustment phase where players get used to using the defenses provided. Not the specific defense, but simply get used to using a suggested defense.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing, but I agree with jdonn that "innovation" connotes advancement for the better.

You keep using that word "innovative" which I believe is completely wrong to use the way you are using it due to its positive connotation (people usually don't refer to something bad as "innovative".) I'm not saying new methods aren't innovative, but by using that word you are clearly implying such is the reason the committee wants these methods banned. That is just a roundabout way of saying the committee's goal is to ban methods if they believe those methods are (or might be) better than the ones they use. And as I have stated several times, I really think it's absurd (not merely wrong) to believe anyone serves on that committee to gain some sort of competitive advantage. This goes both ways. One of the committee members described MOSCITO as "diabolical". Plenty of very good bridge players believe unfamiliar methods provide the users with an unfair advantage. And, that some of those who use unfamiliar methods use them because of the advantage gained from unfamiliarity rather than a belief that they have a technical advantage (or are just plain more suited the practitioner's temperament). There is plenty of complaining from US participants in World Championships regarding the unusual and unfamiliar methods they face and for which they spend significant time preparing.

The problem is (or was) that which things should be allowed has been something of a moving target. Defenses to methods which were allowed were solicited and then the methods disallowed. The question is sort of whether: 1) unforeseen difficulties in creating a defense led to banning the method; or 2) people thought the method should be banned so they made the creation of a defense overly difficult. My opinion is that it is mostly a case of #1, but that part of the problem is in the definition of "adequate" for defensive purposes.

The ACBL is, in general, not interested in being like other bridge organizations. It is an extra hoop, but I don't think it was designed with the objective of making things more difficult for innovators. In my experience, in the cases where approval was something of a hassle, the mid-chart was later changed to reflect the judgment of the committee. That may be seen as slowing innovation or putting brakes on something that was out of control depending upon your predisposition.

That's bad because you don't want the 33rd seed to have a better chance of surviving than the 28th seed.

That's a lot of work to burden the committee with. I think it makes more sense for those who want to use a mid-chart convention to be responsible for providing an adequate defense. Of course, "adequate" should be defined and guidelines provided so that those who submit defenses will know just what the committee is looking for. It is clear from the comments in this forum that people's ideas of "adequate" vary quite a bit. To me this seems a really weird idea. I can't think of any other sport where when one side thinks up a new offensive play that they have to tell their opponents what a good defense would be - that is the opponents' job. In most sports, the offense doesn't have to tell the defense what play it is running. In baseball, the pitcher doesn't tell the batter what pitch is coming, in (American) football the offense doesn't tell the defense whether it will be a run off tackle, a deep pass, a screen, a sweep, etc. If bridge were like most sports, we wouldn't have to describe our agreements to the opponents at all, they'd be left to figure out on their own what our bidding means. (But then, bridge isn't a sport, so why it should be compared to sports is a question in itself.)

I do not mean to suggest that you do not have a good understanding of what the players in the Vanderbilt want, but there is always going to be resistance to change. It has been my experience in bridge administration that too many things are tried once and dismissed before they are given a real chance.

I don't think that is a fair characterization of what all of us don't like. Speaking only for myself, I can quite understand that the committee has better judgment than I do in many bridge areas, both in theory and in what the bridge playing public wants. My past problems with the committee have been primarily based upon their reluctance to approve defenses for methods which were clearly mid-chart legal. The committee was using their judgment to override rules that were in place, or so it seemed. My Standard American based transfer opening was approved, but correspondence made clear that the committee would not approve a defense to a MOSCITO type transfer opening even though the mid-chart (as written at the time) allowed such a method. I also was unable to get approved a defense for another method which was mid-chart legal at the time (a 2D opening which showed a weak hand with 4+ diamonds and a 4+ card major). The 2D opening is no longer mid-chart legal (a rule was passed not long after my submission that requires such weak opening to promise at least 54 shape, codifying the committee's judgment that the 44 method was primarily destructive); the mid-chart no longer has the clause that allows for all constructive calls which promise 4 or more cards in a known suit, so the MOSCITO transfer openings are no longer clearly mid-chart legal. I have found it frustrating when the approval process has basically amounted to: this method is allowed by the mid-chart, but no defense is ever going to be adequate, so none will be approved and the method will, in effect, be barred. That is, the committee's judgment was in disagreement with the mid-chart, not with me. I recognize that the mid-chart has been rewritten to virtually eliminate this problem. But, that doesn't mean the past wasn't frustrating, or that the frustration was a result of me putting my judgment before the committee's.

For some events, it seems to me that "what the players" want should be of secondary consideration to having the "best" format. If those with expertise in event formats think that a round robin (or round robins or Swiss) followed by KO would produce a fairer event that runs more true to how teams perform, then it shouldn't matter a whole lot that players want a KO from the start. At least not for a select few events like the Spingold and Vanderbilt. The Spingold and Vanderbilt used to involve some sort of Swiss qualifying, I believe. Or, at least I am quite confident that they have not always been straight KO events. The NABC level GNT events have Swiss or round robin qualifying followed by a KO stage. Some World Championships events have a round robin qualifying stage. Though a major consideration, I doubt this is solely for practical reasons. Some players, no doubt, would be happier with a round robin or Swiss stage to start the event. Speaking as one who would be a (very) low seed, it would be attractive to me to know I would play against a number of teams of varying ability during my time in the event. But, I'm sure the top seeds would feel more vulnerable in a Swiss or round robin phase than they would playing a day-long match against a low seed. Whether a top seed being eliminated in a round robin phase would be more a result of increased randomness of the shorter matches or a reflection of how the team played on this particular day is definitely something for consideration. Tim

That's a lot of work to burden the committee with. I think it makes more sense for those who want to use a mid-chart convention to be responsible for providing an adequate defense. Of course, "adequate" should be defined and guidelines provided so that those who submit defenses will know just what the committee is looking for. It is clear from the comments in this forum that people's ideas of "adequate" vary quite a bit.

Suppose that you have a 2D method that you just must use, something like Flannery or Mexican, and you are deciding what to do with your 2M openings. Now, you might want to compare the frequency of weak-twos in the majors with Muiderberg Twos. Frequency of weak two = 6.1% All 6322 hands = 5.64% x 2/4 All 6331 hands = 3.45% x 2/4 All 6421 hands = 4.7% x 2/4 x 4/6 (we don't open a weak two with four cards in oM) All 6430 hands = 1.3% x 0 (we don't open a weak two with a void) Frequency of Muiderberg = 9.98% All 5431 hands with a 4 card minor = 12.93% x 2/4 x 4/6 All 5422 hands with a 4 card minor = 10.6% x 2/4 x 2/3 All 5521 hands with a 5M + 5m = 3.2% x 8/12 9.98/6.1 > 3/2 QED

That being said, I am not the only person who has an imperfect memory of the details of events that happened many years ago. It would not surprise me in the least if Richard's (or anyone else's) recollection of the details was less than perfectI believe that the situation Richard was referring to regarding the 1D transfer opening was a result of my correspondence with the C&C Committee. Here is a message I received from one of the C&C Committee members regarding the 1D transfer opening: My submission, which was eventually approved (for knockouts) and still can be found in the defense database, was for a defense to a 1D transfer opening that showed the equivalent of a Standard American 1H opening (and was forcing to 1H). In other correspondence (that I'm not sure was intended for my eyes) there was specific mention of MOSQUITO and the "looming danger" of a "slippery slope" that could result from approving my method. As I said, the committee did approve my method, so there was no refusal on their part to approve something that was clearly mid-chart legal. I do think it is fair to say there was considerable reluctance on their part. This correspondence took place in August of 2004. I kept copies of some things, but not everything. At the time, the committee members who appeared to be involved in the discussion were Jeff Meckstroth, Steve Weinstein, Chip Martel and Steve Beatty (along with Gary Blaiss and Rick Beye, who may or not have been actual members of the committee). I do not know whether Fred was on the committee at this time, and if he was, how much of the discussion was forwarded to him. Tim

I happened to notice jlall lurking today (on the list of active users in the Board Statistics section). So, not all that sneaky.

Sorry if I mistook snark for a lapse in mathematical reasoning.