[fred]

TimG, on Dec 5 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

This correspondence took place in August of 2004. I kept copies of some things, but not everything. At the time, the committee members who appeared to be involved in the discussion were Jeff Meckstroth, Steve Weinstein, Chip Martel and Steve Beatty (along with Gary Blaiss and Rick Beye, who may or not have been actual members of the committee). I do not know whether Fred was on the committee at this time, and if he was, how much of the discussion was forwarded to him.

Tim

I am fairly certain that if Steve Weinstein was on the committee then I was not. As I recall, he was the person who replaced me when I resigned.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

On the original question: I happen to like wierd systems a lot, but I agree they're not the best publicity for the game.

Agree to allow at top national level. Would also favour promoting club/regional events with no restrictions to let geeks and curious people have a chance at playing them more often

[akhare]

TimG, on Dec 5 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

In other correspondence (that I'm not sure was intended for my eyes) there was specific mention of MOSQUITO and the "looming danger" of a "slippery slope" that could result from approving my method.

IMO, the real slippery sliding slope for ACBL is losing the support of relatively younger players like me. Granted, I am in the minority, but I know several others who are in the same boat.

If they don't deem it fit to approve fairly innocous methods (belaboured opinions to the contrary notwithstanding), then it probably isn't worth supporting being a member of such the organization.

If, as has been suggested, transfer openings cause big time related problems when they are introduced, then do go ahead and take steps to rectify it. However, don't ban the methods on the out of hand assumption that it will be the case.

In other words, allow us room to breathe (bridge wise) and we'll all be happier for it...

[onoway]

I wonder how many people like me, first learned to play bridge by watching my parents? I would be reluctant to try to teach my kids bridge now, it is far too complicated. The gap between the average player (me) and the average forum poster (most everyone else) is enormous and the more complicated the game becomes the more I have to work at enjoying it.
There is another forum thread as to why partnerships disintegrate..it might be interesting to know why people give up playing bridge, or never get beyond the first game or two. Most games that seem to last are games that are deceptively simple to play, like chess or go. The rules can be learned in a few minutes and people can play at any level but the same rules apply. Bridge became popular when it was made simple to learn how to play, and now it has become so incredibly complex, it is no surprise to me that people can't be bothered trying to learn the game. I doubt very much that making it more complex will entice more people to play. It just depends what your ultimate goal is, perhaps.
I remember reading somewhere a quote that "bridge is the only game where you tell your opponents what you have and dare them to do something about it" or words to that effect. It seems to me that a lot of these conventions are designed to tell your opponents only very reluctantly, and in the hope they misunderstand. Certainly opening 1 of something with 0-7 points and no more than a 5 card suit is far from being anything like suggesting what you expect to be able to actually make. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to be a dishonest bid whose only job is to be destructive to the opps communication. Well, you aren't allowed to throw sand in the first baseman's eyes when he is about to catch the ball that will put you out and I personally don't see that much difference.
Perhaps the answer might be to make up another name and claim it is a cousin of bridge, just as whist is, only this would be the OTHER side..whist is simpler, bridge in the middle and this other game, whatever it is, could be called something else.Bridge could be left relatively traditional and the other could be a free for all for those with that sort of dedicated interest. It's difficult to imagine another game which encompasses the range of the fabled 100 pages of specialized agreements of some partnerships and the game played in living rooms while claiming both to be the same game.

[jillybean]

If the game is getting less enjoyable the more complicated it gets, stick to simple bridge. If you enjoy more challenge and complexity play at the tournaments, nationals or somewhere in between.
Bridge is the same as many other games and sports – there is an entry level all the way up to world class level. Last year I learned to ski, I am a ski BUNNY, I’ll never be a ski racer and have no desire to ski double black diamonds but Im having a lot of fun cruising on the green runs.

I don’t imagine people being be put off by the fact that the game can be incredibly complex and competitive, however I do know of some being turned off the game due to restrictions.

[JanM]

Wow! Go away for a day and there are so many posts I don't know which ones to reply to. So I guess I'll ramble a little. First, one thing that not everyone seems to understand is that C&C stands for Competition & Conventions, not just conventions. Over the last few years the committee's biggest challenge has been trying to come up with a reasonable format for the major KO's, given the restriction that there should never, ever be a 3-way match with 1 survivor. At one point in this process, I think there was also a restriction that there shouldn't be any byes - that was what got us the combination of 4-ways with 3 survivors and 2-ways that was really unfair to those who were in the 2-ways. I don't happen to be personally familiar with other issues the committee has dealt with, but I know there are a lot of them.

Second, the subcommittee that is charged with reviewing suggested defenses and recommending their approval was formed several years ago when all 3 of its members (Chip, Jeff & Steve) were serving on C&C. Only one of them (Jeff) currently serves on C&C. They have continued to review defenses and work on the Convention Charts. I think that Steve no longer has time to do this and has resigned from the subcommittee - I do not know who will take his place. They did redraft the Midchart to make things more clear - instead of listing the sort of bids that would be allowed, it now lists the specific bids for which defenses have been approved, as well as some general descriptions of actions that are specifically disapproved. The only generalities on the new Midchart are the things for which a defense is not required.

Multi is barred in events with 2 board rounds because it slows things down too much. I know you're all going to jump up and down and say that isn't true, but it is. I play multi in one partnership. When we used to play it in pair events we'd waste an incredible amount of time answering questions about it and listening to our opponents discuss defenses to it before many rounds. Probably the players in the Reisinger are not the ones who wasted our time in pair events, and perhaps if enough people complain, multi will eventually be allowed in the Reisinger. But in most events with 2 board rounds, there are just too many people unfamiliar with it who cause time to be spent over and over and over again, making the game run more slowly. If anyone ever compiles a list of the reasons that people don't enjoy a bridge event, I'll bet that slow play and having to wait for your opponents for the next round would be on that list. So one of the things that the committee considered in deciding what methods would be allowed in events with 2 board rounds was how much time would be consumed by allowing the method.

I agree that the C&C committee and all other committees should have minutes and the minutes should be available to everyone. However, as the person responsible for posting minutes from USBF Board and committee meetings, and the one who often seems to be stuck with writing those minutes, I don't think it's fair to ascribe bad motives to committee members who don't cause minutes to be taken and published. I'm willing to bet that C&C had good minutes when Gary Blaiss was the ACBL staff person assigned to it and stopped having good minutes when he no longer filled that role. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and taking & writing up minutes happens to be one of Gary's many strengths. Unfortunately, I don't think that the offer to do minutes for one meeting is going to help much.

As for whether there was some "plan" to bar Moscito and that's why Tim & Richard had so much trouble with the transfer 1 bids, I honestly don't know, although I seriously doubt it. Of course I could ask Chip, but as Fred says sometimes memories of things that happened several years ago are hazy, so that wouldn't provide a definitive answer, and anyway he's not here now. What I do know is that a lot of extremely inadequate defenses to lots of methods have been submitted over the years and that those methods are not allowed - the way the Midchart works is that, with a few exceptions, only methods for which there is an approved defense are allowed. When the Midchart was first written, that wasn't communicated as well as it should have been. As a result people thought they could play methods "listed" on the Midchart, not realizing that there also had to be an approved defense. Thus, for instance, the statement about a bid showing 4+ cards in a known suit led people to believe transfer 1-bids were legal, even though there was no approved defense. Ditto for 2♦ showing Majors - it's a bid showing known suits, so it's Midchart legal, right? Wrong - no one has submitted an adequate defense so it's not Midchart legal. The new Midchart hopefully clarifies things, at least if people read it and if a line break is placed between "Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid." and "The following items are approved for all Mid-Chart events of the specified round length (#), but pairs playing them must bring two copies of the approved written defense, offering a copy to each opponent." which is followed by a list of specific bids instead of general descriptions.

I agree that it would be a good thing if there were guidelines for what's supposed to be included in an adequate defense. In fact, Chip tells me he wrote something up, but neither of us could find it online (I didn't ask him to find it and give it to me). But having spent a fair amount of time trying to get people who play unusual methods to provide an adequate description of the method so we could figure out defenses, I have a pretty good idea of the sort of back and forth that can go on, with good faith on both sides but leaving both sides completely exasperated. I suspect that's what happened with Tim & Richard and the defense approval committee. Obviously, there was also some dropping of the communication ball by someone (probably someone in Memphis). That is unfortunate, but I don't know how to remedy it.

It's bedtime and I still have to write up the minutes from the Senior ITTC meeting in Boston, so I'm sorry if this is rambling and unclear, and if I didn't respond to some things I should have.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 6 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

Over the last few years the committee's biggest challenge has been trying to come up with a reasonable format for the major KO's, given the restriction that there should never, ever be a 3-way match with 1 survivor. At one point in this process, I think there was also a restriction that there shouldn't be any byes - that was what got us the combination of 4-ways with 3 survivors and 2-ways that was really unfair to those who were in the 2-ways.

If you could provide a complete list of constraints, folks around here could take a gander at the problem...

[nige1]

onoway, on Dec 5 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

I wonder how many people like me, first learned to play bridge by watching my parents? I would be reluctant to try to teach my kids bridge now, it is far too complicated. The gap between the average player  (me) and the average forum poster (most everyone else)  is enormous and the more complicated the game becomes the more I have to work at enjoying it.
There is another forum thread as to why partnerships disintegrate..it might be interesting to know why people give up playing bridge, or never get beyond the first game or two. Most games that seem to last are games that are deceptively simple to play, like chess or go.  The rules can be learned in a few minutes and people can play at any level but the same rules apply. Bridge became popular when it was made simple to learn how to play, and now it has become so incredibly complex, it is no surprise to me that people can't be bothered  trying to learn the game. I doubt very much that making it more complex will entice more people to play. It just depends what your ultimate goal is, perhaps.
I remember reading somewhere a quote that "bridge is the only game where you tell your opponents what you have and dare them to do something about it" or words to that effect. It seems to me that a lot of these conventions are designed to tell your opponents only very reluctantly, and in the hope they misunderstand. Certainly opening 1 of something with 0-7 points and no more than a 5 card suit  is far from being anything like suggesting what you expect to be able to actually make. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to be a dishonest bid whose only job is to be destructive to the opps communication. Well, you aren't allowed to throw sand in the  first baseman's eyes when he is about to catch the ball that will put you out and I personally don't see that much difference.
Perhaps the answer might be to make up another name and claim it is a cousin of bridge, just as whist is, only this would be the OTHER side..whist is simpler, bridge in the middle and this other game, whatever it is, could be called something else.Bridge could be left relatively traditional and the other could be a free for all for those with that sort of dedicated interest. It's  difficult to imagine another game which  encompasses  the range of the fabled 100 pages of specialized agreements of some partnerships and the game played in living rooms while  claiming both to be the same game.

We should distinguish rules from skills. IMO, a good mind-game tests complex skills with the simplest possible rules..

Bridge and Chess take a long time to play well. Chess has a few simple rules that you can leartn quckly; Bridge has to have complex rules and more of them because it exercises a wider range of skills (e.g. communication, probability, pyschology, games-theory). This is what makes Bridge fun to play, so we can't complain that its rules take longer to learn.

IMO, however, the rules of Bridge could be made simpler, clearer, and more objective -- making Bridge more easily accessible -- without affecting its nature. Many rules are so over-complex and over-subjective that they are understood by neither players nor directors (for example face-to-face rules about disclosure, psychs, and claims). Some of the most sophisticated rules seem to add no value to the game. For example rules about "protecting yourself", "double-shots", and most system-restrictions.

[helene_t]

onoway, on Dec 6 2008, 05:01 AM, said:

Certainly opening 1 of something with 0-7 points and no more than a 5 card suit is far from being anything like suggesting what you expect to be able to actually make. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to be a dishonest bid whose only job is to be destructive to the opps communication. Well, you aren't allowed to throw sand in the first baseman's eyes when he is about to catch the ball that will put you out and I personally don't see that much difference.

The main purpose of the 1♦ (or 1♥ or 1♠) opening showing 0-7 points is constructive: to allow for a pass to show a good hand and thereby preserving bidding space for the hands that require delicate slam auctions.

It is true that a welcome side-effect of the 0-7 points opening is to throw sands in the eyes of the opponents. But the same is true for most bidding agreements. If you ask English club players why they play weak 1NT, most will say it's mainly in order to jam the opponents' auction. Some will give the same reason for playing 4-card majors. And surely the same applies to preempts and to some extent to overcalls.

[csdenmark]

onoway, on Dec 6 2008, 06:01 AM, said:

I wonder how many people like me, first learned to play bridge by watching my parents? I would be reluctant to try to teach my kids bridge now, it is far too complicated. The gap between the average player  (me) and the average forum poster (most everyone else)  is enormous and the more complicated the game becomes the more I have to work at enjoying it.
There is another forum thread as to why partnerships disintegrate..it might be interesting to know why people give up playing bridge, or never get beyond the first game or two. Most games that seem to last are games that are deceptively simple to play, like chess or go.  The rules can be learned in a few minutes and people can play at any level but the same rules apply. Bridge became popular when it was made simple to learn how to play, and now it has become so incredibly complex, it is no surprise to me that people can't be bothered  trying to learn the game. I doubt very much that making it more complex will entice more people to play. It just depends what your ultimate goal is, perhaps.
I remember reading somewhere a quote that "bridge is the only game where you tell your opponents what you have and dare them to do something about it" or words to that effect. It seems to me that a lot of these conventions are designed to tell your opponents only very reluctantly, and in the hope they misunderstand. Certainly opening 1 of something with 0-7 points and no more than a 5 card suit  is far from being anything like suggesting what you expect to be able to actually make. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to be a dishonest bid whose only job is to be destructive to the opps communication. Well, you aren't allowed to throw sand in the  first baseman's eyes when he is about to catch the ball that will put you out and I personally don't see that much difference.
Perhaps the answer might be to make up another name and claim it is a cousin of bridge, just as whist is, only this would be the OTHER side..whist is simpler, bridge in the middle and this other game, whatever it is, could be called something else.Bridge could be left relatively traditional and the other could be a free for all for those with that sort of dedicated interest. It's  difficult to imagine another game which  encompasses  the range of the fabled 100 pages of specialized agreements of some partnerships and the game played in living rooms while  claiming both to be the same game.

Perhaps the answer might be to make up another name and claim it is a cousin of bridge, just as whist is, only this would be the OTHER side..whist is simpler, bridge in the middle and this other game, whatever it is, could be called something else.Bridge could be left relatively traditional and the other could be a free for all for those with that sort of dedicated interest. It's difficult to imagine another game which encompasses the range of the fabled 100 pages of specialized agreements of some partnerships and the game played in living rooms while claiming both to be the same game.
In these internet days it ought not to be so difficult to defect from the mess created in bridge.

The real question is: Who want to sit back with 2nd garde only?

Certainly opening 1 of something with 0-7 points and no more than a 5 card suit is far from being anything like suggesting what you expect to be able to actually make. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to be a dishonest bid whose only job is to be destructive to the opps communication. Well, you aren't allowed to throw sand in the first baseman's eyes when he is about to catch the ball that will put you out and I personally don't see that much difference.
Yes it is a misunderstanding - the philosophy of pass-sysstems, but also canape'systems, are quite different than what most persons assume what bridge is based on.

[Free]

I'm not a USA citizen, and I don't know the exact structure in which the so called committee fits.

That being said, I just wonder, why not work the other way around? I mean, suppose you just continue with the current regulations, but have the committee come up with suggested defenses for various new stuff. People can send their suggestions, the committee surely can come up with something adequate don't they?

This way at least they are doing something that has result...

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Dec 6 2008, 07:32 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 6 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

Over the last few years the committee's biggest challenge has been trying to come up with a reasonable format for the major KO's, given the restriction that there should never, ever be a 3-way match with 1 survivor. At one point in this process, I think there was also a restriction that there shouldn't be any byes - that was what got us the combination of 4-ways with 3 survivors and 2-ways that was really unfair to those who were in the 2-ways.

If you could provide a complete list of constraints, folks around here could take a gander at the problem...

I don't know what the current restraints are (they changed during the 2-3 years that the committee worked on it and may not be clear to anyone). The big problem is the format - large entries of random numbers of teams with wide variance in ability (please don't think I disapprove of that - I am personally strongly in favor of letting anyone who wants to play enter the major events). I think that most people are satisfied with the resolution that was reached, which uses byes and 4-ways with 3 survivors for almost all initial entries. The field is cut to a power of 2 the first day, so that the rest of the event runs smoothly. I think I was in a minority of people who didn't like the fact that the Senior KO in Boston used a full day to cut from 37 or 38 (I forget) to 32. There may be some people who think often having a lot of byes is bad, but so long as you're going to have an event where anyone can enter and you're going to seed it, the top seeds are going to have a big advantage the first day. Of course a bye is a bigger advantage than playing a low seed, but that's better than unfairness to teams in the middle of the field where seeding is a lot more random than at the top and bottom.

I'm pretty sure the only way to have a "better" format would involve either Round Robins or a Swiss for the first day(s) and the majority of players don't want that, they want a KO from the start.

[TimG]

Free, on Dec 6 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

That being said, I just wonder, why not work the other way around? I mean, suppose you just continue with the current regulations, but have the committee come up with suggested defenses for various new stuff. People can send their suggestions, the committee surely can come up with something adequate don't they?

That's a lot of work to burden the committee with. I think it makes more sense for those who want to use a mid-chart convention to be responsible for providing an adequate defense. Of course, "adequate" should be defined and guidelines provided so that those who submit defenses will know just what the committee is looking for. It is clear from the comments in this forum that people's ideas of "adequate" vary quite a bit.

[JanM]

Free, on Dec 6 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

I'm not a USA citizen, and I don't know the exact structure in which the so called committee fits.

That being said, I just wonder, why not work the other way around? I mean, suppose you just continue with the current regulations, but have the committee come up with suggested defenses for various new stuff. People can send their suggestions, the committee surely can come up with something adequate don't they?

This way at least they are doing something that has result...

That was what they did at the beginning, and no, it doesn't work. For one thing, it is far harder than you may think to come up with an adequate defense. For another, there's no way that a committee will have time to devise defenses to everything that is suggested. As a result, they're going to make a preliminary judgment of which methods "deserve" to be allowed so that they should devote their limited time and energy to coming up with a defense. That's exactly what all of you don't like - judgment calls by a committee with whom you don't always agree.

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 6 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure the only way to have a "better" format would involve either Round Robins or a Swiss for the first day(s) and the majority of players don't want that, they want a KO from the start.

For some events, it seems to me that "what the players" want should be of secondary consideration to having the "best" format. If those with expertise in event formats think that a round robin (or round robins or Swiss) followed by KO would produce a fairer event that runs more true to how teams perform, then it shouldn't matter a whole lot that players want a KO from the start. At least not for a select few events like the Spingold and Vanderbilt.

The Spingold and Vanderbilt used to involve some sort of Swiss qualifying, I believe. Or, at least I am quite confident that they have not always been straight KO events.

The NABC level GNT events have Swiss or round robin qualifying followed by a KO stage.

Some World Championships events have a round robin qualifying stage. Though a major consideration, I doubt this is solely for practical reasons.

Some players, no doubt, would be happier with a round robin or Swiss stage to start the event. Speaking as one who would be a (very) low seed, it would be attractive to me to know I would play against a number of teams of varying ability during my time in the event.

But, I'm sure the top seeds would feel more vulnerable in a Swiss or round robin phase than they would playing a day-long match against a low seed. Whether a top seed being eliminated in a round robin phase would be more a result of increased randomness of the shorter matches or a reflection of how the team played on this particular day is definitely something for consideration.

Tim

[awm]

The problem with the KO formats comes up when you have very slightly more than a power of two teams. Say you have 33 teams. If the goal is to get down to a power of two for the second day, you either have to reduce to 16 (so more than half the teams "lose" meaning you basically had a three-way with one survivor) or reduce to 32 (in which case only one team loses, so there were a zillion byes). The only real solution in these cases is to permit some multi-way matches on the second day. For example:

If your number of teams is at least (3/2)2^x and at most 2^{x+1} then you can get down to 2^x by using some combination of three-way matches with two survivors and head-to-heads.

If your number of teams is at least 2^x and at most (3/2)2^x, then you can get down to between (3/2)2^{x-1} and 2^x by using a combination of three-way matches with two survivors and four-way matches with three survivors. Then you can get down to 2^{x-1} for day THREE using some combination of three-way matches with two survivors and head-to-heads.

To be more specific:

Suppose you have 64-k teams for some 1<k<=16. Then you play k three-way matches with two survivors and put everyone else in head-to-head matches. This gives you 32 survivors. Similarly if you have 128-k teams for some 1<k<=32, you get 64 survivors.

Now suppose you have 33 to 47 teams or 65 to 95 teams. You find a combination of four-way matches with three survivors and three-way matches with two survivors such that everybody plays with as many four-ways as possible.

33 teams play 6 four-ways and 3 three-ways to get 24 survivors.
34 teams play 7 four-ways and 2 three-ways to get 25 survivors.
35 teams play 8 four-ways and 1 three-way to get 26 survivors.
36 teams play 9 four-ways to get 27 survivors.
37 teams play 7 four-ways and 3 three-ways to get 27 survivors.

And so forth. In all cases the number of survivors will be at least 24 and at most 32, so we can apply some combination of three-ways with two survivors and head-to-head matches to get down to 16 for the next round. Similarly if we started between 65 and 95 teams we get down to between 48 and 64 for day two, then down to 32 for day three.

Some points about this: There are never any byes. There are never any three-ways with one survivor. If some team is in a four-way with three survivors, then there are no head-to-head matches on the same day. All matches are head-to-head by day three. Given the constraints Jan specified, this seems more or less best-possible.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 6 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

That was what they did at the beginning, and no, it doesn't work. For one thing, it is far harder than you may think to come up with an adequate defense. For another, there's no way that a committee will have time to devise defenses to everything that is suggested. As a result, they're going to make a preliminary judgment of which methods "deserve" to be allowed so that they should devote their limited time and energy to coming up with a defense. That's exactly what all of you don't like - judgment calls by a committee with whom you don't always agree.

Jan:

I know that you are trying to explain how things work, however I am taking away something very different: I beleive that the established process is fundamentally broken.

A system based on three expert level gatekeepers is not scalable. If you want, I can point you to plenty of 'theory" regarding business organization. If you prefer, we can discuss "practice" - whether or not the Conventionc Committee has enough time to do their job properly...

The flaws with the existing regulatory system have been apparent for years. More over, I don't think that its all that hard to (significantly) improve on the existing structures.

[JanM]

awm said:

The problem with the KO formats comes up when you have very slightly more than a power of two teams. Say you have 33 teams. If the goal is to get down to a power of two for the second day, you either have to reduce to 16 (so more than half the teams "lose" meaning you basically had a three-way with one survivor) or reduce to 32 (in which case only one team loses, so there were a zillion byes). The only real solution in these cases is to permit some multi-way matches on the second day.

I have a feeling that one of the "constraints" was that the second day has to be "real" (i.e. head to head) KO. I know that in the one Vanderbilt where there were multi-way matches the second day there were a lot of complaints. I am also pretty sure that although the most disliked match is a 3-way with 1 survivor, there are also significant numbers of people who don't like 3-ways with 2 survivors. That's because, whether rightly or wrongly, people think there's a possibility for the top team to "dump" to the team it views as worst and thus eliminate a middle team. The current scheme at least avoids both of those problems.

timg said:

For some events, it seems to me that "what the players" want should be of secondary consideration to having the "best" format. If those with expertise in event formats think that a round robin (or round robins or Swiss) followed by KO would produce a fairer event that runs more true to how teams perform, then it shouldn't matter a whole lot that players want a KO from the start. At least not for a select few events like the Spingold and Vanderbilt.

I didn't mean to imply that the current format was bad in identifying the best teams; it isn't. The team that wins the Vanderbilt or Spingold is almost certainly going to be the team that played the best during that particular week. The very mild cut the first day means that it is extremely unlikely that any team that could win will be eliminated early through bad luck.

timg said:

Some World Championships events have a round robin qualifying stage. Though a major consideration, I doubt this is solely for practical reasons.

The major consideration here is the opposite of one at the NABCs - the WBF wants all of the teams to play for at least one week. So they use Round Robins with long matches to guarantee everyone a significant amount of playing time. The longer matches make the Round Robins more true to form. At NABCs, there's a limited amount of time for the entire event, so in order to have long matches at the end, there can't be a lot of time spent on the beginning.

timg said:

Some players, no doubt, would be happier with a round robin or Swiss stage to start the event. Speaking as one who would be a (very) low seed, it would be attractive to me to know I would play against a number of teams of varying ability during my time in the event.

Although there are some people who agree with you (I'm one of them - the thing I now like least about playing in the Vanderbilt & Spingold is that I have too many masterpoints to be seeded at the bottom so I don't get to play against a top team unless I win at least 2 matches), most don't seem to. Look at the TINY entry in the Reisinger, an event in which on the very first day you get to play against a significant number of really top players.

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 6 2008, 12:11 PM, said:

That's exactly what all of you don't like - judgment calls by a committee with whom you don't always agree.

I don't think that is a fair characterization of what all of us don't like. Speaking only for myself, I can quite understand that the committee has better judgment than I do in many bridge areas, both in theory and in what the bridge playing public wants.

My past problems with the committee have been primarily based upon their reluctance to approve defenses for methods which were clearly mid-chart legal. The committee was using their judgment to override rules that were in place, or so it seemed.

My Standard American based transfer opening was approved, but correspondence made clear that the committee would not approve a defense to a MOSCITO type transfer opening even though the mid-chart (as written at the time) allowed such a method. I also was unable to get approved a defense for another method which was mid-chart legal at the time (a 2D opening which showed a weak hand with 4+ diamonds and a 4+ card major).

The 2D opening is no longer mid-chart legal (a rule was passed not long after my submission that requires such weak opening to promise at least 54 shape, codifying the committee's judgment that the 44 method was primarily destructive); the mid-chart no longer has the clause that allows for all constructive calls which promise 4 or more cards in a known suit, so the MOSCITO transfer openings are no longer clearly mid-chart legal.

I have found it frustrating when the approval process has basically amounted to: this method is allowed by the mid-chart, but no defense is ever going to be adequate, so none will be approved and the method will, in effect, be barred. That is, the committee's judgment was in disagreement with the mid-chart, not with me.

I recognize that the mid-chart has been rewritten to virtually eliminate this problem. But, that doesn't mean the past wasn't frustrating, or that the frustration was a result of me putting my judgment before the committee's.

[awm]

JanM, on Dec 6 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

I have a feeling that one of the "constraints" was that the second day has to be "real" (i.e. head to head) KO. I know that in the one Vanderbilt where there were multi-way matches the second day there were a lot of complaints. I am also pretty sure that although the most disliked match is a 3-way with 1 survivor, there are also significant numbers of people who don't like 3-ways with 2 survivors. That's because, whether rightly or wrongly, people think there's a possibility for the top team to "dump" to the team it views as worst and thus eliminate a middle team. The current scheme at least avoids both of those problems.

Well, if your constraints are "no byes" and "no three-ways/four-ways where one survive" and "all head to head matches on day two" then it is easy to show that there is no solution for 33 teams.

Was the current system responsible for the recent spingold where almost every team had a bye to day two? That seemed vaguely ridiculous, but perhaps it is less likely to produce complaints than some of the other options.

One can run a three-way with two surviving in the following way to prevent dumping (I think this is different from what's currently done).

All three teams play a half-day match of 32 boards (16 between each pair of teams). At the end of this, the team doing best is guaranteed to advance. The other two teams play 32 more boards head-to-head with the carry-over from the 16 boards they have already played versus each other, the winner advancing. In this format, "dumping" has the negative consequence of forcing your team to play an extra 32 boards. This is similar to a four-way with three surviving, where a team can potentially "dump" by letting a weak team beat them in the first half and then beating up on the (potentially stronger) survivor of the other first-half match.