Fixing the Conventions Committee

[hrothgar]

(No jokes about the relative merits of rubbers bands versus knives, please)

 

As I've noted main times in the past, I think that the ACBL's system for regulating conventions broken at a deep and fundamental manner. Its been very apparent that the existing system doesn't work for close to a decade now. Its time for a change. I have my own ideas of what needs to be done, but I'm curious what other people have to say.

 

From my perspective, I'd like to see to see three significant changes to the existing system.

 

1. ACBL members need and deserve an open and transparent process. There is no good reason why the conventions / defense approval process should be conducted in private using email. An open system based on web forums and official publications would allow ACBL members to observe the process, warts and all.

 

2. The system by which suggested defenses are approved needs to be completely overhauled. The existing defense approval process has become an extension to the regulatory system. Simply put, the Defensive Database is a tool that the Conventions Committee uses to “special case ban” anything they damn well please. I believe that the Defensive Database should be designed, from first principles, to identify quality defenses to legal conventions. I prefer a system in which players can submit any method they want to the ACBL's web forum. Sixth months after the submission date, you get to start playing this convention anywhere that allows said method. No ifs, ands, or buts. In the mean time, ACBL members will have plenty of time to debate the merits of different defenses. The cream will rise to the top and the Conventions Committee can officially bless whatever defense they want. (If the Conventions Committee doesn't believe that a reasonable defense has been identified, they are of course, welcome to actually participate in the process) I agree that this type of crowd-sourcing system is less than perfect, but its a damn sight better than the cluster-frak we're dealing with today.

 

3. I think that the existing system by which conventions are licenses based on round length is asinine. I agree with the basic goal (I think that its perfectly reasonable to sanction different conventions for two round pairs events versus seven board round robins versus twenty found round KO matches). However, ultimately I think that these sorts of decisions are made by tournament sponsors and not the Conventions Committee. We all know that club owners, units, districts, and even regions do whatever they damn well please in terms of licensing conventions. (There are any number of examples where districts have created their own sets of convention regulations). I would prefer a system in which the Conventions Committee lead by example. Create one (or more) Convention Charts designed for two or three board rounds. Do the same for seven board rounds and twenty four board KOs. However, recognize that local tournament sponsors are the ones who will determine which – if any - of these Convention Charts they choose to apply for their events.

[peachy]

It all starts with the "open and transparent process". It is mind-boggling why there are no meeting records from the Competition and Conventions Committee. I posted something in the General Bridge Discussion also, airing again my frustration about it = I faced a brickwall covering well-kept secrets several months ago.

[blackshoe]

At the very least, the CandC should be required to take minutes of their meetings, those minutes should include written reports of the deliberations of the approval subcommittee, and they should be published in a timely manner on the ACBL website.

 

I don't think that simply submitted a convention for discussion should result in automatic approval, even after a period of time. At least, not if part of the approval process is (as I think it should be) to decide at what level the convention should be approved. It may, for example, be appropriate to change the GCC and allow things that aren't currently allowed there. But I see now you're talking about defenses, not the underlying conventions. I agree with you there — the right way to do it is to decouple the defense approval process from the convention approval process.

 

If the MidChart is to truly be the ground for experimenting with new conventions, then it needs to be allowed in more events. TOs need to advertise and promote such events, players must be wiling to play in them. But the MidChart is outside most peoples' comfort zone, so that will be hard to accomplish.

 

Perhaps the way forward wrt round length is to make the statement in the MidChart a suggestion, explicitly leaving it up to the TO to decide in which events the convention will actually be allowed. The downside to this, of course, is that many TOs will simply take the suggestion as given, and not bother even to think about whether to allow, for example, a "six board" convention in a two board event.

 

The ACBL needs to be more proactive in ensuring that TOs (including clubs) comply with existing requlations regarding the publishing of allowed conventions in their events. The current "blind eye" situation is terrible.

[hrothgar]

I don't think that simply submitted a convention for discussion should result in automatic approval, even after a period of time. At least, not if part of the approval process is (as I think it should be) to decide at what level the convention should be approved. It may, for example, be appropriate to change the GCC and allow things that aren't currently allowed there. But I see now you're talking about defenses, not the underlying conventions.

Just to be clear:

 

I favor a system in which players submit a description of the convention that they wish to play. On the day they describe their convention, a timer starts counting. Six monthes later, they get to use said convention (assuming that its legal on the Convention Cart chosen by the tournament organizer)

 

Suggested defenses are crowd-sourced using a web based forum.

[TimG]

I would suggest that you attempt to create a mid-chart such as you'd like to see. I'd be very interested in seeing what people come up with.

[awm]

It seems very clear-cut that a more transparent process would be a better way to handle things.

 

The manner in which this committee conducts its business creates the impression that something unfair is going on. Regardless of the truth of matters, you have to wonder about a committee that routinely turns down virtually all requests (nothing new has been added to the mid-chart in years), refuses to produce the required minutes of their meetings, and has apparently leaked back channel discussions about how they will never approve defenses to certain conventions (but without explaining this to the people submitting those conventions for approval). This is not necessarily an accusation, but the lack of disclosure certainly opens the door for people to assume the worst.

 

Regardless of the fairness issue, doing things in the open will prevent repeat submissions of the same conventions with the same inferior defenses (this must happen a lot). It will allow open discussion and formulation of defenses by the interested community (might point out problems with a defense or help design a better one more quickly). And it will allow people to understand the process and what the committee is looking for in a legal method or reasonable defense.

 

The purpose of the conventions committee should be to make sure we have a fair and enjoyable tournament environment. Obviously this means balancing the interests of people who want to play non-standard methods with those of people who prefer not to have to defend against those methods. It's a tough job. But with fairness as a primary goal, there's no reason this committee's job should be hidden behind closed doors.

[Codo]

It seems very clear-cut that a more transparent process would be a better way to handle things.

Sorry, but in my opinion you all are dreamers.

 

I am no insider in you CandC committee, and maybe they are worse then most others committes...

 

But I can name you 100 committees which work exactly like this one: They make their descissions on their own and you can see the outcome. This is the very normal process in politics, economy and all other parts of life.

 

And I am not even sure that it is wishable to have an open process. This concept is much better in theory but I doubt that it will work in practice.

[suokko]

It seems very clear-cut that a more transparent process would be a better way to handle things.

Sorry, but in my opinion you all are dreamers.

 

I am no insider in you CandC committee, and maybe they are worse then most others committes...

 

But I can name you 100 committees which work exactly like this one: They make their descissions on their own and you can see the outcome. This is the very normal process in politics, economy and all other parts of life.

 

And I am not even sure that it is wishable to have an open process. This concept is much better in theory but I doubt that it will work in practice.

Does wikipedia work?

 

Ok. Too many of bridge players are from older generation that haven't grown with computers and Internet.

 

But at least committee should publish their meetings to members. Whole committee exists only for the members and not for anything else. Of course there might be some meetings that should stay private because they handle some personal things.

 

In case of some private handling we still report that they handled some decision and censure private parts of minutes from public release in the Federation website.

[Gerben42]

Although an "open process" is not feasible at the moment, it should be the case that the findings of the committee are open to all who are interested.

 

Perhaps you should confront the ACBL on its next yearly member meeting and demand to see the minutes of the C&C meetings for the last five years. That seems like a fair request. If they do not have such minutes, question their authority maybe they get replaced by people who do care to make minutes.

[helene_t]

Sorry, but in my opinion you all are dreamers.

 

I am no insider in you CandC committee, and maybe they are worse then most others committes...

 

But I can name you 100 committees which work exactly like this one: They make their descissions on their own and you can see the outcome. This is the very normal process in politics, economy and all other parts of life.

 

And I am not even sure that it is wishable to have an open process. This concept is much better in theory but I doubt that it will work in practice.

But the committee would not get involved in approving defenses anymore. It would only verify that the convention is legal under the charter it is aimed at.

 

Then there would also be a webmaster and a moderator team for the webforum but they would just make sure that it doesn't degenerate to the water cooler level.

 

I agree, though, that it isn't going to happen.

[TimG]

Although an "open process" is not feasible at the moment, it should be the case that the findings of the committee are open to all who are interested.

 

Perhaps you should confront the ACBL on its next yearly member meeting and demand to see the minutes of the C&C meetings for the last five years. That seems like a fair request. If they do not have such minutes, question their authority maybe they get replaced by people who do care to make minutes.

I believe the number of people who have real interest in this is very small and that they are considered something of a nuisance by those in charge. If a couple of people showed up at the membership meeting and requested minutes for past C&C Committee meetings, they would be met with an attitude along the lines of: these people are volunteers doing a very difficult job, if we insist upon minutes they will have less time to do their job and we will have fewer qualified people who will agree to volunteer.

 

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, just that I believe it is reality.

[Codo]

Does wikipedia work?

 

Ok. Too many of bridge players are from older generation that haven't grown with computers and Internet.

 

But at least committee should publish their meetings to members. Whole committee exists only for the members and not for anything else. Of course there might be some meetings that should stay private because they handle some personal things.

 

In case of some private handling we still report that they handled some decision and censure private parts of minutes from public release in the Federation website.

Maybe I choose the wrong words, maybe I life in another world:

 

Of course it is possible to make the complete descission transparent and maybe it is wishable.

 

But this is not what is done in reality. Committes work (better or worse) and tell later the results of their work.

 

The result may be just a descissions or much better a decission with the arguments for each side, but you are never part of the process which leads to this result.

 

Why do you want the CandC to be so different from any other committee?

If you build a committee in your local club to organize the christmas party, do they share their pros and cons about the place they chose or the program? Or do they just tell you when and where you have to be?

[blackshoe]

I don't think anyone expects (or wants) to sit in on CandC committee meetings, or to have a say in how those meetings are conducted, or what they talk about. But you say yourself that in the real world committees publish the results of their deliberations — and this committee does not.

 

Take a local government's zoning committee. Their job is to decide whether a particular area shall be zoned for residential buildings, or for industrial buildings, or whatever. Their internal deliberations may or may not be open to the public, but the rules (laws and regulations) under which they decide are publically available - and this committee's are not.

 

So I don't think it's fair to compare the CandC committee with other committees, and say the CandC is just conducting its business the same way everyone else does. It's not.

[mycroft]

Definitely speaking for myself only, here, and not for any organization (that's always the case, but I feel I need to highlight it on this one).

 

All of the above seems to be about reorganizing "the chart without a game" (at least around here). There are common questions on the GCC that get conflicting answers, and no formal record of CandC committee approved answers to (nor, for that matter, formal record of the questions). Given that the GCC is the baseline chart, I feel it's more important to formalize those first, then work on the MidChart.

 

For instance:

 

1) define "strong".

2) is the requirement for a second suit/outside minor for a weak 2 bid an illegal special agreement under the GCC? (I know it is, but it should be written down somewhere, given the number of people who want to argue this one every year)

3) does a short club/diamond (<3 possible) qualify as a special agreement for the purposes of "any non-destructive defence to a special agreement"? Does it matter if it's 2+, 1+ or 0+?

4) Does "all-purpose" in terms of 1m openings mean "a specific purpose"? (I know the answer to that one too, but again, with the number of arguments that come up, it needs to be answered formally)

5) Define "relay bid". How much information is needed to be given by the call to not be a relay?

6) for the purposes of weak 2s, the 7-HCP range is for a particular seat/vulnerability combination, right? If I play 8-12 in the first two seats and 4-10 in third, that's okay?

7) Another one "we all know", but I just realized isn't quantified: overcalls of 1NT, 2D or higher, must have at least "one known suit". Minimum length 4, right?

8) 1D response "could be 3" to natural 1C openings. When is that allowed? Similarly, how often can you "3-card 1H response to 1m as cheapest lie" before it becomes a problem (vis. the great 1NT-with-a-singleton article)?

 

That's off the top of my head and a quick reading of the GCC. I'm sure there are more...

[JoAnneM]

While everyone is busy crucifying the work these volunteers do has anyone bothered talking to one of them about the committee and it actions, minutes, etc? It seems there are enough contributors here that are so well versed in the workings of the ACBL that you must know some of the members?

[blackshoe]

Good points, Mycroft. I'd say it would be a good idea to clearly differentiate (both in the GCC and in the printing on the CC) between openings in first and second seat, in third seat, and in fourth seat.

 

I'd really like the see the CandC committee hire a professional forms designer to redesign the CC. Excuse me, "System Card" (SC).

 

Caveat: I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that the design of the SC is in the portfolio of the CandC Committee. If it's not, then I'd like to see whoever is responsible for it do this.

 

Actually, I have a friend here who's put together a pretty decent spreadsheet-based SC (I think he used Excel or something compatible with Excel). At least that would be cross-platform. I really hate the implicit assumption in the current situation that "everyone" runs Windows.

[TimG]

While everyone is busy crucifying the work these volunteers do has anyone bothered talking to one of them about the committee and it actions, minutes, etc? It seems there are enough contributors here that are so well versed in the workings of the ACBL that you must know some of the members?

I have corresponded with members of the committee regarding convention approval and minutes. Conventions is only a part of what the C&C Committee is responsible for and is generally dealt with by a small sub-committee.

[JanM]

Good points, Mycroft. I'd say it would be a good idea to clearly differentiate (both in the GCC and in the printing on the CC) between openings in first and second seat, in third seat, and in fourth seat.

 

I'd really like the see the CandC committee hire a professional forms designer to redesign the CC. Excuse me, "System Card" (SC).

 

Caveat: I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that the design of the SC is in the portfolio of the CandC Committee. If it's not, then I'd like to see whoever is responsible for it do this.

 

Actually, I have a friend here who's put together a pretty decent spreadsheet-based SC (I think he used Excel or something compatible with Excel). At least that would be cross-platform. I really hate the implicit assumption in the current situation that "everyone" runs Windows.

I don't think the convention card is in the purview of the C&C committee - I think it's management, or the tournament department or something like that. Having said that, I have a feeling that it falls under the "if it's not broken why bother to fix it" rule and won't be changed in the near future.

 

As a non-windows user, I've never tried to use the ACBL's convention card generator - I have a Word template that's now a Pages template (Word finally lost me when it refused to recognize suit symbols) that I use to print convention cards that have big print and little wasted garbage. Follows the format of the ACBL card but isn't exactly the same - the only comments I ever get about it are compliments, so people don't seem to mind the slight format variation in exchange for print they can read. If I were starting over again, I might use a spreadsheet instead of a WP program, but when I first did it I was more expert with Word than Excel.

 

As I think I've said before on these fora, I don't think that there is anyone on the C&C committee who's against having minutes taken and published. OTOH, there's apparently no one on the committee who is interested in doing minutes, and apparently ACBL isn't providing a support person to do them. Minutes aren't easy. For example, compare the minutes of the USBF ITTC and those for the WITTC. To get to minutes for each committee, scroll down the page to Minutes and click on the ones you want. The ITTC minutes are extensive, cover everything that was discussed and are wonderfully accurate. They're also produced within a week of each meeting (if they're later getting posted, that's my fault; I see that I need to get current ones posted). The WITTC minutes are skeletal, often get corrected, usually appear about a week before the next committee meeting. But they're better than the C&C minutes that don't get done.

 

To the best of my knowledge, C&C meetings are open to anyone who wants to attend them, as are most ACBL committee meetings (except Hall of Fame when the committee is deciding on nominees). They're usually held on Monday and Tuesday mornings at NABCs and the time and place is listed in the Daily Bulletin. Why don't some of you who think the committee is so secretive and unresponsive go to a meeting and see what is discussed and how the committee functions?

 

The main C&C committee won't be discussing specific conventions or the convention charts, of course. That's done by the small (and apparently shrinking) and overworked conventions approval committee.

[JoAnneM]

"Why don't some of you who think the committee is so secretive and unresponsive go to a meeting and see what is discussed and how the committee functions?"

 

Great idea, Jan. On a much smaller scale I have heard similar noises about the functioning of District Boards and Committees. And my response - come join us, you are always welcome.

 

Simplistic I know, but going to the source usually works.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[blackshoe]

I don't think the convention card is in the purview of the C&C committee - I think it's management, or the tournament department or something like that. Having said that, I have a feeling that it falls under the "if it's not broken why bother to fix it" rule and won't be changed in the near future.

Okay, fair enough, on the purview. But the SC is broken, at least for those who want to play something outside the preconceptions of the design. I guess that's a small enough and not vocal enough minority that it can be ignored.

 

You should post your format (just a template, not necessarily any specific card of yours) on the web somewhere. :D

 

I would love to attend a CandC meeting. Heck, I'd love to attend an NABC. Can't afford it, though. :)

[peachy]

While everyone is busy crucifying the work these volunteers do has anyone bothered talking to one of them about the committee and it actions, minutes, etc? It seems there are enough contributors here that are so well versed in the workings of the ACBL that you must know some of the members?

I was told in very clear terms that the committee does not keep minutes, its deliberations are not disclosed, and that it would be improper to approach individual committee members in search of any information. All I had was a simple question to ask the committee:

 

What were the reasons why Multi was designated as an MC6 method? MC6 meaning, allowed in Mid Chart events with a round length of at least six boards.

 

I don't know any of the committee members. Even if I did, I find it not quite right to try to get in through the backdoor. The information should be forthcoming to the membership whether they know anybody on the committee or not.

[JanM]

You should post your format (just a template, not necessarily any specific card of yours) on the web somewhere. :D

http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/MartelStansby.jpg

 

I would love to attend a CandC meeting. Heck, I'd love to attend an NABC. Can't afford it, though. B)

One of the reasons NABCs move around the country is to make it affordable for most people to attend them sometimes. Hopefully, that will happen for you.

[TimG]

You should post your format (just a template, not necessarily any specific card of yours) on the web somewhere. :D

http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/MartelStansby.jpg

ACCESS FORBIDDEN

 

I would love to attend a CandC meeting. Heck, I'd love to attend an NABC. Can't afford it, though. B)

One of the reasons NABCs move around the country is to make it affordable for most people to attend them sometimes. Hopefully, that will happen for you.

In my experience, it is not the travel (airfare) that makes a NABC expensive.

[Phil]

ACCESS FORBIDDEN

This sums up how we feel about the C & C B)