HUM system definitions

[JanM]

At the Philly nationals, two australian friends of mine came and played similar methods (x-fer openers) in the open pairs. Half way through a session, chip martel, single handedly ruled that this was not legal, made them play natural opening bids the 2'nd half of the session, where that had many accidents (not everything carried over well) and essentially gave the people who played them early bad scores relative to the people who played them late.

Since I was sitting at the table when this issue arose, and was in fact the player who called the director to ask whether transfer one bids were allowed, let me correct some of what Josh states and comment a little on the rest - of course, none of this has anything to do with the original question posted here.

 

1. Chip did not make any ruling - a player cannot do that. In fact, when the pair arrived at our table and I saw that they were playing transfer 1 bids, I called the director to find out if that was allowed. Chip did tell the director that he believed a pair had been told before the tournament that they could not play transfer one bids. The director went off to consult with other directors and returned to our table to explain to the opponents that they were not allowed to play one level transfer opening bids in this event because there was not an approved defense.

 

2. The opponents left our table and went to the next table where they told their opponents that they were playing transfer openings at the one level. When I heard that, I summoned the director, and they were again told they could not play these methods. I am happy that they then stopped using the method. I agree that it was unfair to the pairs they played earlier that they had used the method against them, but I don't understand how that could have been avoided, since they had not asked before the event whether they could play transfer one bids. In fact, another pair had submitted a similar method in advance and been told that they could not play it.

 

3. I haven't seen the defense you submitted; there was a time when defenses were posted without review; I don't remember when the "approved defense" concept started, so I don't know whether yours was reviewed. I do know that it's not as trivial as it sounds to defend against transfer 1 bids (because the entire tenor of the auction changes) and that the Conventions & Competition Committee has been working with Moscito proponents to come up with a defense that is both adequate and easily understood, so far with no success.

 

4. In the last few years, the C&C committee has decided that it makes more sense to decide what methods to allow depending on the number of boards each opponent will play against the method. This is primarily because of time issues. If it will take a pair 2 minutes at the beginning of the round to understand the method and defense, and another 2 minutes when the method comes up to review the defense and figure out how to bid their hands, that will consume too much time when there are only 2 boards in a round. I know, it won't always take 2 minutes, but sometimes it will take longer. I play multi, and find that the time wasted dealing with pre-alerting and explaining about the written defense is often very frustrating in 2 board rounds. When there are more boards, the time consumed dealing with a compex method won't be as large a percentage of the time allotted to play the round, so more complex methods can be allowed. In long matches, even more complex methods are allowed. For systems issues, it makes a lot more sense to classify events by the length of the round than by the "level" of the event. One result of this approach is that methods that were previously allowed in NABC+ pair events (and BAM teams) are no longer allowed.

[awm]

As Josh Sher and Jan Martel's posts have indicated, it's often very difficult to sort out what's actually going on. The fact that rules and regulations are constantly changing makes it even harder -- the Australian pair in question probably assumed that since transfer openings had been approved for Toronto nationals, they would be okay a year later in Philly...

 

Anyways, Moscito has existed for quite some time now. In fact many of the top Australian players seem to play some form of transfer openings. This is not some "new diabolical method" that has very recently come onto the scene. I think it's somewhat ridiculous for the ACBL midchart to state that "any call which shows four or more cards in a known suit" is allowed, and then to disallow a system which is as established as Moscito variants are, because of lack of a suggested defense.

 

Obviously, coming up with the "best" defense to a method is tough. But coming up with a reasonable defense may not be so hard. Certainly American teams have had to face transfer openings when playing against Aussie teams in international events for quite some time now, so at least some defense is out there. Why not post something, allow the method (at least in team games), and if something better comes along add it to the defense database later on?

 

It is somewhat unfair the way some methods seem to get approved right away, even with clearly sub-optimal defenses, whereas other methods hang around for years and never seem to get an approved defense -- this is a pretty clear case of favoritism in the way these things are handled.

 

As a passing note, the defense to 1♥ showing a standard-american 1♠ opening has apparently been approved....

[JanM]

I think it's somewhat ridiculous for the ACBL midchart to state that "any call which shows four or more cards in a known suit" is allowed, and then to disallow a system which is as established as Moscito variants are, because of lack of a suggested defense.

 

Why not post something, allow the method (at least in team games), and if something better comes along add it to the defense database later on?

 

It is somewhat unfair the way some methods seem to get approved right away, even with clearly sub-optimal defenses, whereas other methods hang around for years and never seem to get an approved defense -- this is a pretty clear case of favoritism in the way these things are handled.

 

I certainly don't want to suggest that the Midchart is well-written or easy to read :P but if you plough through it you will find that it doesn't allow all bids that show 4 or more cards in a known suit. It allows such bids *only* if there is an approved defense. To figure this out, you have to notice that some of the "allowed" methods have asterisks next to them (showing 4 or more cards in a known suit does not). Then you have to read the general description at the beginning of the Midchart that says that methods not having an asterisk require an approved defense. Then you can go to the Defense Database and see if the method you want to use has an approved defense. if it doesn't you need to submit one and get it approved.

 

Moscito (and everything else for that matter) is allowed in the Vanderbilt and Spingold (and USBF events as well). But in those events, the opponents have the responsibility to prepare in advance and to come up with a defense. For events where the users of a method are required to provide a defense, it's necessary to get the defense approved.

 

I don't know what methods you think get approved right away with sub-optimal defenses. Except for multi (which was approved a long time ago and would cause a huge furor if it were now disapproved), I don't know of any. Whether a method "gets an approved defense" really depends on its proponents - they're the ones who have to produce a reasonable and reasonably easy to understand, defense.

[DelfinoD]

1. Chip did not make any ruling - a player cannot do that. In fact, when the pair arrived at our table and I saw that they were playing transfer 1 bids, I called the director to find out if that was allowed. Chip did tell the director that he believed a pair had been told before the tournament that they could not play transfer one bids. The director went off to consult with other directors and returned to our table to explain to the opponents that they were not allowed to play one level transfer opening bids in this event because there was not an approved defense.

My God. If someone can't think of a defence against transfer openings maybe he should't play bridge at all? Can I call a TD because I didn't know how to defend against a squeeze? I have a bad result because of opponents using advanced technology. Maybe let's forbid squeezes, the life will be much easier.

 

Transfer openings are really bad. For example when you open 1d with hearts you give a lot of space. Opponents can double with diamonds for lead, can use 1h for take-out, and still have free 1nt which could be used for other hands (you double with strong bal hand, so it's easy for partner to double 1h then).

 

It's terrible what's happening to this beatiful game, which is not only a game between people but also a game of bidding systems. Some are better at making squeezes, others at making systems. They both should have right to play.

 

There's really nothing in the RULES of the game that forbids opening 1d with hearts. So called law doesn't concern bridge. It makes some kind of a different sport which shouldn't be called this way. You may call it primitive-bridge or natural-bridge or no-bidding-bridge.

 

If you can't play agains any system you are a very bad bridge player. You can be good at primitive-bridge, ok, but not at bridge. That's my opinion.

 

And the definition of HUM is one of the most stupid and ridiculous pieces of text, that has ever been written about bridge.

[PeterE]

My God.

There is a typo in your contribution ...

Reading all of it you should have startet with "I am God." :P

[DelfinoD]

My God.

There is a typo in your contribution ...

Reading all of it you should have startet with "I am God." :P

Why's that? Was it so brilliant?

 

I can give you another example.

 

Defence against natural 1♥ opening. Let' take a look;

 

pass - artificial because can be strong (just like HUM!!)

x - artificial because not showing ♥

2♥ - artificial because not showing ♥

 

This is too complicated for me. It's so artificial that natural 1♥ opening should be forbidden.

 

Now defence agains 1♥ opening which means 0-1♥

 

pass - natural, always weak

x - natural, showing hearts

2♥ - natural, showing hearts

 

So now can you have any doubt that defending agains artificial 1♥ is much easier than against natural? So only artificial openings should be possible, because only these are easy to defend against.

 

Take a look at it from a different point of view. You play with a total beginner, who only knows rules, but never heard about any system or convention.

 

How will he understand pass, x and 2♥ overcall after 1♥ opening?

 

What I think is that many people got used to the mechanism they use. And because they are lazy, they don't want others to use different mechanism. All these talking about naturality is really worth nothing. Why can we use transfers after 1nt openings and we can't use transfers as a opening? I guess the defence is simmilar. I wonder when they will prohibit natural bidding after 1nt opening, because there is no approved defence :P

 

And if you think that it's not possible to make a system which is aimed at destructions of those, who are to lazy to think of a defence (which is green), you're wrong.

 

This is a classical no pass system which is not a HUM:

 

pas = doesn't exist

1 suit = better minor 12-37pc

1nt = 8-12pc any

2 suit = 4+, 0-7pc

 

Try it at ACBL tournament. I wonder if they prohibit it, and if so, then why?

[hrothgar]

I certainly don't want to suggest that the Midchart is well-written or easy to read :P but if you plough through it you will find that it doesn't allow all bids that show 4 or more cards in a known suit. It allows such bids *only* if there is an approved defense.

It might be useful to have a bit of historical perspective:

 

I remember when the ACBL originally introduced the Defensive Database. The ACBL described the Defensive Database as a tool that the ACBL would use to increase the range of methods that players were able to use during events.

 

In actually, your husband and Jeff Meckstroth used the Defensive database to neuter the Midchart. They deliberately applied highly subjective standards during the approval process for suggested defenses and crippled player's ability to use anything out of the ordinary.

 

In doing so, they taught me a very valuable lesson. Such there is no such thing as the "Spirit of the Law" in North American bridge. There is only personal advantage and personal power.

[fred]

I certainly don't want to suggest that the Midchart is well-written or easy to read  :P but if you plough through it you will find that it doesn't allow all bids that show 4 or more cards in a known suit. It allows such bids *only* if there is an approved defense.

It might be useful to have a bit of historical perspective:

 

I remember when the ACBL originally introduced the Defensive Database. The ACBL described the Defensive Database as a tool that the ACBL would use to increase the range of methods that players were able to use during events.

 

In actually, your husband and Jeff Meckstroth used the Defensive database to neuter the Midchart. They deliberately applied highly subjective standards during the approval process for suggested defenses and crippled player's ability to use anything out of the ordinary.

 

In doing so, they taught me a very valuable lesson. Such there is no such thing as the "Spirit of the Law" in North American bridge. There is only personal advantage and personal power.

This is an extemely unfair post in my opinion, Richard. Furthermore, I am disappointed that someone with your obvious intellect, interest in "fairness", and love of the game would:

 

1) Present your own highly subjective opinions as if they were fact while at the same time denying the validity of the subjective opinions of those who have much more knowledge and experience than you do.

 

2) Attack the integrity of 2 of the world's greatest players who have given a great deal of time and energy over the years to attend horrible long meetings in the middle of major tournaments, to debate these difficult issues, to read and respond to numerous long, indignant, non-sensical e-mails from "systems creators", and to try to come up with solutions that they genuinely think are in the best interests of the ACBL membership.

 

I personally served on the committee in question along with Chip and Jeff during the time that a lot of the events you refer to happened. The meetings we had to go to were long, boring, and painful. Besides that, I found that attending these meetings (which took place at every ACBL Nationals) had a negative impact on my results (and since I, along with Chip and Jeff, are professional players, this was a serious concern). I could only stomach being on this committee for about 2 years. Then I resigned. I have no doubt that Chip and Jeff had similar feelings, but they carried on.

 

My opinion is that ACBL members should be grateful that extraordinary bridge players like Chip and Jeff (among others) have been willing to get involved in this thankless task. I have no doubt that their ONLY motivation in doing so was to serve the ACBL and its membership.

 

Obviously you do not agree with the actions of this committee, but in my view that does not give you the right to viciously smear the committee members (especially in a public forum).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[DrTodd13]

and to try to come up with solutions that they genuinely think are in the best interests of the ACBL membership.[\QUOTE]

 

With all due respect Fred, "best interests of the ACBL membership" is open to a wide interpretation. One interpretation is that best interests means getting the best defense possible to new conventions. Another interpretation is that best interests means maximizing player happiness. Player happiness for most people is maximized in part by minimizing the number of systems and conventions they have to defend against. Most players don't want this stuff allowed. The ACBL is trying to make money and they do that by keeping people happy and increasing attendance. Pros benefit from a larger player base and better client results because clients will be less confused by only encountering one or two systems. Everybody that has any power has every reason not to allow this stuff and no reason for allowing it. Can you see the conflict of interest when we are told that this committee is working hard to allow new things? Where is the evidence that this is the case? The defense database is hardly growing. To me as an external observer, the preponderance of the evidence points to a system that serves to attempt to maximize attendance and therefore money. This is a totally rational thing for a company to do and I don't have a problem with it. My problem is that they aren't honest about it and are claiming there is some bridge reason why different systems and conventions are disallowed.

[fred]

With all due respect Fred, "best interests of the ACBL membership" is open to a wide interpretation.  One interpretation is that best interests means getting the best defense possible to new conventions.  Another interpretation is that best interests means maximizing player happiness.  Player happiness for most people is maximized in part by minimizing the number of systems and conventions they have to defend against.  Most players don't want this stuff allowed.  The ACBL is trying to make money and they do that by keeping people happy and increasing attendance.  Pros benefit from a larger player base and better client results because clients will be less confused by only encountering one or two systems.  Everybody that has any power has every reason not to allow this stuff and no reason for allowing it.  Can you see the conflict of interest when we are told that this committee is working hard to allow new things?  Where is the evidence that this is the case?  The defense database is hardly growing.  To me as an external observer, the preponderance of the evidence points to a system that serves to attempt to maximize attendance and therefore money.  This is a totally rational thing for a company to do and I don't have a problem with it.  My problem is that they aren't honest about it and are claiming there is some bridge reason why different systems and conventions are disallowed.

 

But the ACBL is not a company. It is a not-for-profit organization with a mission of serving its membership and promoting bridge in North America (whether or not they are succeeding at this mission is not important to this discussion). Sure they care about not losing money, but this will take care of itself if they are successful in their mission. They ACBL is certainly not about maximizing profits.

 

Maximizing number of members and their satisfaction is what the ACBL (and its committees) should be trying to achieve.

 

The ACBL depends on volunteers to do the awful no-win jobs like deciding which conventions are allowed and serving on appeals committees. I would think it would be obvious that it is in the interest of the ACBL membership that the best minds in the game be involved in these things. Reality is that most of these people are pros. Fortunately many pros believe in "giving something back" and serving on these committees.

 

Yes, there is a possible conflict of interest, but in my opinion the people that Richard attacked are able to rise above that and act in a way that they think will best serve the game. I feel that I am in a strong position to make these claims since I know both Jeff and Chip personally and since I have served with them on these committees.

 

Furthermore, since the premise that "what is good for the ACBL is good for the pros" is generally true (at least in my opinion), the possible conflict of interest will rarely materialize.

 

And I don't think anyone is being dishonest. I believe if you ask Jeff or Chip (or...) the primary motivation behind their decisions, they would say "because this is what we think is best for the membership". They might then supply a bridge reason for why they believe their decision is good for the membership, but that is what they are supposed to be doing. If serving the ACBL membership sometimes involves making bridge decisions, I would want the likes of Jeff and Chip making these decisions.

 

I am not claiming that the current system regarding mid-chart convention approval is great or that it is even working at all (I don't know and frankly I don't really care). I have no problem if you or Richard or anyone wants to criticize the system or the decisions the committee has made. However, I take offense to claims that honorable and brilliant men who volunteer to make the (bridge) world a better place are attacked publicly as having a secret self-serving agenda.

 

Believe me, if it was an edge that Chip and Jeff were after, they would gain much more by taking the extra 3 hours of sleep during 2 mornings at each Nationals than they could ever hope to gain by spending this time tinkering with the mid-chart (which is not even in use in any of the events that the pros care about).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Hi Fred

 

As you note, I have some personal bias in this area. Its been (roughly) 5 years since I've played any organized bridge in North America. This directly attributable to a number of highly problematic interactions with the Conventions Committee. I readily admit that I was no rising star in the world of bridge. However, I did enjoy playing in tournaments both within EMBA and at the National level. Bridge was an important form of recreation for me. These days if I want to play in a tournament I need to fly to Europe.

 

You appeal to my sense of “fairness”. My sense of fairness is why I'm so disgusted with this entire situation. Do you understand how frustrating it is spending six months trying to work with the Conventions Committee trying to get suggested defenses approved to MOSCITO's transfer openings only to have the Conventions Committee reject each and every submission as either too complicated/not detailed enough and refusing to provide any constructive advice. Then, to top it off, I was accidentally get cc:ed on an email from Meckstroth that states (and I quote)

 

>From: "Jeff Meckstroth" <j.meckles@XXXX.net>

>To: "steve weinstein" <lizsteve@XXXXXXXX.net>,

> "Chip Martel" <martel@XXXXXX>, <Gary.Blaiss@acbl.org>

>Cc: <rick.beye@acbl.org>, "Steve Beatty" <sbeatty@XXXXXXXXX.com>,

>

>Subject: Re: mid-chart submission

>Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:26:31 -0400

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

>X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from [4.4.219.65] at Sat, >14 Aug 2004 20:26:32 -0500

>

>This one is not difficult and is ok. However if we allow this it will lead to other requests for

>transfer openings such as the mosquito system from down under. This system we don't want in acbl.

>

>I would approve this but warn all of the looming danger.

>

>Jeff

 

I didn't matter what type of Suggested Defense I (or anyone else) submitted. Members of the Conventions Committee wanted to ban the system and started abusing other laws to achieve this end. (If you want, I can scrape up a couple other similar emails that came to light over the past few years)

 

You state that ACBL members owe a debt of gratitude to folks to great players like Meckstroth and Martel for being willing to sit on these committees. Regretfully, playing the spots off the cards doesn't necessary mean that you're a capable administrator. Personally, I'm a firm believer in “Process”. I very much believe that the means are just as important as the ends. As soon as the regulators start trying to game the system the players are going to start responding in kind.

 

And I don't feel thankful for a process based on fiat and lies.

[david_c]

And I don't think anyone is being dishonest. I believe if you ask Jeff or Chip (or...) the primary motivation behind their decisions, they would say "because this is what we think is best for the membership".

That's good, up to a point. You can certainly argue that it is best for the membership that moscito should be banned. (I would actually agree with that in the case of pairs events.) But the complaints are not about the fact that moscito has been banned, but rather the way that this has been achieved.

 

If some committee has decided that moscito should be banned, then they should be transparent about it and say so. And they should amend the midchart to reflect this. We know that there have been plenty of applications submitted over a long period of time; it is inconceivable that this can have happened without some sort of policy decision having been made. But it seems that what is actually happening is that if someone asks why they cannot play moscito they are told it's because no defence has been approved, which is a half-truth. I think this is dishonest.

[fred]

Richard - I can certainly understand your frustration and I am truly sorry that you feel that you have to leave North America in order to find satisfying tournament conditions.

 

I also understand and respect the importance you place on process.

 

However, I think you are making some (incorrect) assumptions about the nature of the process that is at work here.

 

I do not know the exact mandate that the "mid-chart sub-committee of the conventions and competitions committee of the american contract bridge league" has been dealt (or even if one exists).

 

However, I doubt very much that they are obliged to approve any method that is both "not difficult" and has an "OK" defense (to quote Meckstroth's e-mail).

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, their bottom line mission is to do what they think is best for the ACBL membership (especially those that play in mid-chart events). Perhaps Meckstroth reasoned that, even if your system was harmless enough, that to approve it would open a can of worms that would ultimately lead to the approval of other systems that were less innocent and ultimately harmed the membership.

 

You may disagree with this reasoning and it may be the case that the above is not an accurate description of Meckstroth's reasoning (since I am basically putting words in his mouth).

 

However, to me this e-mail does not imply that process was violated. Even if process was violated, it could have been done innocently. If I, as a past member of the same committee, have no idea what my exact mandate was then maybe neither does Jeff.

 

Even if Jeff's e-mail violates process, perhaps there was an e-mail from another comittee member that said "Jeff, I am sure it was not intentional, but that violates process. However, in my opinion we should disallow this convention because the defense is not adequate for these legitimate reasons...".

 

Not only do I think that some of your premises are false, I think you using them to jump to conclusions. My personal experience suggests that these conclusions are competely wrong.

 

Of course you are welcome to conclude what you want, but look in the mirror and read some of your posts in this thread!

 

You seriously, repeatedly, and publicly insulted and attacked 2 of history's truly great players!

 

Here is what I think of that:

 

Not appropriate.

 

Not appropriate to write such posts about anyone in our community.

 

Not appropriate even if you are right.

 

Very very bad thing to do if it turns out you are wrong.

 

You should know better.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

>From: "Jeff Meckstroth" <j.meckles@XXXX.net>

>To: "steve weinstein" <lizsteve@XXXXXXXX.net>,

>        "Chip Martel" <martel@XXXXXX>, <Gary.Blaiss@acbl.org>

>Cc: <rick.beye@acbl.org>, "Steve Beatty" <sbeatty@XXXXXXXXX.com>,

>       

>Subject: Re: mid-chart submission

>Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:26:31 -0400

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

>X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from [4.4.219.65] at Sat, >14 Aug 2004 20:26:32 -0500

>

>This one is not difficult and is ok. However if we allow this it will lead to other requests for

>transfer openings such as the mosquito system from down under. This system we don't want in acbl.

>

>I would approve this but warn all of the looming danger.

>

>Jeff

Interesting reading, apparently sent to Richard by mistake. If this is how it works behind the scenes, I am beginning to lose respect for the members on that committee - not as bridge players, but as administrators and/or advisers.

 

Give a factual explanation as to why you shouldn't have this system or that defence, but do not tell the world: "This system we don't want in acbl" without giving relevant arguments, i.e. why you want to ban it/them.

 

If what Meckstroth writes in his e-mail is all you can come up with, you are not equal to the task in my opinion.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

Well perhaps before this gets out of hand, could someone ask Mr. Meckstroth about this topic and what he thinks about it so we have the appropriate context.

 

BTW if people don't like to play outside of their narrow comfort zone, aren't there like a zillion GCC events in which you well never run into Paul Marston?

[uday]

I rather suspect that neither Meckles nor Martel would be interested in a debate in a hostile environment.

 

Perhaps a calm, well-reasoned email to Memphis would be answered. I don't know. But if the objective is to push change thru, rather than to understand why change hasnt happened, whats the point? We're just venting.

[fred]

>From: "Jeff Meckstroth" <j.meckles@XXXX.net>

>To: "steve weinstein" <lizsteve@XXXXXXXX.net>,

>        "Chip Martel" <martel@XXXXXX>, <Gary.Blaiss@acbl.org>

>Cc: <rick.beye@acbl.org>, "Steve Beatty" <sbeatty@XXXXXXXXX.com>,

>       

>Subject: Re: mid-chart submission

>Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:26:31 -0400

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

>X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from [4.4.219.65] at Sat, >14 Aug 2004 20:26:32 -0500

>

>This one is not difficult and is ok. However if we allow this it will lead to other requests for

>transfer openings such as the mosquito system from down under. This system we don't want in acbl.

>

>I would approve this but warn all of the looming danger.

>

>Jeff

Interesting reading, apparently sent to Richard by mistake. If this is how it works behind the scene, I am beginning to lose respect for the members on that committee - not as bridge players, but as administrators and/or advisers.

 

Give a factual explanation as to why you shouldn't have this system or that defence, but do not tell the world: "This system we don't want in acbl" without giving relevant arguments, i.e. why you want to ban it/them.

 

If what Meckstroth writes in his e-mail is all you can come up with, you are not equal to the task in my opinion.

 

Roland

Roland - This is not "how it works behind the scenes".

 

Here is how it works:

 

The committee members are asked to express an opinion via e-mail when a convention is submitted. If all committee members share the opinion that "this is system we don't want in the ACBL", then there is no reason to waste time on a bridge discussion that everyone understands already.

 

Frequently the committee members disagree. In such cases there are more (sometimes many more) e-mails that involve a (typically complicated) bridge discussion. Sometimes Rick Beye and Gary Blaiss (who were cc'd on the e-mail in question and who are ACBL's leading experts on the rules) get involved, express their opinions, and make sure that "process" is properly followed.

 

The posted e-mail (inappropriately posted in my view) is likely one of many e-mails on this subject. This one simply expresses the initial reaction of one of at least 3 committee members. Furthermore, this e-mail was part of an internal discussion - it is not a "final statement of official policy".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

As a dues paying member of the ACBL what concerns me most about this thread is the fact that the ACBL has formed a committee that has no clear mission statement and that our very best players join year after year and do not know what their mission clearly is yet seem to rejoin the committee year after year without getting a clear answer. The members do seem to have some vague idea what their job is but it is very very vague based on this thread.

 

I have sent repeated emails and phone calls to the ACBL on this issue and the replies I get are simply nonresponsive. That means they politely reply to me with answers that do not address my questions and finally just stopped replying.

[TimG]

I was starting to get really pissed off and asked a friend of mine named Tim Goodwin for some help.  (Tim was a occasional partner of mine and also was the President of ACBL District 25).  Tim made the reasonable suggest that we start small and try to get defenses approved to a “simpler” opening and then (progressively) add complexity.  This is an obvious “thin end of the wedge” type strategy.  Accordingly, we stated that we wanted to playing a 1H opening that shows the exact same hand as a normal SAYC style 1S opening.  We submitted the opening and the defense to the Conventions committee.  By this time, Fred had left the committee and been replace by Steve Weinstein.  Steve sent Tim and I an email that stated that he saw nothing wrong with the submission and that he expected a quick approval.  At this point in Time Meckstroth sent out an email of his own stating (correctly) that this was an attempt to open the door for MOSCITO and that he would never permit this “diabolical” system to be played in North America.

A few of notes:

 

1) The committee did approve a defense to a 1H opening bid which showed a Standard American 1S opening bid (5+ spades, 11-21 HCP, etc.) for matches/rounds of at least 12 boards.

 

2) The approval process took nine months. I believe I submitted my original request on June 30, 2004, and received approval April 1, 2005. I had no interaction with the committee between September of 2004 and April 2005 other than requesting updates on the process. The committee chose to discuss the item face to face in Orlando at the 2004 Fall NABC, and then again at (or maybe it was tabled until) the Spring 2005 NABC (which is where it was apparently approved because the approval notifaction came shortly thereafter).

 

3) There was a proposal made, I believe by Henry Bethe, regarding linking allowable methods to length of match that I believe overlapped my request and may have contributed to the lengthy approval process. I believe the defense would not have been approved without the 12+ board restriction and that the process was strung out so that the restriction could be used and the defense could be approved, if only in limited circumstances. That is, the delay was in part for my benefit.

 

4) I was cc'ed on some of the early discussion between committee members, and I appreciated that. It was, at the same time, often frustrating. For instance, one committee member said "The more I think about it the more I think it is a mistake to approve because of the can of worms it opens." It sounded like the committee was reluctant to approve my submitted defense, not because the submitted defense was inadequate, but because it might make it harder for them to reject similar defenses to similar methods (that they didn't want to see played in ACBL events) in the future. Of course, in the end they did the right thing (in my opinion) and approved the defense. And, the committee should not be faulted for discussing the ramifications of their actions. It just happened to be frustrating at the time. Meckstroth recognized the problem: "It's difficult to say yes to this and not allow these other transfer opening systems." I believe that Richard overstates the case when he claims Meckstroth said he would "never permit" more complex methods, though there was an obvious reluctance on his part.

 

While there may be opportunity to legislate through regulation, I don't think this example means that the committee is doing that. Quite the contrary. When similar methods are rejected, there may be a case to be made, but not at this time. Of course, what some see as an end around, others will see as preserving the best interests of ACBL members. Opinions are strong on both sides and there may never be agreement about the motivations.

 

5) I never followed through with submitting defenses to similar methods to see where the committee would draw the line (between a SA-type transfer opening and a MOSCITO-type transfer opening). I did have a specific, non-MOSCITO, method that I had hoped to be able to play. But, the 12+ board restriction severely limited the opportunities I might have to play the method and I didn't really want to be required to remember two systems for a single tournament. I am no longer an ACBL member and have no plans to play in an ACBL event in the near future, so while I once had a legitimate interest in approved defenses for these and similar methods, I don't at this time and as a result won't be bothering the committee with requests!

 

Tim Goodwin

[hrothgar]

I'm going be somewhat forward here and make a few suggestions regarding corporate governance. The comments are intended to be constructive. (Hopefully they will be read as such). As I noted earlier in this thread, I'm a big fan of process. More specifically, I favor systems that are based on relatively simple rules that are applied consistently. From my perspective, the ACBL's Conventions Committee is making some very basic mistakes. Most of these deal with the Law of Unintended Consequences. (This is a fancy way of saying that things don't always work out the way you anticipate). One of the corrolaries of this law states that the more complex the system, the more difficult to predict how is going to function. Simplicity is a virtue in and of itself.

 

First and foremost, the Convention Committee is treating the Defensive Database as an addendum to the Convention Charts. Members of the Conventions Committee believe that certain conventions should not be allow within the ACBL. We may agree or disagree whether or not a multi 2D opening or a MOSCITO style transfer opening should be allowed at Midchart level. However, I would hope that we all agree that the “right” way to license conventions in the ACBL is to do so through the auspices of the Convention Charts. Its certainly possible to use the approval process for the Defensive database to accomplish many of the same ends. However, in doing so you dramatically increase the complexity of the regulatory structure and damage the transparency of the system. Case in point: There were a number of occasion during the whole run arround where members of the Conventions Committee stated that they were unwilling to sanction defenses to method XYZ because (hypothetically) it was unfair to use methods like a multi 2D in a two round pairs event. Unfortunately, by refusing to sanction any defense to method XYZ you prevent people from using in ANY event. If you want to ban people from using method XYZ in a 2 round event amend the Conventions Chart based on the length of the rounds.

 

Equally significant, there seems to be some confusion within Conventions Committee regarding how the convention approval process is structured. For better or worse the ACBL has decided that conventions are licensed in isolation. Both the ACBL Conventions chart and the Defensive Databased are designed to sanction individual conventions like a multi 2D or a ROMEX dynamic 1NT. A number of the email exchanges with the Conventions Committee suggested that they preferred a regulatory system based on sanctioning an entire bidding system. For example, Meckstroth expressed a desire to block people from being able to play MOSCITO. In a similar fashion, Martel often insisted that the decision to license a 1H opening showing 5+ Spades should depend on the definition of the a 1S opening in that system. (The British used to use a regulatory passed on sanction bidding systems as a while, I don't know the precise date that they switched to a system based on licensing individual conventions). I think that you can have some interesting debates regarding whether its better to license conventions in isolation or systems as a whole. With this said and done, I'd like to return to my basic point about transparency: Once you make a decision that the regulatory structure is based on evaluating conventions in isolation you need to apply this principle consistently. I understand the appeal of creating exceptions, special cases and the like. However, these always come back to haunt you.

 

As I noted in the past, I strongly believe that the incentive structure behind the Defensive Database is badly skewed. I've never understood why the players are required to submit defenses to their own methods. You aren't going to get good defenses. Players often have blind spots regarding theoretical weakness with their “pet” methods. Equally significant, players really don't have much of an incentive to submit “good” defenses.

 

Last (and not least) whatever regulatory structure that you put in place needs to be applied consistently.

When I was trying to get suggested defenses approved for MOSCITO type transfer openings /I was frequently told that I was required to document every possible bid and every possible followup in competive auctions four or five rounds into the auction. If I go and contrast this with any number of suggested defenses that we approved it seemed as if there was a clear double standard in place. As a comparison, I offer “approved” defense: http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/1a.htm

[TimG]

The midchart allows: "4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, ... [with some exceptions]". A MOSCITO 1D opening promises 4 or more hearts and does not fall within any of the prohibited exceptions. Yet, the committee can effectively bar the transfer opening by refusing to approve a defense. To me, there is somethig wrong with this. Either the method is allowed and a defense MUST be approved or provided, or the method is not allowed and the chart should be changed. The committee ought not be enabled to bar the method by determining that ANY defense is either too complicated or inadequate.

[fred]

As I noted in the past, I strongly believe that the incentive structure behind the Defensive Database is badly skewed. I've never understood why the players are required to submit defenses to their own methods. You aren't going to get good defenses. Players often have blind spots regarding theoretical weakness with their “pet” methods. Equally significant, players really don't have much of an incentive to submit “good” defenses.

Players are required to submit defenses to their own methods because many of their opponents find tournament bridge to be unfun and unfair when they have to play against unusual methods that they have never faced before.

 

You may disagree, but there are a lot more of them then there are of you.

 

Since the ACBL has an interest in maximizing both funness and fairness, they have wisely (in my view) implemented this rule.

 

Players who play such methods have a strong incentive to submit good (without quotes) defenses: if they don't then they cannot play those methods.

 

For those players' whose blind spots prevent them from coming up with good defenses to their pet methods, here is what I suggest:

 

There are many "anything goes" advocates who claim that a few simple rules will allow any partnership to deal with any opposing methods without any discussion at the table.

 

Ask one of them to help you with a defense.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

For what its worth, I think that you can have some interesting debates regarding whether its better to license conventions in isolation or systems as a whole.

Case for licensing conventions: There must be a way to tell if some home-grown combination is allowed or not.

 

Case for licensing systems: What a convention means includes negative inference, so a convention exists only in the context of a system.

 

In general, I think the case for licensing conventions is much stronger. This Moscito thing may be an unusual situation and one might wonder how broad the licensing of transfer openings should be.

[fred]

For what its worth, I think that you can have some interesting debates regarding whether its better to license conventions in isolation or systems as a whole.

Case for licensing conventions: There must be a way to tell if some home-grown combination is allowed or not.

 

Case for licensing systems: What a convention means includes negative inference, so a convention exists only in the context of a system.

 

In general, I think the case for licensing conventions is much stronger. This Moscito thing may be an unusual situation and one might wonder how broad the licensing of transfer openings should be.

Case for licensing conventions: In the real world licensing systems is a non-starter. How long do you think it would take to read through and properly evaluate (say) 100 pages of unfamiliar system notes? How long would it take to do this for everyone in the field?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Players are required to submit defenses to their own methods because many of their opponents find tournament bridge to be unfun and unfair when they have to play against unusual methods that they have never faced before.

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear. I'd like to differentiate between two cases:

 

Case 1: The act of presenting an approved defense to the opponents. I agree complete that player who are employing unusual methods should bear the burden of carrying arround written copies of their defenses that the opponents can consult during an auction.

 

Case 2: Developing an appropriate defense to method XYZ. As things currently stand within the ACBL the players who develop a new bidding convention are also asked to develop the defense to this method. As I suggested earlier, I think that this might be problematic. This system works very different in some other organizations. For example, I know that the Swedish Bridge Federation develops and publishes defenses.

 

From my perspective, some of these issues will (eventually) have a bearing on BBO. Five years from now the Full Disclosure application will (hopefully) be used as a tool to provide the opponents with suggested defenses to method XYZ.

 

In an ideal world, it would be very useful if the FD application could track the usage of different opening bids. For example:

 

45% of at 1C opening are natural within the context of a strong NT system

25% of all 1C openings are natural with the context of a weak NT system

20% of all 1C openings are "Polish" club variants

9% of all 1C openings are "Strong, artificl and forcing"

1% of all 1C openings are reallly, REALLY far out there

 

This type of functionality would be useful because it would allow a group working on suggested defenses to prioritize their work and focus attention on relatively common methods.