ACBL restriction on opening 1nt

[hrothgar]

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

 

I note that although the word "diabolical" is used, there is no mention of MOSCITO in this missive.

I readily admit, its entirely posisble that someone else was submitting transfer opening based methods to the ACBL at the same time. (I know for a fact that Josh Sher was making submission for TOSR). However, I expect that that the Convention COmmittee (probably) lumped all of the Australian transfer based relay methods in one big bid.

 

However, I would think that there is a simple way to find out. You always talking about your wonderful contacts with the conventions committee. Why not go and ask Meckstroth what system he was talking about?

 

I'll even send you his email address if you need it.

[foo]

I am still waiting for you to provide some kind of "official" definition for the expression destructive. You claimed that your estorica knowledge of the personalities involved in with the Conventions committee gave you special powers that enabled you to find such a beast...

No, I never claimed any "estorica knowledge" . I called some people whose numbers are in the public domain. I then told =everyone= in this thread that I was told the minutes of ACBL C&C, BoD, and BoG meetings in the early to mid 1990's would contain this information.

 

I also told you that officials within the WBF have claimed there are equivalent minutes for that body within the same time period.

 

These minutes are matters of public record. They are not "special". Simply boring and tedious to work one's way through.

 

If you want written documentation on the definition of "Destructive", that's where I have been told you have to go at this time (I =have= made the point to those I talked to that it would be nice for such information to be easier to obtain.)

 

Please stop accusing me of some sort of unwilliness to pursue this. I'm doing far more than you have any right to expect for free out of a volunteer. (Also, these little trips down tangential topics necessarily slow down progress on any other topic.)

 

...and again, please do not assume I was part of any rec.games.bridge conversation on this or any other topic unless you explicitly see a post there by "Foo of BBO". You really do risk making the wrong assumption(s) otherwise.

[hrothgar]

No, I never claimed any "special powers" or connections. I told =everyone= in this thread that I was told the minutes of ACBL C&C, BoD, and BoG meeting in the early to mid 1990's would contain this information.

Foo, on numerous occasions you allude to having contacts or influence with the Powers that Be. In this very thread, you posted the following:

 

1= I have an email out to some folks I know on the WBF Board and

 

2= am (painfully slowly) going thru the minutes of the ACBL Board of Directors and Board of Governors meetings from the early thru mid 1990's. I have been told by folks who were sitting members of the ACBL C&C, BoD, and/or BoG during that time that those are the places to find evidence as to the formal/technical definitions of "Destructive" as a Bridge technical term.

 

If you prefer to go a bit further back, there was you "conversation" with Marty Bergen when he explained that he didn't like to play Bergen raises any more.

 

Hell, if we go far enough back we have the following classic "fooism"

 

Richard's suggested wonder weapon vs a strong club is causing a bit of consternation.

 

The first question being raised is whether it is destructive or not. If so, it is not legal.

To be =not= destructive, it needs to

a= have continuations to find the correct strain and level when 3S rates to not be a place to play. {what are the continuations after 1C!-(3S)-pa or 1C!-(3S)-X or etc. What does Advancer do w/ a S void, etc, etc}

b= show a known suit, in this case S's, a high enough percentage of the time.

{The problem here is that the notion of "a high enough percentage of the time" is not well formalized. Is it 51%? Less? More? Where's the cutoff where a method becomes destructive?}

 

Curiously enough, "destructive" has some definition, even if loose. OTOH, it seems that "constructive" does not have a definition beyond "it just =is=".

 

The 2nd issue is a bit more interesting. Traditionally, one can play =anything= non destructive vs a strong artificial and forcing opening.

IOW, my read of the GCC was wrong on this point.

However, if this method is deemed GCC, then this and other methods inspired by it could pretty much destroy Forcing 1C openings so thoroughly that it becomes questionable whether playing a FCS is worth it.

...and that in turn brings up the question of whether the traditional "anything goes" approach to defenses to a Forcing Club should be re-examined.

 

At this point, some folks I consider far more expert in this area than myself are examining the issue.

 

(BTW, still waiting to see what these "experts" had to say on this one)

 

Now I readily admit, you never got an outright state that any of these folks know you or care about you. You simply insinuate that you have connections. I can only assume that you've learned not to get caught in this blatant a lie...

[awm]

I agree that Destructive or Random probably aren't well-defined with regard to bridge agreements. However, I believe I have seen people use these as reasons to regulate, despite their lack of definition.

 

If someone asked me to define those terms, my best guess would be something like:

 

A convention is Destructive or Randomizing if, assuming best-possible decisions in bidding and play by both sides after the convention is used, the expected score for people using the convention is substantially worse than break even. In this case, we can suppose that either:

 

(1) The convention is just poor. It will rarely obtain a good result. An example is an opening 3NT to show 8-10 points, balanced. Of course we can ask: if the convention is so bad, who cares if people play it? However, people using these sorts of methods tend to hurt the integrity of the field, especially in a pairs or swiss teams event. The people who happen to come up against this pair when the convention happened to come up will be getting random tops (or huge IMP/VP wins) whereas the people who never played this pair or against whom the convention didn't come up get no such reward. And occasionally the convention will "work out" by sheer random luck and fix somebody. People using such a method are not really trying to do well in the event, they're just screwing around, and the league reserves the right to disallow this sort of attitude.

 

(2) The convention can work out in practice, but only because the opponents will often guess what to do incorrectly. An example might be a 2♥ opening showing a weak two bid in any suit. Such methods basically turn bridge into a guessing game, greatly increasing the randomness of results. The main advantage to the side employing these methods is that they have more experience with them and therefore are more likely to get their guesses right. Nonetheless, they are choosing methods not for technical merit, but either to randomize or to take advantage of opponents' lack of familiarity. Neither is really in the spirit of the game (which is supposed to emphasize skill and full disclosure of methods), and the effect on the field is potentially similar to (1).

 

Of course actually measuring on these criteria is hard. Assumed fit preempts, for example, seem like they might be sufficiently technically unsound to fall into category two, but then again they might not if in fact there is usually a reasonably good two-level contract available to the opening side. It's hard to say really.

[foo]

Hrothgar,

I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me. I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time.

 

As for "connections", you have claimed to at least as many as any other here, myself included. Examples include

a= at least 3-4 members of the C&C

b= various members of the ACBL National Board (there appears to be understandable overlap between this and the previous catagory)

c= Bobby Goldman, Eric Kokish, and other "big name" Theorists.

d= Various officials within what appears to be District 25 of the ACBL (that being the only reference I can find to a "Tim Goodwin" within an ACBL official context).

e= other misc. examples I do not at this time recall.

 

So please dispense with the attitude and dispense with the attempts to shift the focus from yourself and your usually vehement "take" on certain matters of Bridge regulation and law.

You are obviously just as "well heeled" as almost any. If you =really= wanted to have dug out all existing documentation on any particular issue, the evidence is that you are more than capable of doing so on your own.

 

Yet you haven't. That argues that for some reason you don't really want to.

Evidently, you are more vested in your being angry about some topics than you are in finding the whole truth about them or in changing your approach until you are successful.

 

 

Case in point: I made what I thought was a reasonable suggestion for a two suited 2♦ opening for you to submit. No response regarding it by you.

Why? Is it not aggressive enough for you? Is it not IYHO a useful convention?

At least this inquiring mind would like to know.

No response tends to imply that you don't care about finding ways to mutate unacceptable methods until they are acceptable. No response implies that you are not interested in finding a middle ground. It implies that you are interested in fighting and winning a war, not negotiating a peace.

That is unlikely to be a successful attitude or strategy.

[foo]

I agree that Destructive or Random probably aren't well-defined with regard to bridge agreements.

As I have previously posted, I have been given the following (paraphrased) definition of Destructive verbally from multiple sources who really should know what they are taking about:

 

"A method whose sole or whose overwhelmingly primary purpose is to try and gain by

a= unfamiliarity, or

b= making it impossible or nigh unto impossible for the opponents to have methods that allow for them to use judgement as to the value of their own cards, or

c= reducing the outcome on a board to essentially completely random rather than being based on Bridge skills.

rather than by describing one's own hand to Partner."

 

The only thing missing is to find the equivalent of the above in writing within official ACBL (since that's hrothgar's home SO) or WBF records.

 

The records in question I have been told are official minutes of various meetings in the early to late 1990's.

[hrothgar]

Hrothgar,

I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me. I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=14326&st=60

[hrothgar]

Case in point: I made what I thought was a reasonable suggestion for a two suited 2♦ opening for you to submit. No response regarding it by you.

Why? Is it not aggressive enough for you? Is it not IYHO a useful convention?

At least this inquiring mind would like to know.

No response tends to imply that you don't care about finding ways to mutate unacceptable methods until they are acceptable. No response implies that you are not interested in finding a middle ground. It implies that you are interested in fighting and winning a war, not negotiating a peace.

That is unlikely to be a successful attitude or strategy.

I don't play in ACBL events any more. Its not worth investing the time/energy trying to "work" with the Convention's Committee. (For what its worth, the straw that broke the camel's back was MOSCITO style transfer openings and not assumed fit preempts)

 

As to your specific question: I think that restricting an assumed fit 2♦ opening to promise 5+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major cripples its utility. Its frequency plummets. Worse yet, I expect that the opening wouldn't score nearly as well.

[foo]

Hrothgar,

I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me.  I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=14326&st=60

Thank you for the reminder. No, I never did hear back from any of the members of the ACBL C&C I knew at that time or from Rick Beye or Grant Blaiss. Those were the people I asked.

 

I will admit to getting distracted by other matters and forgetting all about it until you brought this reminder up.

 

You should submit it to the ACBL C&C and force the issue.

It would be interesting to see the reaction.

[hrothgar]

Hrothgar,

I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me. I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time.

 

As for "connections", you have claimed to at least as many as any other here, myself included. Examples include

a= at least 3-4 members of the C&C

b= various members of the ACBL National Board (there appears to be undestandable overlap between this and the previous catagory)

c= Bobby Goldman, Eric Kokish, and other "big name" Theorists.

d= Various officials within what appears to be District 25 of the ACBL (that being the only reference I can find to a "Tim Godwin" within an ACBL official context).

e= other misc. examples I do not at this time recall.

 

So please dispense with the attitude and dispense with the attempts to shift the focus from yourself and your usually vehement "take" on certain matters of Bridge regulation and law.

You are obviously just as "well heeled" as almost any.

Yes and no...

 

I've exchanged a fair amount correspondence with various bridge players. In terms of "theorists", I've exchanged a fair number of ideas with Paul Marston. I was luckily enough to have been able to have a number of exchanges with Bobby Goldman years ago when I was doing data entry for his revisions on Aces Scientific. (I don't recall any significant discussions with Kokish)

 

As for the ACBL Conventions Committee:

 

I've thrown a lot of emails back and forth over the years, however, I certainly wouldn't claim any connection or influence with any of them. In a similar vein, I've had some discussions with Mike Flader and Gary Blaiss, however, I suspect that all of the folks that I've just mentioned either

 

(A) Don't give a rat's ass about me or

(B) Would be more than happy to see me drop of the face of the planet.

 

From my perspective, I think that there is a very significant difference between the occasions that when I reference these exchanges and your own insinuations.

 

My comments are grounded in reality. If I make a comment that "Meckstroth wrote" or "Marston argues" I can (typically) provide hard written documentation that backs up my claims. Furthermore, I claim that these comments are (typically) well aligned with other - publicly available - statements

 

I readily admit, in some cases my copies of the various emails have been lost. My exchanges with Bobby Goldman took place 15 years ago. Several hard drives have come and gone since then. In a similar vein, I don't have a direct copy of Chip Martel's comments about direct seat penalty doubles over assumed fit preempts. (If push comes to shove, I suspect that Tim Goodwin remembers this conversation. He might even have a backup copy of the original email. We might even be able to pester Martel see whether he'd be willing to verify this conversation)

[foo]

I don't play in ACBL events any more.  Its not worth investing the time/energy trying to "work" with the Convention's Committee.  (For what its worth, the straw that broke the camel's back was MOSCITO style transfer openings and not assumed fit preempts)

 

As to your specific question:  I think that restricting an assumed fit 2♦ opening to promise 5+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major cripples its utility.  Its frequency plummets.  Worse yet, I expect that the opening wouldn't score nearly as well.

So will you "return" when 1level xfer openings are made legal?

Because in the long run, I can not imagine that any regulatory body is going to be able to stop 1level xfer opening of the same strength and shape as their non xfer counterparts from being made legal.

IMHO, it will happen sooner or later.

 

As for 2♦= 5+D & 4+M (say 5-10 HCP),

a= the only reason the frequency will drop by much is that you loose 4432's. Since flat handed preempts seem to be exactly what causes the most problems with regulatory bodies, getting rid of them would seem to significantly strengthen the case for acceptance of the method.

b= A decrease in frequency does not equate to a decrease in utility.

c= Two suiters with 4+M and 5+m are a known problem type of hand (see Max Hardy on two suited overcalls. Also writing by Mike Lawrence as well as Marshall Miles.)

 

I am reminded of a nice comment I found while purusing that rgb thread you gave me to read:

"Optimal space use for constructive system design would reserve bidding space proportional to a complicated function of frequency, expected worth, and measurability while keeping safety issues in mind. I do not claim to have any idea what that function is, but I know it isn't just based on hand type frequency."

 

Seems to be a good comment with regards to bidding design.

 

...and of course there is the practical matter that if you get whatever methods you can passed, you will start to find out where the "wall" is and perhaps be able to start to discern what pattern or logic there is for the "wall"'s location.

[hrothgar]

I am reminded of a nice comment I found while purusing that rgb thread you gave me to read:

 

"Optimal space use for constructive system design would reserve bidding space proportional to a complicated function of frequency, expected worth, and measurability while keeping safety issues in mind. I do not claim to have any idea what that function is, but I know it isn't just based on hand type frequency."

 

Seems to be a good comment with regards to bidding design.

What a shocker...

 

The original comments were written by Ron Peacetree.

 

You've now publicly resorted to stroking yourself.

[foo]

What a shocker... 

 

The original comments were written by Ron Peacetree. 

 

You've now publicly resorted to stroking yourself.

lol. I did not notice who had made the comment. I frankly did not and do not care who did. The important thing is that it made sense.

 

You, OTOH, seem to have a serious case of caring more about the source of comments then about their content. Sorry for exciting you by quoting someone you object so to.

 

Other than the fact that this Peacetree person appears to have been a somewhat confused intermediate from his comments, I can't seem to find what horrible crime he committed against you and yours. In fact, in a couple of places in the rgb thread he claims to have played with you and to support some of your methods that the ACBL shot down.

 

Yet you act like he killed your pet dog or something. You seem just as angry at him as you are at Jeff Meckstroth, yet there seems no evidence that Peacetree did anything to you.

As the kids say "What's your beef?"

[Impact]

What was never addressed in all of this is the dichotomy between bidding and play.

 

If a player, at the table, finds a new exotic cardplay position eg Seres or Sydney squeeze - he is universally hailed.

 

In North America, at least, bidding is supposed to run on tramtracks apparently. It is largely a means to get to the important or real bridge: the play.

 

Part of the charm is running into unfamiliar positions and having to think it out there and then to find your answer : they call the game "bridge".

 

Objections that no one has done the work for you, or specified an "optimal" defence does not stop you composing something on the psot (with the possibility of refinement for longer sessions of play later) and working out what partner would take it to mean, based on general principles & agreements in place is what a large part of the game is about.

 

It often seems to me that the professional expert community has a vested interest in the status quo as it preserves their advantage to the greatest degree - but unfortunately it also limits the game to something considerably less than its definition!

 

OTOH a failure to give proper and full disclosure is ludicrous - yet I suggest that more so-called natural bidders do so than artificial bidders.

Experienced international partnerships have many explicit agreements and many more implicit assumptions/agreements.

 

It is only appropriate that at the conclusion of the auction complete explanations including negative inferences should be given: that is full disclosure.

 

Recently the national body here (Oz) specified that if you played HUM you had to submit 5 copies of not merely the WBF type material (card, pre-alerts, suggested defence etc) but FULL SYSTEM.

 

I pointed out that this was serious discrimination and should not be permitted unless the same rule applied to all systems!!!

 

I don't think - other than for the purposes of profit - too many top line partnerships publish their full system notes and understandings: maybe they should in the interests of transparency, but if so it should be a level playing field for all!

 

regards

[foo]

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all".

 

I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

[mike777]

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all".

 

I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

I strongly disagree.

 

I do think there is a distinction between HUM, esp a newish pair playing HUM and a 30+ year old partnership playing Precision or Eastern Sci such as meckwell or chip and Lew.

 

I can only hope you are not suggesting that these old old long term partnerships are not disclosing their bids in full faith to the spirit of the law and the game.

 

I do agree that many many partnerships do not. I see it every night on bbo.

[the hog]

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all".

 

I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

I strongly disagree.

 

I do think there is a distinction between HUM, esp a newish pair playing HUM and a 30+ year old partnership playing Precision or Eastern Sci such as meckwell or chip and Lew.

 

I can only hope you are not suggesting that these old old long term partnerships are not disclosing their bids in full faith to the spirit of the law and the game.

 

I do agree that many many partnerships do not. I see it every night on bbo.

Well I strongly agree with Impact here. I generally find that it is soem long term partnerships who are loth to disclose their agreements. I have found that players of Hums, if anything, bend over backwards to disclose their methods.

 

How often have you heard someone say, "Its just Bridge" when you ask for an explanation of a sequence? If a Hum pair did that they would be crucified.

[foo]

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all".

 

I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

I strongly disagree.

 

I do think there is a distinction between HUM, esp a newish pair playing HUM and a 30+ year old partnership playing Precision or Eastern Sci such as meckwell or chip and Lew.

 

I can only hope you are not suggesting that these old old long term partnerships are not disclosing their bids in full faith to the spirit of the law and the game.

 

I do agree that many many partnerships do not. I see it every night on bbo.

The point is that the =fair= standard is applied to =everyone=.

 

Regardless of status. Regardless of system. Regardless of how established or not the partnership is.

 

If we are going to demand that some pairs metaphorically "strip naked", then we have to demand every pair do the same or we are acting in a biased and prejudicial manner.

[TimG]

You should submit it to the ACBL C&C and force the issue.

It would be interesting to see the reaction.

I can tell you what the reaction has been. "Forcing the issue" is a long process. I don't believe this is due to any conspiracy* by the committee members to prevent unusual methods, but rather merely a matter of time and effort. The committee members take seriously their job to make sure suggested defenses are appropriate for the type of event where the method will be played. I have only played bridge outside of ACBLland once, so I'm just speculating, but the sense I get is that the masses in other parts of the world are more tolerant towards new or unusual methods. The ACBL masses are not tolerant, and the committee has the masses in mind when reviewing methods.

 

I was once playing multi in the District level Flight A GNT event. The defenses as given on the ACBL website were provided to the opponents. The opponents were, none-the-less, a bit perplexed and became frustrated at the inadequacy of the defense provided. It was later determined that a large part of the frustration resulted from not being aware that "3m" meant "three of a minor" -- if the defense had instead used "3C or 3D" much of the problem would have been avoided. You may suggest that any Flight A player ought to know what "3m" means, but in ACBLland this kind of study is not required of Flight A players. Now imagine this method being played in a pair event where a couple dozen opponents might be presented with suggested defenses. Imagine some of these frustrated players are ACBL or District officials (who have some power over determining which events are played under which convention chart) or customers paying "important" partners to play with them.

 

The approval process requires a back and forth between submitter and committee and this takes time, especially since committee members have real lives. Two of the defenses in the ACBL defense database are a direct result of submissions I made. Average time from submission to approval was over a year. Part of the reason for this is that the committee often wants to discuss the methods in person, rather than electronically, so they wait for meetings at NABCs. Meeting time is short and understandably there are more important matters than one pair's pet method, so the matter is deferred to the next NABC. If a method is submitted in June, after a bit of back and forth, it may find it's way onto the agenda for the Fall NABC meetings. If it gets deferred to Spring that's already nine months in the process.

 

The methods I have had approved have both been restricted to use in events with at least 12 boards per segment. This severely restricts the number of events in which they can be used. It's frustrating going to a Regional, getting eliminated from a mid-chart KO event, then having to use a different system in the other events being offered. In some cases, this is not simply a matter of not being able to play something of an add-on convention (like multi) which can be added or dropped without change to the fundamental system -- when you switch from natural to transfer openings, there isn't much that isn't affected, you've made a fundamental system change.

 

I am not currently an ACBL member, so I don't feel I have any right to use committee time to force the issue. When I rejoin (it will likely happen someday), I will revisit this issue if the convention approval process is still in place.

 

Tim

 

* There have been some notes from committee members that suggest an effort to block certain methods -- to not approve methods that would open the door to other methods. They recognize the "forcing the issue" bit-by-bit approach. I think they have what they believe are the best interests of ACBL members in mind when they do this. The submission that prompted these comments was eventually approved, so while the ramifications may have been considered, they were ultimately not a prohibiting factor. Though it may have slowed the approval the process.