Board to consider ACBL GCC change -- 1NT

[jtfanclub]

So if you really want change in what is and is not GCC legal, the place to go is the C&C committee, which can consider your request along with everyone else's.

So, what is the method to 'go to the C&C committee'?

 

For example, I want Drury legal over 1♦. Easy to add (two words), simple, doesn't require a special defense, and very useful (especially for people who use GoLady across a 1st or 2nd seat 1♦ opener). But I cannot imaigne it being considered unless I got somebody big to advocate it.

 

Is it legal and ethical to hire an expert to advocate a change to the C&C Committee, the way that I can hire an expert to play with me?

[blackshoe]

Expert at what? Playing bridge? Submitting change requests to the C&C committee?

 

I expect the latter would be more useful, but I don't know of any. IAC, it seems a waste of money. Just write to the committee. See their page.

[kenrexford]

Expert at what? Playing bridge? Submitting change requests to the C&C committee?

 

I expect the latter would be more useful, but I don't know of any. IAC, it seems a waste of money. Just write to the committee. See their page.

That page has not been updated since the first George Bush was president.

 

Plus, try writing to someone and getting a response. It is sort of like sending a letter to Santa Claus. Actually, worse. It turns out that people pretend to be Santa Claus and send fake responses -- you don't even get that.

[mike777]

"turns out that people pretend to be Santa Claus and send fake responses"

 

 

What???????!!!!!!!

 

Is nothing sacred?

[glen]

I submitted a mid-chart method (fully legal under mid-chart rules, I provided details and suggest D) 1 1/2 years ago. Nothing. No reply back ever.

[blackshoe]

That page has not been updated since the first George Bush was president.

That turns out not to be the case. A few weeks ago I noticed that the information on that page dated back to 2004, and queried the webmaster. You'll note that the 2007 composition of the committee is up there now. However, one of the problems I pointed out was that they had only one set of minutes (from 2004) and I wondered where the more recent ones were. Rather than make them available, they just deleted the one that had been there. :(

 

Plus, try writing to someone and getting a response.  It is sort of like sending a letter to Santa Claus.  Actually, worse.  It turns out that people pretend to be Santa Claus and send fake responses -- you don't even get that.

 

This does not surprise me. I sent the committee a question today. If I don't get an answer within a reasonable time, I will send another asking them to do me the courtesy of answering my question, copy to my District Director and the President of the ACBL. Probably won't make any difference, but I'll feel better.

[JanM]

I'm not sure who is in charge of answering emails to the C&C committee, but I'm surprised that you don't get answers. I'd suggest following up if you haven't heard back - sometimes email gets lost, sometimes mail programs crash, sometimes people intend to respond and forget. Another suggestion, for those who regularly attend NABCs, would be to attend a C&C meeting - I don't actually *know* that they're open, but most ACBL committee meetings are, and if you have something to suggest, that's a good way to do it.

[glen]

I submitted my request just after the Bridge World editoral/letter with Steve Bloom's input about no replies to committee requests. I got a reply from the ACBL, indicating they had my email and were forwarding it to the committee, but nothing after that. I assumed Steve's experience might be duplicated.

[jdonn]

I'm not sure who is in charge of answering emails to the C&C committee, but I'm surprised that you don't get answers. I'd suggest following up if you haven't heard back - sometimes email gets lost, sometimes mail programs crash, sometimes people intend to respond and forget.

My experience, both from emails I've sent and from talking to people who have tried, is that this committee virtually never responds to anything. So I've just given up with them. I'm not denying their job is thankless or that they will leave lots of people unhappy whatever they do, but responses to inquiries would be nice...

[rbforster]

My experience ... is that this committee virtually never responds to anything. I'm not denying their job is being done, but it sure looks that way.

Fixed that for you :(.

 

Seriously, can I run for a position on this committee on the platform that I will at least send form letter replies to people who ask questions? Or that I'd publish the minutes of the meetings (assuming they've had any since 2004)? What a mess!

[paulg]

I believe that the publishing of its committee's minutes by the EBU has greatly enhanced the transparency of the organisation.

 

The SBU is smaller but also publishes them (under the Administration menu).

 

Given that the ACBL publishes minutes for the BOD and Laws Commission, it's a pity that the C&CC is so lax in doing so.

 

Paul

[blackshoe]

To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the removal of the one minute from 2004 is temporary, giving them time to collect and prepare for the web all the minutes they have. Or perhaps not.

 

I don't know any of the current members - I recognize some of the names (one is in my local unit), but that's all. I never heard of the current chairman. :unsure:

[Finch]

Funnily enough, the EBU equivalent (the Laws & Ethics Committee) has 7 elected members, five of whom are regular internet posters (either here, on RGB, on IBLF or all 3). I don't know how fast the secretary replies to emails (I hadn't realised until recently quite how much stuff he has to deal with) but you'll certainly get an 'unofficial' reply very fast just by posting here...

[ArtK78]

To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the removal of the one minute from 2004 is temporary, giving them time to collect and prepare for the web all the minutes they have. Or perhaps not.

 

I don't know any of the current members - I recognize some of the names (one is in my local unit), but that's all. I never heard of the current chairman. :rolleyes:

I recognize all of the names on the C & C committee for 2007.

 

They are all well-known and reputable playlers and members, and all are quite capable of serving on the C & C committee.

 

You may not agree with the result of any particular matter that is ruled on by the C & C committee, but you can be assured that everything is being considered on its merits.

[hrothgar]

To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the removal of the one minute from 2004 is temporary, giving them time to collect and prepare for the web all the minutes they have. Or perhaps not.

 

I don't know any of the current members - I recognize some of the names (one is in my local unit), but that's all. I never heard of the current chairman. :rolleyes:

I recognize all of the names on the C & C committee for 2007.

 

They are all well-known and reputable playlers and members, and all are quite capable of serving on the C & C committee.

 

You may not agree with the result of any particular matter that is ruled on by the C & C committee, but you can be assured that everything is being considered on its merits.

One quick comment from one who'se had more interactions with the Conventions Committee and the Laws Committe than most:

 

I think that the composition of most of the ACBL's committee's place far too much emphasis on skills related to bridge and far too little on issues related to building effective process.

 

I'd gladly sacrifice one or two of the multiple world champions for some folks with practical real world experience with business and Information Technology.

 

The short term focus needs to be on building effective, repeatable processes. Once a decent foundation has been put in place we will have the luxury of adding more domain experts.

[rbforster]

I recognize all of the names on the C & C committee for 2007.

 

They are all well-known and reputable playlers and members, and all are quite capable of serving on the C & C committee.

I don't think most people's unhappiness with the Conventions committee stems from thinking the players are unqualified - they are all excellent players.

 

you can be assured that everything is being considered on its merits.

How can you be assured that anything is being considered at all? Re-read all the accounts of people sending their requests into the void and hearing absolutely nothing. This is the problem.

[jtfanclub]

You may not agree with the result of any particular matter that is ruled on by the C & C committee, but you can be assured that everything is being considered on its merits.

A bunch of experts. Great. No wonder they only consider expert 'pet systems'.

 

I'd rather have....

 

-Teachers, since they have to teach the defenses.

-Directors, who have to enforce the rules.

-District and unit heads, since they'll know what their players want or can handle, and

-A lawyer and an English teacher, to look for loopholes and make sure that what's written is actually English, not poorly-defined phrases that mean different things to different people.

 

 

Having experts review the system rules is like having NASCAR drivers design traffic laws.

[bhall]

One quick comment from one who'se had more interactions with the Conventions Committee and the Laws Committe than most:

 

I think that the composition of most of the ACBL's committee's place far too much emphasis on skills related to bridge and far too little on issues related to building effective process.

 

I'd gladly sacrifice one or two of the multiple world champions for some folks with practical real world experience with business and Information Technology. 

 

The short term focus needs to be on building effective, repeatable processes.  Once a decent foundation has been put in place we will have the luxury of adding more domain experts.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Do you have any ideas about how such a process might work?

 

A lot of our social networking/political processes are bound to methods developed when travel was difficult and long-distance communication was by Pony Express or ships on the high seas. The typical IT approach is just to replicate the older forms using the internet.

 

I doubt that ordinary business types have much insight into how to change our processes. Admittedly, the amatuers that run bridge organizations have even less. So, share: What are the possibilities that you see?

[kenrexford]

You may not agree with the result of any particular matter that is ruled on by the C & C committee, but you can be assured that everything is being considered on its merits.

And you know this because....?

 

Also, I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with any particular decision of the Committee, as I have no idea whether they have made any decisions, ever, unless it involves a change. In other words, I have no idea about any non-changes.

[hrothgar]

One quick comment from one who'se had more interactions with the Conventions Committee and the Laws Committe than most:

 

I think that the composition of most of the ACBL's committee's place far too much emphasis on skills related to bridge and far too little on issues related to building effective process.

 

I'd gladly sacrifice one or two of the multiple world champions for some folks with practical real world experience with business and Information Technology. 

 

The short term focus needs to be on building effective, repeatable processes.  Once a decent foundation has been put in place we will have the luxury of adding more domain experts.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Do you have any ideas about how such a process might work?

 

A lot of our social networking/political processes are bound to methods developed when travel was difficult and long-distance communication was by Pony Express or ships on the high seas. The typical IT approach is just to replicate the older forms using the internet.

 

I doubt that ordinary business types have much insight into how to change our processes. Admittedly, the amatuers that run bridge organizations have even less. So, share: What are the possibilities that you see?

Most of the changes that I would recommend hardly qualify as “bleeding edge”.

 

Case in point: I think that its criminal that the ACBL hasn’t been able to publish an equivalents to the EBU’s Orange Book or White Book. I haven’t played a game of bridge in EBU since a business trip to London back in 1997. None-the-less, I am far more confident that I know what treatments are legal / banned at different levels in the EBU than I am here in the United States. The primary reason is that the EBU has invested significant time and effort in creating a system to disclose this information to officials, clubs owners, and players. In contrast, it often feels like the ACBL is making things up as they go along. There is no unique/authoritative source of information about what’s legal and what isn’t.

 

Various players wander around with random (often contradictory) opinions issued by various sources. There are no formal mechanisms to validate any claims. For example: last week there was a discussion regarding whether a 1H response to a 1D opening could systemically show 3 Hearts in a GCC event. A number of us debated things back and forth. Someone (eventually) pointed to a post on rec.games.bridge from last year where Mike Flader stated that this is legal because a 1H response on a three bagger is a treatment and not a convention. Regretfully

 

1. In the course of the last 13 months, said decision doesn’t seem to ever have been communicated to players as a whole: There is no formal mechanism to release these sorts of decisions. In a similar vein, I have a ruling from Rick Beye stating that Encrypted Bidding is legal at the GCC level (BTW, I was shocked by this ruling). Anyone want to guess how long before said ruling every makes its way into circulation?

 

2. None of us has any way to verify whether Mike Flader ever issued said decision. I know Kurt and I trust him, but what’s to stop someone from inventing whatever decision they want and posting this on rec.games.bridge? Alternatively, I have a printer and a text editor. I could very easily create a fake email from Memphis the would allow me to do whatever I damn well please. In theory, some motivated director might actually take the time/effort to confirm said opinion. However, I’m guessing that the number of directors who would actually do so are few and far between.

 

Coupled with this, my impression is that the actual rulings to come down from on high are (pretty much) random. Anyone want to guess what would happen if I started using a 1H opening that promises 3+ cards and tried to claim that this is a perfectly legal “treatment”. (I suspect that the generally random nature of the average ruling is a direct consequence of the lack of an authoritative source of information)

 

For what its worth, since we’re talking about the Conventions Committee, here’s a few changes that I’d like to see.

 

1. All submissions (both Conventions and Defenses) are posted on the Internet. Use a web based forum as the preferred submission mechanism. Anything submitted using snail mail or the like gets mirrored to the web.

 

2. Allow open debate on all submissions. Create a mechanism by which any interested party can comment on various proposals. Migrate back channel Convention Committee debate to said forums.

 

3. All votes on whether or not to sanction a given convention or amend the convention chart are conducted publicly, on said forum

 

4. Make some VERY fundamental change to the approval process for suggested Defenses. Explicitly acknowledge that the Defensive Database is a mechanism to develop and propagate defenses to Midchart level conventions. Eliminate any capacity to use the Defensive Database to ban otherwise legal conventions.

 

a. New conventions / treatments are automatically sanctioned four months after they are initially posted on the Convention Committee forum. (This interval should provide players with sufficient time to develop an adequate defense)

 

b. If it proves impossible to generate an adequate defense, the method can be explicitly banned by amending the relevant Convention Charts.

 

5. Learn from Open Source development processes: try to develop collaborative methods to develop and rank defensive methods.

 

a. Encourage players to post their own suggested defense and comment on other individual submissions

 

b. Build rating systems by which players can rate the effectiveness of different defensive measures

[awm]

I agree with what Hrothgar proposed. Perhaps as a first step in this direction, I'd suggest that:

 

(1) There should be a final authority determining whether a particular convention or treatment is legal. This business of Rick Beye and Mike Flader issuing contradictory opinions through "official" channels needs to stop.

 

(2) The rulings of this final authority should be publicly available. Any director should be able to look up the official ruling on whether a particular convention is allowed (if such a ruling has ever been made). This also acts as a check that the rulings of this authority are consistent (i.e. he's not making different rulings for different players), and potentially cuts down on the authority's workload (people can look up what's been ruled upon already before bugging the authority about their pet methods).

 

(3) The procedure for amending the set of allowed conventions needs to be made clear. At this point it seems like people try to make changes by petitioning not only the C&C committee, but also by trying to get favorable rulings from individual directors, by petitioning the committee that approves defenses (in fact many conventions which are mid-chart legal are de facto banned by the committee approving defenses), or by proposing a vote of the board (see this last attempted change). There should be a recognized procedure for proposing and approving this type of change.

[bhall]

Well, those all sound like good suggestions. We can certainly use the capacities of the internet to much better advantage. And publishing the current guidelines in full on the ACBL site is something that could, and should, be done today.

 

I think that all the processes of considering, approving, and publicizing rules changes could benefit from being organized in a few layers:

 

1. A forum (like this one) to bring up issues and provide data to the later layers, open to all players, directors, and administrators. Threads for every issue, with full and fierce debate. The most significant ones should become obvious over time, and they should be forwarded to the next layer for action.

 

2. A technical discussion group that examines ways and means to achieve any goals advanced from the first layer. I'm not sure who might be best qualified to design implementations, but all members of the first layer should be able to comment on the proposals.

 

3. A political action group whose duties are (1) to develop the criteria for approval of changes and (2) to apply these criteria to the proposals of the second layer. Again, every interested party should be free to comment on this group's deliberations. Any changes to implementations from the second layer would have to be fed back to them for analysis, and any goal not emanating from the first layer would have to be debated in the first layer and passed up the line.

 

Problem is, how can we get this, or any structural change like this, to be adopted? Do we need a revolution? It ain't gonna happen.

[PassedOut]

Problem is, how can we get this, or any structural change like this, to be adopted? Do we need a revolution? It ain't gonna happen.

Why not? How can one even argue against proposals that make so much common sense?

 

True, some work would be required to implement the process. Is that the reason you say it ain't gonna happen?

[jdonn]

Problem is, how can we get this, or any structural change like this, to be adopted? Do we need a revolution? It ain't gonna happen.

Why not? How can one even argue against proposals that make so much common sense?

You, my friend, have clearly never tried to implement change in the ACBL.

[rbforster]

Change from within seems pretty hopeless. I'd be more inclined to just set up a new ad-hoc and self-declared Conventions Committee, set up a webpage, start threads for discussing defenses to Midchart conventions, implement a good decision process, etc.

 

Basically, hold yourself out to be the "New Conventions Committee." If the official one continues to ignore everything, pretty soon you're in charge by default. If they actually respond, we'll have put together a big list of suggestions for them to address when they decide to actually start doing their jobs.