All this system talk...

[dburn]

Having served for many years on the English Laws and Ethics Committee, one of whose duties is to formulate regulations for what systems may be played in what events, I would make these points:

 

Our motives are as Fred suggested: to make English bridge tournaments as enjoyable as possible for all who play in them. Some who play in them want to be able to use everything from Fantunes to Suspensor to EHAA to... well, complete the list on your own. Others think it would be a good idea if no one was allowed to play anything more complicated than Stayman and Blackwood. For as long as I have been a member of the Committee, our task has always been to achieve the best compromise we can given these extremes. The task is not easy.

 

One of the more serious anomalies with which we have had to deal over the years has to do with the Multi. In general terms, no ambiguous opening was permitted at other than the highest levels of competition - apart from the Multi. It was charged that this was because all the members of the L&E wanted to play the Multi whenever they could, so we allowed it in every tournament.

 

Nothing could in fact have been further from the truth. We kept suggesting that the Multi should be subject to the same restrictions as, say, Wilkosz two-level openings (where 2H showed reds or blacks), and we kept being told by the membership that they did not want us to do this because they were quite happy that the Multi should be allowed everywhere.

 

But this did not prevent accusations that the Committee consisted entirely of people abusing their position of power in their own self-interest. Not that this compared even remotely to the extent to which the Selection Committee was accused (equally without foundation) of the same crime, but I am afraid that comes with the territory.

 

Whatever regulations we come up with in this area, there will be people who think they are over-permissive, and an equal number of people who think they are over-restrictive. There will be people who think that we attend unutterably tedious meetings half a dozen times a year just so that we can play the Lucas Two Spades Opening (whatever that is) while people outside the corridors of power can't play Modified Wenble Overcalls (whatever they are). There will be people who, as soon as they get the latest set of regulations, will go through them for the express purpose of inventing some daft convention which has just become permissible. What there won't be are people who write to us and say "I think you got it about right" - but again, that comes with the territory. After all, newspapers do not publish headlines saying "Sixty Million People In Britain Not Murdered Yesterday".

 

Having said that, my personal view is that regulations at the highest levels of the game are far too restrictive. In the Bermuda Bowl and the Venice Cup, you should be allowed to play anything you like, subject of course to full disclosure well in advance. The mindset that says you aren't is, in my view, an unfortunate one, and is in my view driven to some extent by people whose motives are impure. But that is, perhaps, another matter.

[mike777]

"Having said that, my personal view is that regulations at the highest levels of the game are far too restrictive. In the Bermuda Bowl and the Venice Cup, you should be allowed to play anything you like, subject of course to full disclosure well in advance. The mindset that says you aren't is, in my view, an unfortunate one, and is in my view driven to some extent by people whose motives are impure. But that is, perhaps, another matter."

 

I seem to recall that full disclosure is a big problem at the highest levels let alone at the nonWC level. I do not have the books or magazine articles in front of me, but I seem to recall this issue is discussed often in books or magazine articles written by WC players.

 

Perhaps I saw some of this in articles by Wolff or Hamman or Rosenberg. I think there is much on this in the new Canada Warriors book from last year.

[Echognome]

What there won't be are people who write to us and say "I think you got it about right" - but again, that comes with the territory.

Having play both in the EBU and the ACBL, I think that the EBU has got it more right than the ACBL. I can certainly understand that there are cultural differences and what I could play in England, I can no longer play in the ACBL. What I liked in England was that I felt the rules were much clearer. The Orange Book makes it very clear what's allowed and what's not allowed at what level.* The problem I have with the conventions charts in the ACBL is that they are not very clearly written.

 

*Note: sure there are always going to be some conventions that are ambiguous, but those are often discussed to death on the BLML pages.

[jtfanclub]

Undeserved character assassination of people I admire bothers me. Doesn't it bother you?

High-Variance methods make it a lot more likely that somebody random will win. Banning High Variance methods means that the pair/team with the most skill will win, not the people who got solid 1700s against somebody using a High Variance method simply by sitting down at the right time.

 

Why is it character assassination to say that the ACBL tries to make their events skill based instead of crapshoots, and this benefits the highly skilled players who make these rules?

 

Poker doesn't hide the fact that it's modified Hold 'em rules to make it a skill game instead of Roulette. Why shouldn't the ACBL do the same?

[fred]

Why is it character assassination to say that the ACBL tries to make their events skill based instead of crapshoots, and this benefits the highly skilled players who make these rules?

Because the suggestion is that the players are motivated by their own self-interest (as opposed to ACBL-interest).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[EricK]

I am prepared to accept that the people on committees are motivated by what they believe the membership want. But there are two things which are generally true about people - they don't like change, but they cope with change much better than they think they will.

 

So the committees can tell themselves they are acting in the interest of the membership by protecting them from change - and the membership, for the most part, might very well agree with them. But if they did loosen up the rules (maybe only a bit at a time) the membership would, in very short order, get used to the new situation and actually enjoy it.

[david_c]

There's no need to question people's motives. We can judge the ACBL's committee on what they have actually done - and in this respect, the evidence is damning. They have produced convention charts that are poorly written, open to interpretation, and (famously, in the case of the mid-chart) don't actually mean what they say. This is totally inexcusable, regardless of whether the committee's intentions are good.

 

Perhaps worse, these problems have been widely known for ages (certainly for all of the 5+ years I've been reading internet forums) and the committee has never done anything about them. Perhaps they've had some discussion, but to an outside observer it looks like they haven't even tried.

 

By way of contrast, I just came across an old email that I sent to the English L&E three-and-a-half years ago. Now, even back then the English regs were much better than the ACBL's. But of the nine things I wrote about, eight of them have since been resolved by the L&E. I copy it in full below as an example of how some authorities actually do try to fix the problems with their regulations. These are all the more remarkable for the fact that some of these things were really pretty minor.

 

> Apologies if everything I write below has already been considered - I

> wouldn't be surprised if you're already fed up of hearing about these

> things. I'm not going to be asking for anything new to be added, just that

> some things which I feel are ambiguous in the current version of OB ought

> to be straightened out when the next one is produced.

>

> 1. OB 9.1.8: Playing different systems according to position /

> vulnerability.

>

> Maybe this is deliberately vague, but it seems that there is much

> disagreement about what constitutes playing a different system. (e.g.

> switching from 5-card majors to 4-card majors.) I would like to urge you

> to clarify this.

In the new OB (10 A 8) they added some examples of things which did not constitute playing two different systems (including the one I mentioned).

 

> I suspect that the intention was to prevent people from switching from a

> strong club system to a natural system, or something of similar magnitude.

> If so, then in fact there are very few bids which might cause a problem

> (strong 1C opening, strong 1D opening, forcing 1NT opening; perhaps

> forcing vs. non-forcing 1C/1D), and these can be dealt with individually.

 

 

> 2. OB 13.4.2(ii): Treatment of a multi-2D.

>

> "You may not very the above by any sort of treatment."

>

> I think this is ambiguous in a very serious way - that is, there are two

> possible interpretations, of which the second is much more restrictive

> than the first:

>

> a) "You have to abide by the definitions given in 13.4.2(a)-(f), despite

> what it says in 9.4.1 and 9.4.2."

>

> b ) "You are not allowed to 'treat' the multi in *any* way." (So, for

> example, agreeing not to open 2D with a side 4-card suit is not allowed.)

 

They changed the wording in 2006, making it clear that the first of these was what was intended (new OB 11 G 6 (iii))

 

 

> 3. An 'opening' pass.

>

> As far as I can tell, forcing pass systems are not explicitly disallowed -

> they're just unplayable because other regulations make it impossible to

> respond sensibly. I think it would be worthwhile having a regulation to

> cover an "opening pass", along similar lines to 12.3.8. For example, there

> is one (fairly silly) system in which it is madatory to open at the

> 2-level with 0-7HCP, and so a pass shows 8-12HCP. At the moment this

> appears to be allowed at level 2, but that doesn't seem appropriate to me.

A regulation was added in 2006 (OB 11 B 1) which explicitly banned an opening pass which promised values.

 

> 4. OB 12.2.2(d): Strong club.

>

> "[1C may be] artificial, forcing, at least 16+ HCPs"

>

> Many "strong club" players have an agreement that they can open 1C on less

> than 16HCP if the hand warrants it. It would be nice to see this being

> explicitly allowed, for example,

>

> "at least 16+ HCPs (or equivalent playing strength)"

>

> or, if you wanted to be more specific,

>

> "at least 16+ HCPs or rule of X"

>

> where X might be either 24 or 25.

This was one of the major changes in 2006 (with an extra addition in 2007 after it was decided that the new rule didn't really work as intended).

 

 

> 5. More about 12.2.2(d): Strong club.

>

> It's not completely clear whether the definition of a strong club is meant

> to allow things like this:

>

> 1C = 16+ balanced, or 16+ with clubs, or any 20+.

>

> My interpretation of 9.4.2 is that this is not allowed; but perhaps it

> should be.

The new wording in 2006 (OB 11 C 3) made it clear that as long as an opening bid promised a strong hand, any agreement would be allowed.

 

> That's all that I really have to say, but I would also like to lend my

> support to the following:

>

> - Announcements.

This was the most controversial change in 2006.

 

> - A strong 1C opening which has a minimum strength of 15HCP; or

> maybe even less, particularly at level 4.

This one didn't get in.

 

> - Third seat opening bids allowed on less than rule of 19 / 18.

People had been complaining about this for ages, and it was finally changed in 2006 (OB 11 C 10).

 

> - A 1S negative response to 1C.

This became permitted in 2005, and nowadays any response is allowed. (OB 11 D 8).

 

So there you go. Eight out of nine is not bad. And I can think of other examples of things that the EBU fixed because of complaints from members. In the same time period I don't know of anything the ACBL has done to deal with the problems people have complained about. On the evidence I've seen, the ACBL fully deserves its bad reputation.

[mike777]

I am prepared to accept that the people on committees are motivated by what they believe the membership want. But there are two things which are generally true about people - they don't like change, but they cope with change much better than they think they will.

 

So the committees can tell themselves they are acting in the interest of the membership by protecting them from change - and the membership, for the most part, might very well agree with them. But if they did loosen up the rules (maybe only a bit at a time) the membership would, in very short order, get used to the new situation and actually enjoy it.

It is always a difficult tightwalk to know when to lead or when to follow the membership on any issue. I do not recall the exact numbers but it seems the vast majority of the membership is and always have been non life masters level players.

 

In other words the vast majority are almost beginner level players. Keep in mind these are the players that pay the bills. :)

 

Holding up a sign at the WC is a hundred times more likely to be an issue then any of this stuff. B)

[kenrexford]

This issue regarding the GCC, IMO, should be analyzed in the context of today's ACBL-land.

 

1. The ACBL likes to award masterpoints, because people want to get masterpoints.

2. The ACBL abandoned Masters/Non-Masters format because people did not get enough masterpoints. The ACBL abandoned Flighted because people did not get enough masterpoints. The ACBL now has decided upon Stratified, because people get (almost) enough masterpoints.

3. People who should not be playing up play up so that they can get enough masterpoints, so long as they have a safety net to make sure that, when they get creamed, they get enough compensatory masterpoints.

4. People only get compensatory masterpoints if the big boys have an unfair advantage, like playing a big-boy system, and people want more masterpoints.

5. If we level the playing ground for the people who want masterpoints and are playing up, by restricting conventions, people will get more masterpoints.

6. When we have a game that actually is restricted to the big boys, the big boys want masterpoints, too.

7. The big boys who are older do not have to think in the normal games, because of the protections for the masses (who want masterpoints), so they do not want to think in the main events either.

8. So, if you want to play something weird in the big-boy game, you need to have a written defense to that.

 

My solution would never work. Go back to flighted games and let systems in the big game be more complicated. Let the big boys fend for themselves (no written defense nonsense). Then, award bonus points to Flight B and FLight C if they win with a very high percentage (and thus might have done better had they played up).

 

This last part is funny, so I'll restate it. If you play in a lower flight (B, C, etc.) and have a game that is 65.00-69.99%, then you get your place in the actual event as if you were in the next-higher bracket. If you have a 70.00+ game, you can jump up two flights. So, a 2nd in C with a 70.05% would receive as many masterpoints as if the pair had been 2nd in A.

 

That's a great method. I don't have to play against the idiots, but they get all kinds of masterpoints anyway.

[matmat]

My solution would never work. Go back to flighted games and let systems in the big game be more complicated. Let the big boys fend for themselves (no written defense nonsense).

This would be OK in long matches where you exchange system notes ahead of time (even in moderate length matches), but whipping out a random system in a pair game, without some semblance of how to deal with things seems excessive.

[jdonn]

3. People who should not be playing up play up so that they can get enough masterpoints, so long as they have a safety net to make sure that, when they get creamed, they get enough compensatory masterpoints.

My experience is completely the opposite. The people who play up are the ones who don't care at all about masterpoints and do it for the competition. The people who want masterpoints are the ones who don't want to play up, because they feel they will get more if they have a good chance to win.

[mike777]

"This would be OK in long matches where you exchange system notes ahead of time"

 

I would think in the USA the number of matches most of us do this in is close to zero lifetime.

 

Of course clarity in the rules is a fine objective and the never ending debate over open systems in a few events is fun. I guess it just comes down to priorities for the ACBL.

[kenrexford]

3. People who should not be playing up play up so that they can get enough masterpoints, so long as they have a safety net to make sure that, when they get creamed, they get enough compensatory masterpoints.

My experience is completely the opposite. The people who play up are the ones who don't care at all about masterpoints and do it for the competition. The people who want masterpoints are the ones who don't want to play up, because they feel they will get more if they have a good chance to win.

I think I failed to make my point clear.

 

When you play up in a way that costs you, true. But, a stratified game is a way to "play up" while still playing where you belong. That's the source of many problems.

[benlessard]

I think that whatever the authorities choose they should try their very best to say clearly what is allowed and what isnt allowed there is just too much grey area right now.

 

My very basic view on this is to be very permissive in the open highest bracket KO and to be very selective in the others brackets, some complex systems just shouldnt be played in the sunday swiss or in the non-top brackets. Remember the majority are there for the fun of it (that doesnt make them weaker players or less competive in any way)

 

To be liberal when it comes to home-made written defense (less bureaucracy for written defense) but with a possible Imps penalty if the defense may prove innapropriate on a board. So that the directors job is simply to wait for a director call and check if the suggested defense make any sense.

 

I don't mind playing a non-optimum written defense facing a completly wild convention or system as long as i have some protection if the defense may prove to be inneficient.

 

And the bridge federations should have a registry on there website for home-made convention & defenses against these convention, a kind of wiki for bridge conventions. If some day we want to play/play against multi or more destructive stuff then there should at least be official defense on the bridge federation website.

[mike777]

As I said full disclosure even by WC players seem to be an issue.

 

I just played a TM where two self rated WC players alerted 50% of their relay system,...or whatever it was. They had no CC.

 

I read articles where this is common in f2f, even at top levels, let alone self rated levels. :)

 

I guess if I only played games where I got system notes weeks in advance, I paid for a coach, and plenty of time....this would be no problem. ;)

[matmat]

I just played a TM where two self rated WC players alerted 50% of their relay system,...or whatever it was. They had no CC.

that's because the other half were relays, and he sort of assumed you knew what that is

[mike777]

I just played a TM where two self rated WC players alerted 50% of their relay system,...or whatever it was. They had no CC.

that's because the other half were relays, and he sort of assumed you knew what that is

relay to what? and what does the relay hand promise?

 

No I did not...but i guess i could guess and hope i was right

As i said no cc

[gwnn]

mike.......

[csdenmark]

This is not the first time, not the second time and not the last time that a tiny and atomized minority try to persuade an overwhelming majority to pay attention to them.

 

The majority and their elected representatives are fully legitimized to impose rules pleasing the majority and really nobody else. It is for a minority to try to join forces to be able to put pressure.

 

All organizations, even bridge organizations, have special sections to be able to serve all best possible.

 

Unfortunately it is so that those interested in re-vitalization of bridge are unable to find 2 persons to agree on anything. They are united in a rejection front but unable to come up with something constructive themselves.

 

Claus Sønderkøge

[DrTodd13]

As others have noted, I think there are two groups of people playing bridge. I don't think the division is between those playing for fun and those playing "seriously" because I think those playing "seriously" are also playing mostly for fun. I think the difference is about thinking. Most people learn enough to be able to play and despite having taken up an intellectual game they then don't want to learn much else. The other group is constantly trying to improve, exploring new conventions and systems and working on declarer play and defense. At first glance, a good situation would seem to have events for each type of person. Most would play in GCC events. The others could play in super-super-flight events (Forcing Pass baby!). This could be a good solution but I don't think it is stable and I think that the ACBL knows it. It is inevitable that the unrestricted events will have more prestige and be viewed as true bridge whereas the restricted events will be viewed as a shadow of real bridge. The force of pride is stronger than the unwillingness to think and so people who don't enjoy it will play in the unrestricted events because playing in the GCC event is a subtle admission of inferiority. Some will even quit given the choice between having to defend a multitude of systems or playing in events viewed as inferior.

[TimG]

The majority and their elected representatives are fully legitimized to impose rules pleasing the majority and really nobody else. It is for a minority to try to join forces to be able to put pressure.

I'm sure a majority of golfers do things like adjust their fairway lies, take the occasional mulligan, and whatnot. If 1000s of these amateur golfers decided to enter the PGA's Greater Hartford Open, should the PGA change their rules to accommodate these amateur rules? (I know: the GHO isn't really "open".)

 

Bridge is unusual, perhaps unique, in that almost all the top events are truly open to anyone who wants to enter. So, either the rules for open competition must be "softer" to accommodate the masses, or the masses must play by the "big dog" rules. Organized bridge has taken the approach of softening the rules (in this case tight system regulation) in order to make the majority of players happy.

 

It seems to me that, where system regulation is concerned, the ACBL has been very conservative -- more conservative that most of the rest of the world. This conservative approach, which may have started out as a way to protect the amateurs, now effectively conditions most who come up through the ranks to favor the conservative approach because it was what they are familiar with.

[pclayton]

The majority and their elected representatives are fully legitimized to impose rules pleasing the majority and really nobody else. It is for a minority to try to join forces to be able to put pressure.

I'm sure a majority of golfers do things like adjust their fairway lies, take the occasional mulligan, and whatnot. If 1000s of these amateur golfers decided to enter the PGA's Greater Hartford Open, should the PGA change their rules to accommodate these amateur rules? (I know: the GHO isn't really "open".)

 

Bridge is unusual, perhaps unique, in that almost all the top events are truly open to anyone who wants to enter. So, either the rules for open competition must be "softer" to accommodate the masses, or the masses must play by the "big dog" rules. Organized bridge has taken the approach of softening the rules (in this case tight system regulation) in order to make the majority of players happy.

 

It seems to me that, where system regulation is concerned, the ACBL has been very conservative -- more conservative that most of the rest of the world. This conservative approach, which may have started out as a way to protect the amateurs, now effectively conditions most who come up through the ranks to favor the conservative approach because it was what they are familiar with.

There aren't two sets of golf rules, unless you mean the USGA versus the R and A. Even amateur competitions follow the USGA guidelines.

 

In friendly golf games, like a Saturday morning foursome, rules are sometimes waived, like mulligans, or 'winter rules', but rounds posted to determine one's handicap are supposed to be played in conformance with the rules of golf.

[TimG]

There aren't two sets of golf rules, unless you mean the USGA versus the R and A. Even amateur competitions follow the USGA guidelines.

 

In friendly golf games, like a Saturday morning foursome, rules are sometimes waived, like mulligans, or 'winter rules', but rounds posted to determine one's handicap are supposed to be played in conformance with the rules of golf.

That's sort of my point. When a golfer submits his score for handicapping or plays in the club championship, he understands that he must play to the real rules rather than his normal foursome's casual rules.

 

When a bridge player ventures away from the club into a regional event, they want to be able to play under the same casual club rules.

 

A regular club player might not want to face transfer advances of overcalls, or Multi, or any number of conventions they are unfamiliar with. The casual golfer seems to accept that "playing up" means a change in the rules, the casual bridge player does not accept the same.

 

Or, maybe the comparison should be to the courses on which big tournaments are held. You don't see the PGA tour on your 6100 yard municipal course, they are generally played on the best (toughest) courses around and are generally much longer. Every-so-often, there is grumbling about how long a course is, but you don't generally hear players complaining that because their home course is only 6100 yards, they shouldn't have to play a tournament on a 7200 yard course.

[Cascade]

I am prepared to accept that the people on committees are motivated by what they believe the membership want. But there are two things which are generally true about people - they don't like change, but they cope with change much better than they think they will.

 

So the committees can tell themselves they are acting in the interest of the membership by protecting them from change - and the membership, for the most part, might very well agree with them. But if they did loosen up the rules (maybe only a bit at a time) the membership would, in very short order, get used to the new situation and actually enjoy it.

This is so true in my experience.

[Mbodell]

My solution would never work.  Go back to flighted games and let systems in the big game be more complicated.  Let the big boys fend for themselves (no written defense nonsense).

This would be OK in long matches where you exchange system notes ahead of time (even in moderate length matches), but whipping out a random system in a pair game, without some semblance of how to deal with things seems excessive.

I think the point is it encourages players to have meta-agreements and slowly learn specific defenses if it becomes an issue. If convention abc is good only because it is unexpected and usual good meta-defenses don't work then either almost no one plays it (and it isn't much of an issue) or more people play it and as a result people learn defenses to the convention and now the convention isn't as good. The could be a natural ecosystem.

 

I'm very glad that my local ACBL club plays most games as Mid-chart and even has a weekly super-chart. (Ironically the partner I play the most standard systems with is the one with whom I play on super-chart night).

 

There are at least three separate issues though that are all mixed together here:

 

1. The ACBL chart system is, for whatever reason, very poorly specified in terms of understandability. I.e., lots of people get confused about what is or isn't allowed at the various levels.

 

2. The method of approving defenses combined with the slow and opaque processing of the defense approval committee make the higher charts even more restrictive than they appear to be and do it in a way that invites some to think that the defense approval committee members are pursuing an active obstructive strategy.

 

3. The ACBL is too conservative.

 

The third point is a matter of opinion (one which I share). The first two are problems that nearly everyone should be in agreement should be fixed and represent a failing of the ACBL.