Fixing the Conventions Committee

[hrothgar]

My first thought was that Richard's idea was great, but thinking more about it, I can see some problems:

- Submission of completely unplayable conventions which other players won't bother to discuss defense against. Will they automatically be allowed after some time, even if nobody bothers to come up with a defense? If not, who decides?

- Take the multi 2♦. If you post it on BBF with a request for a defense, you will get umpteen ideas. A few of them will be "obviously" inferior, but there may be no consensus about which of the 5-6 serious attempts that is better. How to decide which one(s) multi-players can present to their opps as suggested defense?

Here's how I see things:

 

The legality of a given convention should be defined by the Convention Charts and not the absence / presence of a defense in the Defensive Database. I understand the appeal in using the Defensive Database to provide more granularity to the Convention Charts. This certainly makes things more flexible. However, I think that the costs far outweigh the benefits. More explicitly, the ACBL has formalized institutional paralysis in the defense approval process. I would prefer to see a system that is incentivized to develop appropriate defenses.

 

As for your hypothetical example, I believe that any convention should become “legal” six months after the formal submission data regardless of whether an “adequate” defense has been posted. If people genuinely believe that it is impossible to create an adequate defense to the Ruritanian 2D opening then the Convention Charts should be amended to ban the convention.

 

I agree that there could be problems if the “community” is unable to identify a single dominant defense to a given method. I will, however, point out that the existing system fails in this aspect as well. The defensive database recommends multiple defenses against the multi 2D. (Some would argue that none of the suggested defenses are particular good). Moreover, I would argue that sifting the wheat from the chaff might be a very reasonable role for the actual members of the Conventions Committee.

 

My own belief is that a well designed process will lead to the development of better defensive methods. There will doubtlessly be a learning curve as the system gets established, however, it seems hard to do worse than we're doing right now.

[TimG]

What would be the incentive for players to submit good defenses under your proposal?

 

Suppose the XYZ 2D is submitted and I have what I consider a good defense to the method. If I wait out the six months and nothing as good as my defense comes along, I have an advantage over the field when this method is played.

 

Earlier this week, I posted two methods in the "General Bridge" section and asked what people had for defenses. There didn't seem to be much interest and the defenses that people did post were not nearly complete. Why would it be any different if those methods were submitted to an official at ACBL and open to six-month review?

 

Even if there is a review process of the submitted defenses so that in order for a method to be approved an adequate defense (in the opinion of the committee) must be submitted, there is incentive to submit a defense that will just meet the requirements rather than one that might approach best. And, we'd really be back to where we were when the C&C Committee was reviewing all submissions.

 

This kind of secretiveness regarding defenses has been in play for quite some time. Some of the methods that have been submitted to the C&C Committee have been played in World Championships. At least one member of the C&C Committee has been responsible for generating defenses for ACBL teams playing against those methods in WC play. Yet, when the methods were submitted to the C&C Committee, that member did not whip out the WC defense and put it in the defense database.

 

I honestly do not think the C&C Committee members should be required to share the work they did in preparation for WC play, but it does highlight that the fact that there is little incentive for players to submit good defenses.

 

It may also be the case that the WC defenses are considered too complicated for ACBL's rank and file. But, there again, you have a criteria that would have to be judged by the committee. What if the only adequate defenses submitted during the six month period were deemed too complicated?

[Echognome]

Maybe it would be a lot more useful to develop strong meta defenses and post those? Then bids could be allowed if they fall under one of the meta defenses.

 

E.g.

 

Unknown one-suiter, suit is major (e.g. multi)

Uknown one-suiter, suit unknown (e.g. DONT)

Two-suiter, opening is suit 1, suit 2 unknown (e.g. Muiderberg, DONT)

Two-suiter, opening is suit 1, suit 2 known (e.g. Ekrens 2H)

Two-suiter, opening is not suit 1 but is known, suit 2 is unknown (e.g. Astro 2D = spades and another)

Two-suiter, opening is not suit 1, but both suits known (e.g. 2C = majors)

Two-suiter, neither suit known (e.g. wilcosz)

 

Then you could go on to the three-suiters, such as mini-roman.

 

Then decide which of the categories is legal and assign conventions to the categories.

 

The advantage is you only need to get adequate defenses for the meta defenses. There are many potential meta defenses, but it is a much smaller set than having to make defenses for all possibilities.

 

The disadvantage is that you won't have "easy-to-follow" rules such as 2S = X and 3C = Y, but rather you would have to think and figure them out.

[TimG]

That's a good thought. I think the specific defenses could be derived from the meta defenses in a sort of formula-istic sort of way. So, when someone decided they want to play 2C = weak with a major, they could take the meta-multi defense and create a defense to 2C=multi that could be provided to their opponents.

[gerry]

 

Are you aware of any bridge competition anywhere in which there were no restrictions whatsoever on the methods to be used by the competitors?

New Zealand inter-provincial championship.

 

"Open, Women, Senior and Youth: Pairs are not restricted in their choice of systems or conventions."

 

 

Also any open event with 8+board rounds- there are penalties for playing HUMs like losing lineup choices etc.

 

Quote:

“Teams style” − Eight boards or more are played in succession against the same pair.

This category will include nearly all Teams Tournaments and some Swiss Pairs Tournaments, the deciding factor being the number of boards being played in each match/round.

Green systems − All

Blue systems − All

Red systems − All

Yellow systems − All

 

These colour codes are very close to WBF definitions.

[Phil]

Richard, I know you haven't mentioned Moscito specifically, but I think the future bodes well for you.

 

A few years ago, transfer walsh was greeted with comments like, "an artificial 1♥ call showing spades"? WTF am I supposed to do over THAT? As players found that it isn't that difficult to play double = hearts and 1♥ = TOx, it became routine to defend against it.

 

I see no reason why the same cannot be true for a 1♥ opening.

 

However, change is tough. Two Grand LMs Gnome and I played against wanted a suggested defense against a Woolsey 2♦. Instead of wasting time working out a defense for them, we simply told them "We don't think a suggested defense is required". Fortunately the director agreed (AFTER consulting with another director :P ).

[hrothgar]

Richard, I know you haven't mentioned Moscito specifically, but I think the future bodes well for you.

 

A few years ago, transfer walsh was greeted with comments like, "an artificial 1♥ call showing spades"? WTF am I supposed to do over THAT? As players found that it isn't that difficult to play double = hearts and 1♥ = TOx, it became routine to defend against it.

 

I see no reason why the same cannot be true for a 1♥ opening.

Hi Phil

 

Thanks for the update.

 

What I find particular laughable about the entire situation is that Chip Martel:

 

1. Plays transfer Walsh

 

2. Has implemented a system in which folks don't need to provide defenses against transfer Walsh

 

3. Refuses to sanction any defenses against MOSCITO opening

[JanM]

As I've been reading this, I've had a lot of thoughts, but haven't had time to try to formulate them. But let me try a bit. I guess I'd better use more than one post. So this is generalities and Richard's proposal. I'll try to do some specific answers next.

 

There was a time when I'd have agreed with Richard that letting the "interested parties" formulate defenses and vote on which was best would be a great approach. But I've been disillusioned about that by what has happened with the somewhat parallel scheme we use for the USBF championships. Those events are Super Chart, so pretty much anything goes (yes, there are some exceptions, but whether you happen to agree with them or not, I don't think they're relevant to this discussion). The USBF systems rules are that if you're playing something not GCC legal for which there isn't an ACBL approved defense, you need to post a full description and a recommended defense on the USBF website at least 4 weeks before the event in which you plan to play it. The other players then have one week to object to either the description of the method or the defense. If no one objects, everything is deemed adequate. When we put that procedure in place, I thought that after all most of the best players and systems designers were playing in the event and they'd have a strong incentive to review the submissions and object if there was something missing. But it just doesn't happen. No one ever objects to things. No, that's not fair - one or two people have mentioned that someone disclosed a method on their System Summary Form (the USBF addition to the ACBL convention card) that should have been submitted in advance with a recommended defense but wasn't. When that has happened, the USBF Systems Committee members or DICs (depending on the timing) have ruled on whether the method should be allowed and we've required a defense. But the overall method isn't working - people aren't reviewing and questioning either submissions or defenses. Why? I don't know. Maybe because the sophisticated ones know they'll be able to handle things at the table. Maybe because no one bothers. Notice that this is consistent with Tim's experience when he posted methods and asked for suggested defenses.

 

Just one other example about why I don't think people will bother to respond to requests for defenses. Sometime in the past (sorry, long enough ago that I don't remember when), one of the pairs on a US women's team asked me about a week before the World Championship if I could suggest a defense to an opening bid being used by Auken & von Arnim. I went to the WBF website to look at the Brown Sticker Form that had been filed. Instead of suit symbols it had Greek letters and the copyright sign (I'm sure all of you have seen those - the things you get in some fonts when you use option-c,s,d,h for suit symbols). Not the fault of the pair who submitted the form, but of the conversion program that had been used to make a PDF from it to post. It used to happen a lot with things posted on the WBF site for convention cards. I'd asked for corrections to the Open cards weeks earlier, and gotten them. But here it was one week before the event and NO ONE had complained about the Auken-von Arnim card, which was completely unreadable because of the bad conversion. Presumably no one had bothered even to look at it, what's more try to determine whether the Brown Sticker method had been adequately described and the defense was adequate. And as far as I can recall, it was the ONLY Brown Sticker bid being used in that event. I guess when we ask a large number of people to come up with things, everyone just figures someone else will do the work. In the WBF case, for the Bermuda Bowl, they're usually right - either Eric Kokish or Chip & I do look at everything and object to inadequate descriptions or defenses. But for the Women's, they're wrong. My guess is that for Richard's proposal they'd also be wrong - no one would do anything, whether for the somewhat self-serving reasons Tim suggests or because they're not interested or because it isn't worth it for any one player to bother since they are so unlikely to encounter the particular method.

 

It's like many things - they only get done if someone has a strong enough incentive to do them. For defenses to unusual methods, it seems as if the way to incentivize people to create them is to say that the people who want to play the method have to come up with an adequate defense or they can't use the method. The proponents are the ones with enough incentive. Their opponents have some incentive, but not enough, because each individual opponent knows that the odds are s/he won't actually have to defend against the method. So the way ACBL does it actually makes sense. What you're objecting to (or should be) is that there isn't enough "transparency." I think the reason for that is that this has been going on longer than there have been good ways, using the internet, to share things widely. I don't think even those of you who are most virulent against the conventions approval process would suggest that ten or fifteen years ago the approval committee should have sent emails to everyone who might be interested (how they'd identify those people is a whole other question) about each submitted defense. Now, of course, if someone could be persuaded to develop a web page, it would be easy to do that. But when the process started, it wasn't. So now there's a process that has been going on for some time - people are told to submit their methods and proposed defense by email and someone at ACBL (a changing someone, which is another problem) sends those out to the conventions approval committee and they email each other about the problems & then respond to the submitter. The submitter sometimes thinks nothing is happening because the committee members are corresponding privately. The committee members sometimes think someone else is thinking about it when in fact they've decided to resign from the committee. The ACBL person sometimes decides to ignore communications. People think that defenses have been proposed when in fact they haven't. Other people propose completely inadequate defenses (look at what Tim got in response to his request for defenses to 2♦ Majors) and don't understand why they aren't approved. The conventions approval committee feels as if they tell people over and over that they have to deal with the second round of bidding not just the bids immediately over the opening bid, but of course they're telling different people each time.

 

So my bottom line on process is that the basic process that's in place is fine, all that's needed is more transparency (post the methods and proposed defenses when they're sent out to the conventions approval committee; post the committee's comments; let other people comment if they want to; post the approval or non-approval). I think this is something that could happen and I'll try to suggest it to the people who might be able to make it happen.

[JanM]

What I find particular laughable about the entire situation is that Chip Martel:

 

1. Plays transfer Walsh

Only with his wife.

 

2. Has implemented a system in which folks don't need to provide defenses against transfer Walsh

This is backward. The exception for responses to opening bids was in place long before transfer responses to 1♣ were even a gleam in my eye. That we didn't have to get them approved was certainly one reason it was attractive to adopt them. But they didn't become legal because we wanted to adopt them.

 

3.  Refuses to sanction any defenses against MOSCITO opening

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response. I know you think that adequate defenses have been submitted. But the defenses that have been submitted haven't been complete.

[JanM]

This kind of secretiveness regarding defenses has been in play for quite some time.  Some of the methods that have been submitted to the C&C Committee have been played in World Championships.  At least one member of the C&C Committee has been responsible for generating defenses for ACBL teams playing against those methods in WC play.  Yet, when the methods were submitted to the C&C Committee, that member did not whip out the WC defense and put it in the defense database.

 

I honestly do not think the C&C Committee members should be required to share the work they did in preparation for WC play, but it does highlight that the fact that there is little incentive for players to submit good defenses.

 

It may also be the case that the WC defenses are considered too complicated for ACBL's rank and file.  But, there again, you have a criteria that would have to be judged by the committee.  What if the only adequate defenses submitted during the six month period were deemed too complicated?

When you posted the request for defenses to 2♦ Majors, I went to look at what we had done (not recently) for WC teams. It wasn't complete enough to be worth posting, whether because it was done for pairs who didn't want much, or (more likely) because for WBF events, you are not allowed to have a written defense to 2♦ Majors - you have to memorize the defense. When a defense has to be memorized, we always try to keep it as short and simple as possible. A defense that is appropriate for an expert pair who have discussed lots of similar situations when they have to memorize it isn't adequate to hand to an inexperienced pair when they can look at it throughout the auction.

 

So even though we are more than happy to share our defenses with anyone who asks, Chip couldn't have just "whipped out" the defense we did for 2♦ Majors and put it in the database - it isn't an adequate defense for that purpose. Not because it's too complicated, but because it doesn't include the exact things that you asked about with regard to several of the defenses people posted. What happens next round? What happens if the opponents bid something? etc etc

 

Of course, in some cases the fact that a defense has to be complicated to be adequate is the reason no defense gets approved, or the method gets approved only for rounds of 6 or 12 or more boards. The problem with multi, for example, is that the defense has to be sufficiently complicated that it takes too much time when only 2 boards are played per round. And don't tell me it's played everywhere and no one has a problem - of course they have problems, they just take the occasional zero because they had a misunderstanding on defense rather than spend the time to develop an adequate defense and then memorize it. Look at how many US experts just use the inadequate ACBL defenses instead of working out something better - even when they don't have to memorize it. Those multi defenses would never be approved today of course - they're completely inadequate and are only allowed because of history. If I wanted to crusade for something it would be for multi to be barred completely until someone proposes an adequate defense :).

[JanM]

A few years ago, transfer walsh was greeted with comments like, "an artificial 1♥ call showing spades"? WTF am I supposed to do over THAT? As players found that it isn't that difficult to play double = hearts and 1♥ = TOx, it became routine to defend against it.

Of course, that's not the best defense, although it is clearly the simplest and most intuitive. Best (IMO) is to play that DBL is T/O of the suit shown and the cuebid is Michaels.

[h2osmom]

I really like the idea of the measures Jan suggested for transparency as she outlined them. Jan also stated as a reason for not using the method that the WBF uses is that most people don't do the preparation prior to playing, of looking at posted methods and defenses. To that I would say something along the line of, once burned, twice shy. Of course it's entirely possible that a major event, like a Bermuda Bowl will be played with top players having to scramble to defend against some methods. Maybe even probable. But once that happens, those players will decide whether or not they want to be in that position again. Also, these competitions are watched extensively by the players who are likely to be in future top competitions. So, once it happens a time or 2, people will either learn to check the posted methods, or to be prepared for the unknown. All transition is somewhat painful. That doesn't mean the change is wrong.

[TimG]

Richard, I know you haven't mentioned Moscito specifically, but I think the future bodes well for you.

 

A few years ago, transfer walsh was greeted with comments like, "an artificial 1♥ call showing spades"? WTF am I supposed to do over THAT? As players found that it isn't that difficult to play double = hearts and 1♥ = TOx, it became routine to defend against it.

 

I see no reason why the same cannot be true for a 1♥ opening.

I do not share your optimism. A few years ago I submitted a defense to a 1♥ opening which showed a Standard American 1♠ opening. The defense was approved (for 12+ board segments) and included in the Defense Database.

 

Over a year ago, I submitted a defense to a 1♦ opening bid which showed a Standard American 1♥ opening. I used the exact same defense as was approved for the 1♥ transfer opening (except for where the difference between having shown hearts vs spades was important). After much deliberation (or at least many meetings) the defense to the 1♦ transfer opening was rejected and the existing defense to the 1♥ transfer opening was removed from the Defense Database. (It hasn't been removed from the Defense Database at the ACBL site, but the Committee Chair told me that was the decision of the Committee.)

 

The C&C Committee is very aware of the slippery slope between Standard American transfer openings and MOSCITO transfer openings. Discussions with former C&C Committee members (when they were still committee members) made it clear that they did not want to approve methods that would give MOSCITO a foot in the door.

[hrothgar]

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response. I know you think that adequate defenses have been submitted. But the defenses that have been submitted haven't been complete.

Jan, do you want me to repost the letters from Conventions Committee members saying that they don't want the METHODS to be allowed in North America and (essentially) state that they won't approve any defense?

 

If you want, I can try to dredge up the inane requests that Chip was making like explaining every possible response to hypothetical situations three or four rounds into the auction. Then there were all the lovely explanations that this isn't good enough, but not constructive information what-so-ever about what type of changes were necessary. It got to be bit much for me, especially given the crap that the committee was approving as defenses against any one of a number of different bids.

 

Your husband might enjoy playing asinine little passive aggressive games. I got feed up with it after a couple years.

 

Of course, the entire point is now moot since the Conventions Committee eliminate the clause in the Midchart that sanctioned transfer opening bids at the one level. In some ways, its almost a relief. Nice that they finally had the balls to do something openly. (In case you don't recall, this was the same Midchart revision from a ways back that you explained really wouldn't have an impact on the methods that folks were able to play)

 

For what its worth, if the Conventions Committee were to sanction transfer openings on the Mid-Chart, it might help convince people that they were actually willing to approve a defense...

[Cascade]

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response.

It is not as easy to defend against a natural opening bid as it is against a transfer opening bid.

 

In the worst case you can make all of your bids (calls) mean the same thing as over a natural bid and then you have at least one extra step (call).

[akhare]

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response.

It is not as easy to defend against a natural opening bid as it is against a transfer opening bid.

 

In the worst case you can make all of your bids (calls) mean the same thing as over a natural bid and then you have at least one extra step (call).

Indeed -- but if you wait for a while, we will have another long winded explanation about why the increased space creates more permutations and makes it difficult to defend against a (gasp) transfer opening.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that there are no MidChart events around here (with the possible exception of Flight A events and high brackets of KOs (whatever that means) for which no advertising is required. As I don't play in those events, I have no idea whether the MidChart is allowed in them). It also occurs to me that there are no WC players around here. I wonder if there's a correlation? ("Here", btw, is Rochester, NY – District 4, Unit 112 — if anyone cares).

 

Jan mentions the internet, and says "if somebody could be persuaded to develop a web page..." That's easy - the ACBL has a Webmaster, so it seems likely that if the CandC asks for a particular web page, at least there's somebody in Memphis (or wherever he is) who not only can do it, but whose job it is to do it. A forum like this, or a blog, would it seems to me work well, and be fairly easy to implement and maintain, using software already available, much of it for free.

 

I'm not sure I understand why there's an ACBL employee in the middle of the path between someone emailing a request for approval of a method and the CandC (the email link on the ACBL website claims, at least, to go to the CandC). Actually, it would probably be best if "candc@acbl.org" were a mailing list to all the members of the committee (here I'm assuming that the members of the approval subcommittee are members of the full CandC, although since the web site's listing of committee members is out of date I'm not sure). And maybe it is such a mailing list, but then how does this employee in Memphis get in the middle of things?

 

I certainly don't understand the committee's antipathy towards MOSCITO, but it seems to me that's a separate issue from that of the mechanics of the approval process. Or at least, something to be left until after the more fundamental problems are fixed.

[JanM]

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response. I know you think that adequate defenses have been submitted. But the defenses that have been submitted haven't been complete.

Jan, do you want me to repost the letters from Conventions Committee members saying that they don't want the METHODS to be allowed in North America and (essentially) state that they won't approve any defense?

 

Of course, the entire point is now moot since the Conventions Committee eliminate the clause in the Midchart that sanctioned transfer opening bids at the one level. In some ways, its almost a relief. Nice that they finally had the balls to do something openly. (In case you don't recall, this was the same Midchart revision from a ways back that you explained really wouldn't have an impact on the methods that folks were able to play)

 

I really don't want to get involved in arguments over history. I'm sure you think the Moscito proponents were reasonable and I'm sure that Chip & Jeff think they were reasonable. Whether the antagonism that arose from all of that will prevent part or all of Moscito from being approved for the Midchart I don't know.

 

However, I do know that you are wrong that the re-writing of the Midchart changed the rules about what could be aprroved. The Midchart used to contain a list of types of methods that would be Midchart legal if a defense was approved. That list, which was there to provide examples of methods that would be appropriate for the Midchart, confused people (including you, I guess; certainly some directors) into thinking that the listed types of methods were Midchart legal even though no defense had been approved. The Midchart was therefore re-written to list only those methods for which no defense was required (such as defenses to 1NT openings) and methods for which there is an approved defense. That re-writing did not change the general purpose of the Midchart and did not mean that things that had previously been listed as appropriate for Midchart approval weren't. What it (hopefully) did was to make clear to both players and directors which bids are currently legal in Midchart events. Other bids will be added to the list when defenses are approved.

For what its worth, if the Conventions Committee were to sanction transfer openings on the Mid-Chart, it might help convince people that they were actually willing to approve a defense...

The Midchart doesn't "sanction" methods unless they don't need a defense or there is an approved defense. That transfer openings at the 1-level can be Midchart legal is demonstrated by the fact that there is an approved defense for a 1♥ bid showing a 1 spade opening.

[JanM]

I really like the idea of the measures Jan suggested for transparency as she outlined them.  Jan also stated as a reason for not using the method that the WBF uses is that most people don't do the preparation prior to playing,  of looking at posted methods and defenses.  To that I would say something along the line of,  once burned,  twice shy.  Of course it's entirely possible that a major event, like a Bermuda Bowl will be played with top players having to scramble to defend against some methods.  Maybe even probable.  But once that happens,  those players will decide whether or not they want to be in that position again.  Also,  these competitions are watched extensively by the players who are likely to be in future top competitions.  So,  once it happens a time or 2,  people will either learn to check the posted methods,  or to be prepared for the unknown.  All transition is somewhat painful.  That doesn't mean the change is wrong.

Not surprisingly, I obviously wasn't clear. Richard's suggestion is quite different from what the USBF & WBF do. The reason I discussed the fact that the WBF/USBF method (basically having the players in an event serve as a convention & defense review committee) doesn't work very well was to point out that even when you have very interested parties involved, they don't seem to want to work on reviewing unusual methods and defenses. I therefore don't think that having bridge players at large submit defenses to proposed methods will work. And of course there's also Tim's point that it isn't really in any one particular player's best interest to make sure there's an adequate published defense to a proposed method.

[awm]

People read the old mid-chart as listing a bunch of things that would be legal if a reasonable defense were offered and added to the defense database. Obviously this didn't mean you could just sit down and play transfer openings without an approved defense, but the implication was that the only obstacle to playing them was writing an adequate defense. The reason some folks feel betrayed, is that there is a fair amount of evidence that some members of the committee (in particular Jeff and Chip) were absolutely never going to sanction Moscito-style transfer openings regardless of the defenses submitted for approval. This gave people the impression that the folks on the committee were acting as regulators, deciding which methods should be allowed on the mid chart on the basis of their opinion of the methods, whereas the committee's supposed job was to judge and approve the defenses and not the methods themselves.

 

The current mid-chart does not give any real indication that it's possible to add more treatments to what's mid-chart legal. So while it does not, in practice, change the set of legal methods... it changes the impression of what's going on substantially. The old impression was that any bid showing a known suit was potentially legal, if only a good defense was proposed. The new impression is that what's allowed now is all there is, and that's the end of the story. There have been some additional indications that the relevant committee is "no longer considering new proposed methods" and indeed nothing has been added to the defense database in years.

 

As for the "1♥ showing spades" method, this was initially approved, then moved to the "12 board rounds" category, and now apparently is no longer approved (although the mid-chart does not reflect this). Attempts to get a 1♦ opening showing five or more hearts with essentially the same defense approved failed utterly, and without this extra opening bid it's not clear what use the "1♥ showing spades" method would be anyway.

 

It may also be worth mentioning that a ridiculous standard sometimes seems to be applied to new defenses. If an adequate defense must list all possible follow-up sequences through possibly three or four rounds of the auction, then you could write dozens of pages of defense. This is a standard that no defense in the current database comes close to meeting. And even if someone proposed something that met this ridiculous standard, it'd be easy to argue that "this is not an optimum defense" (who says we have anything remotely close to an optimum defense to a natural 1♣? I doubt we do) or to argue that "this defense is too long/complicated" (which it basically had to be, to cover all those sequences). It's certainly the case that defenses which are substantially more complete than anything in the current database have been rejected as insufficient.

[JanM]

It occurs to me that there are no MidChart events around here (with the possible exception of Flight A events and high brackets of KOs (whatever that means) for which no advertising is required. As I don't play in those events, I have no idea whether the MidChart is allowed in them). It also occurs to me that there are no WC players around here. I wonder if there's a correlation? ("Here", btw, is Rochester, NY – District 4, Unit 112 — if anyone cares).

I suspect that the actual correlation is a different one, and somewhat chicken and egg: there aren't any WC players because there aren't any WC players. People get better when they play against better players. That's one of the reasons that BBO is so great - you don't have to live where there are better players to have an opportunity to play against them. And of course that's also why a lot of top players come from a few geographic areas.

Jan mentions the internet, and says "if somebody could be persuaded to develop a web page..." That's easy - the ACBL has a Webmaster, so it seems likely that if the CandC asks for a particular web page, at least there's somebody in Memphis (or wherever he is) who not only can do it, but whose job it is to do it. A forum like this, or a blog, would it seems to me work well, and be fairly easy to implement and maintain, using software already available, much of it for free.

Certainly the someone could well be the ACBL webmaster. I'm working on persuading the defense approval subcommittee and the C&C chair that such a web page would be a better way to handle things than what is now being done. If they agree, hopefully the ACBL webmaster will set up the web page.

 

I also think it would be better to have a clearer link to where defense submission is discussed and a better explanation about it than is now on the ACBL website. It took me a while to find "Convention and Defense Approval" - it's on the Defense Database page, which I suppose makes sense, but wasn't intuitively obvious to me. I also now understand someone's statement in a thread on here that the defense approval committee isn't approving new things. What is actually said is: "The committee is unlikely to approve requests for artificial openings that do not promise length in the suit bid or any weak openings for 2 board segments." That's not a clear sentence, but the "for 2 board segments" is supposed to modify the whole sentence. You're unlikely to get an opening that doesn't promise length in the suit bid (especially if it's weak) approved for 2 board segments. That doesn't mean you won't get it approved for longer segments.

 

I'm not sure I understand why there's an ACBL employee in the middle of the path between someone emailing a request for approval of a method and the CandC (the email link on the ACBL website claims, at least, to go to the CandC). Actually, it would probably be best if "candc@acbl.org" were a mailing list to all the members of the committee (here I'm assuming that the members of the approval subcommittee are members of the full CandC, although since the web site's listing of committee members is out of date I'm not sure). And maybe it is such a mailing list, but then how does this employee in Memphis get in the middle of things?

I don't know about all of the members of the approval subcommittee, but I do know that Chip is no longer a member of C&C (for which I am grateful on the first Monday & Tuesday of each NABC when I don't get waked up early). "Candc@acbl.org" goes to an ACBL employee (who it is seems to change over time; I don't know who the current person is), whose job it is to forward emails with proposed defenses to the defense approval committee and to forward emails about other things to the chair of the CandC committee or maybe to someone else who is best able to deal with the question, as well as redirecting emails that should have gone someplace else.

[JanM]

The current mid-chart does not give any real indication that it's possible to add more treatments to what's mid-chart legal. So while it does not, in practice, change the set of legal methods... it changes the impression of what's going on substantially. The old impression was that any bid showing a known suit was potentially legal, if only a good defense was proposed. The new impression is that what's allowed now is all there is, and that's the end of the story.

I'm not sure how that could have been avoided without running into what had been happening before (maybe you don't think it was unclear, but I know people who convinced directors that what they wanted to play was "listed on the Midchart" and thus allowed, despite the fact there wasn't an approved defense). The current Midchart includes the following statement, which I would have thought made it clear that new methods could be approved:

To get a method approved, a complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense must be submitted to ACBL in Memphis, electronically to the Competition and Conventions Committee at candc@acbl.org

NOTE: Weak artificial openings, or bids which require a defense of more than one page, are unlikely to be approved for two board segments.

There have been some additional indications that the relevant committee is "no longer considering new proposed methods" and indeed nothing has been added to the defense database in years.

I think you're getting that from the statement on the Defense Database page that "The committee is unlikely to approve requests for artificial openings that do not promise length in the suit bid or any weak openings for 2 board segments." I have already said that I agree that it would be better if the things that had been submitted for approval and the responses to those submissions were public. I think you are wrong that nothing has been added, although you are probably correct that nothing has been added for 2 board rounds.

 

As for the "1♥ showing spades" method, this was initially approved, then moved to the "12 board rounds" category, and now apparently is no longer approved (although the mid-chart does not reflect this). Attempts to get a 1♦ opening showing five or more hearts with essentially the same defense approved failed utterly, and without this extra opening bid it's not clear what use the "1♥ showing spades" method would be anyway.

As far as I know it's legal for 12 board rounds. It was approved only for 12 board rounds, along with a bunch of other things, because it needs more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment.

It may also be worth mentioning that a ridiculous standard sometimes seems to be applied to new defenses. If an adequate defense must list all possible follow-up sequences through possibly three or four rounds of the auction, then you could write dozens of pages of defense. This is a standard that no defense in the current database comes close to meeting. And even if someone proposed something that met this ridiculous standard, it'd be easy to argue that "this is not an optimum defense" (who says we have anything remotely close to an optimum defense to a natural 1♣? I doubt we do) or to argue that "this defense is too long/complicated" (which it basically had to be, to cover all those sequences). It's certainly the case that defenses which are substantially more complete than anything in the current database have been rejected as insufficient.

I'm sure that if the standard now being applied were applied to the existing defenses most, if not all, of them would fail. But I think you're also being unrealistic when you say that dealing with subsequent rounds of the auction is always going to be difficult. The best way to provide a defense that people can actually play is to try to get back to something "normal" as quickly as possible. So, for instance, our defense for 2♦ showing Majors, although it's missing a lot, does say that after (2♦)-DBL which is usually a balanced 12-14 HCP hand-(2/3M), the bidding is the same as after 1NT-(2/3M natural). That way the defenders are back on reasonably familiar ground (more familiar for weak NT'ers of course). No one is suggesting that an "optimum" defense is required, just that the defense needs to be adequate and mustn't leave people at sea in the middle of the auction.

[Cascade]

As far as I know it's legal for 12 board rounds. It was approved only for 12 board rounds, along with a bunch of other things, because it needs more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment.

From the defense database:

 

"SUGGESTED DEFENSE

Treat the opening as a Standard American 1S opening bid and use normal defensive

methods:"

 

The suggested defense does not even have a meaning for the 1♠ cue-bid overcall.

 

It is hard to imagine why this needs "more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment".

 

That argument is so flimsy that I would be willing to speculate that the reality is quite different than that being the real reason for the "12 board round" requirement.

[hrothgar]

So even though we are more than happy to share our defenses with anyone who asks...

I'll bite

 

A few years back, the following exchange took place on rec.games.bridge

 

>In article <36q2ke$...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, mar...@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip

>Martel) wrotes:

 

>> Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.

>> They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE

>> prepared to play against that system.

 

>>>Maybe your system/methods against Polish Club can be posted? This would be

>>>of great intrest since similar methods (as pol. c.) seems to be 'tomorrows

>>>standard'.

 

>Sorry, I'm not willing to publicize the defense now. I don't want to

>discourage others from playing these methods after all.

 

Any chance that we could finally see the defense to Polish Club?

[TimG]

To get a method approved, a complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense must be submitted to ACBL in Memphis, electronically to the Competition and Conventions Committee at candc@acbl.org

NOTE: Weak artificial openings, or bids which require a defense of more than one page, are unlikely to be approved for two board segments.

There have been some additional indications that the relevant committee is "no longer considering new proposed methods" and indeed nothing has been added to the defense database in years.

I think you're getting that from the statement on the Defense Database page that "The committee is unlikely to approve requests for artificial openings that do not promise length in the suit bid or any weak openings for 2 board segments." I have already said that I agree that it would be better if the things that had been submitted for approval and the responses to those submissions were public. I think you are wrong that nothing has been added, although you are probably correct that nothing has been added for 2 board rounds.

I cannot speak for Adam, but my impression that new defenses are not being approved for weak openings comes straight from Butch Campbell (who I believe is the person currently responsible for handling submissions).

 

On June 12, 2009, I submitted a defense to a weak (6-11 HCP) 2♥ opening which shows 5+ hearts and a side 5+ card suit. The defense was modeled after the existing approved defense for a weak 2♥ opening which shows 5+ hearts and a 4-card minor (which can be played in events with 2-board segments).

 

The response from Mr. Campbell was:

 

"Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time."

 

In follow-up conversation, he added:

 

"I am sure they will keep your request on file and address it at a later date."

 

"They" being the C&C Committee. I have, on multiple occasions, asked both Mr. Campbell and Steve Beatty (chair of the C&C Committee) how long this moratorium might last, neither has given me an answer.

 

Tim