[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 7 2008, 06:07 AM, said:

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.

To me this seems a really weird idea.

I can't think of any other sport where when one side thinks up a new offensive play that they have to tell their opponents what a good defense would be - that is the opponents' job.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 7 2008, 06:11 AM, said:

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.

Exactly.

Requiring the proponent of a method to provide a defense it appears to me is simply designed as a stalling mechanism to make it difficult to have additional methods approved.

[jdonn]

Why should it matter for bridge what any other sport does?

[TimG]

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

I know that in the one Vanderbilt where there were multi-way matches the second day there were a lot of complaints.

I do not mean to suggest that you do not have a good understanding of what the players in the Vanderbilt want, but there is always going to be resistance to change. It has been my experience in bridge administration that too many things are tried once and dismissed before they are given a real chance.

[awm]

Actually, perhaps another solution is to have four-way matches with one survivor.

This sounds a little odd, but it completely prevents dumping, since these would be run much like a regular KO with one-session matches against each team. Presumably the lowest seeds would be placed in these matches. So for 33 teams, we could have:

Top seed gets bye.
Four lowest seeds play four-way match with one survivor.
28 other teams play head-to-head matches.

In a way this is nice for the lowest-seeded teams, because one of them is actually guaranteed to advance to day two (without even having to beat a particularly top seed).

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 6 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 7 2008, 06:07 AM, said:

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.

To me this seems a really weird idea.

I can't think of any other sport where when one side thinks up a new offensive play that they have to tell their opponents what a good defense would be - that is the opponents' job.

In most sports, the offense doesn't have to tell the defense what play it is running. In baseball, the pitcher doesn't tell the batter what pitch is coming, in (American) football the offense doesn't tell the defense whether it will be a run off tackle, a deep pass, a screen, a sweep, etc.

If bridge were like most sports, we wouldn't have to describe our agreements to the opponents at all, they'd be left to figure out on their own what our bidding means.

(But then, bridge isn't a sport, so why it should be compared to sports is a question in itself.)

[TimG]

awm, on Dec 6 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Top seed gets bye.
Four lowest seeds play four-way match with one survivor.
28 other teams play head-to-head matches.

That's bad because you don't want the 33rd seed to have a better chance of surviving than the 28th seed.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 7 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

Why should it matter for bridge what any other sport does?

Perhaps it shouldn't.

But there is nothing fundamental in the laws of the game of bridge that require that either.

Neither is it a universal practice employed by other bridge organizations.

Neither is it something that is required for those who play other equally artificial but approved methods.

It is simply an additional hoop that is required and appears to be designed simply to make it more difficult to get approval for innovative methods. Anecdotally it certainly appears that is how it is used by the approval committee.

[david_c]

JanM, on Dec 6 2008, 06:11 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.

Correct, the committee should:

1. decide which things they will allow; then
2. sort out the defences to those things.

What's the problem? Why doesn't this happen?

No, I'm not going to accept "it's far harder than you may think". I've written enough system in my time. It's hard, for sure, but it's do-able - and the people on the committee are supposed to be the people who are best at it.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 6 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

Neither is it a universal practice employed by other bridge organizations.

The ACBL is, in general, not interested in being like other bridge organizations.

Quote

It is simply an additional hoop that is required and appears to be designed simply to make it more difficult to get approval for innovative methods.  Anecdotally it certainly appears that is how it is used by the approval committee.

It is an extra hoop, but I don't think it was designed with the objective of making things more difficult for innovators. In my experience, in the cases where approval was something of a hassle, the mid-chart was later changed to reflect the judgment of the committee. That may be seen as slowing innovation or putting brakes on something that was out of control depending upon your predisposition.

[TimG]

david_c, on Dec 6 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

Correct, the committee should:

1. decide which things they will allow; then
2. sort out the defences to those things.

What's the problem? Why doesn't this happen?

The problem is (or was) that which things should be allowed has been something of a moving target. Defenses to methods which were allowed were solicited and then the methods disallowed.

The question is sort of whether:

1) unforeseen difficulties in creating a defense led to banning the method; or

2) people thought the method should be banned so they made the creation of a defense overly difficult.

My opinion is that it is mostly a case of #1, but that part of the problem is in the definition of "adequate" for defensive purposes.

[david_c]

TimG, on Dec 6 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

david_c, on Dec 6 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

Correct, the committee should:

1. decide which things they will allow; then
2. sort out the defences to those things.

What's the problem? Why doesn't this happen?

The problem is (or was) that which things should be allowed has been something of a moving target. Defenses to methods which were allowed were solicited and then the methods disallowed.

No, that's not the problem. That is a consequence of asking the players to write the defences. As I said, it is the committee that should be doing it (though that's not to say they can't ask for help). The committee shouldn't find it too hard to aim at the moving target, since they're the ones who are moving it!

[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 7 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 6 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

Neither is it a universal practice employed by other bridge organizations.

The ACBL is, in general, not interested in being like other bridge organizations.

Unfortunately the converse is not true.

I would have little interest in the ACBL regulations as far as playing is concerned except that what happens in the ACBL has an influence of what happens in the WBF and a flow on effect to other bridge organizations.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 7 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

It is an extra hoop, but I don't think it was designed with the objective of making things more difficult for innovators. In my experience, in the cases where approval was something of a hassle, the mid-chart was later changed to reflect the judgment of the committee. That may be seen as slowing innovation or putting brakes on something that was out of control depending upon your predisposition.

To me this is an inappropriate way for a committee to act.

If the rules allow for something then they should make their decision based on the current rules. Not reject the method for some spurious reason or delay by making trivial rejections so that they had time to get the rules changed.

This is another example of a process that is not open and transparent.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 6 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

It is simply an additional hoop that is required and appears to be designed simply to make it more difficult to get approval for innovative methods.  Anecdotally it certainly appears that is how it is used by the approval committee.

You keep using that word "innovative" which I believe is completely wrong to use the way you are using it due to its positive connotation (people usually don't refer to something bad as "innovative".) I'm not saying new methods aren't innovative, but by using that word you are clearly implying such is the reason the committee wants these methods banned. That is just a roundabout way of saying the committee's goal is to ban methods if they believe those methods are (or might be) better than the ones they use. And as I have stated several times, I really think it's absurd (not merely wrong) to believe anyone serves on that committee to gain some sort of competitive advantage.

[nige1]

david_c, on Dec 6 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

No, that's not the problem. That is a consequence of asking the players to write the defences. As I said, it is the committee that should be doing it (though that's not to say they can't ask for help). The committee shouldn't find it too hard to aim at the moving target, since they're the ones who are moving it!

An important responsibility of the committee is to ensure that each new method comes with an optimal defence. But it seems sensible to insist that the innovator provides an adequate written defence for opponents to consult during he bidding, Opponents won't have time to prepare for all eventualities. There will not always be an appropriate generic defence.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 6 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 6 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

It is simply an additional hoop that is required and appears to be designed simply to make it more difficult to get approval for innovative methods.  Anecdotally it certainly appears that is how it is used by the approval committee.

You keep using that word "innovative" which I believe is completely wrong to use the way you are using it due to its positive connotation (people usually don't refer to something bad as "innovative".) I'm not saying new methods aren't innovative, but by using that word you are clearly implying such is the reason the committee wants these methods banned. That is just a roundabout way of saying the committee's goal is to ban methods if they believe those methods are (or might be) better than the ones they use. And as I have stated several times, I really think it's absurd (not merely wrong) to believe anyone serves on that committee to gain some sort of competitive advantage.

This goes both ways. One of the committee members described MOSCITO as "diabolical".

Plenty of very good bridge players believe unfamiliar methods provide the users with an unfair advantage. And, that some of those who use unfamiliar methods use them because of the advantage gained from unfamiliarity rather than a belief that they have a technical advantage (or are just plain more suited the practitioner's temperament).

There is plenty of complaining from US participants in World Championships regarding the unusual and unfamiliar methods they face and for which they spend significant time preparing.

[ArcLight]

>To me this seems a really weird idea.

>I can't think of any other sport where when one side thinks up a new offensive play that they have to tell their opponents what a good defense would be - that is the opponents' job.

It is different from other sports (though I don't consider bridge a sport - a sport is something you work up a sweat doing, or at least involes some thinge more strenuous that playing cards


Where the is "fun" (for most people) in devising defenses?
I find the fun in the card play and the judgment.
Learning conventions (and defenses) is not so interesting to me.
Learning conventions that frequently come up are a necessary evil.
Learing defenses for a match is really tedious and for me takes a lot of the fun out of it.

Put it another way, a lesser team can spend a huge amount of time fidding with different systems to force their opponents to also spend a huge amount of time studying their system. Yuck - this doesn't sound like my idea of fun.
And I doubt it does to 90% of Bridge palyers.

I dont think yound players are more/less enticed to the game becaus eof more/less complex conventions.

I would rather play the same system all the time, and focus on the inferences from the bidding and card play.

I think its a great idea of making it manadtory that you provide a defense to a system/convention. You still get to use the convention you wnat, and the opps wont knwo it well enough to use it themselves. But you don't get to win something through study/memorization as opposed to card play judgement.


I would not be interested in playing in an anything goes environment.
Rather than say the ACBL will die without the 10% who want that, I say it will die if you force out the 90% who dont wnat the complexity.


I think deep down quite a few of the people here are unethical. They want to win not through better play/judgment, but because they spent a lot of time studying and feel entitled to a good result. They want to win at any cost, regarless of how enjoyable (or not) it makes the game.

Bridge is a game most people play for fun, why ruin it for the vast majority, and cater to the minority?

I'll bet if you asked a large number of experts if they like all the complexity, I think most do not.
I like the idea of the Buffet Cup.
I just want to play against good players who use the same system.

[the hog]

Where the is "fun" (for most people) in devising defenses?
I find the fun in the card play and the judgment.
Learning conventions (and defenses) is not so interesting to me.
Learning conventions that frequently come up are a necessary evil.

Well thats you. Personally I find pleasure in devising defences. As bidding is part of the game the last time I looked, that is then also a legitimate pursuit.

I would not be interested in playing in an anything goes environment.

Fine, I am. So have 2 tiers.


I think deep down quite a few of the people here are unethical. They want to win not through better play/judgment, but because they spent a lot of time studying and feel entitled to a good result. They want to win at any cost, regarless of how enjoyable (or not) it makes the game.

This is grossly offensive, and I think you owe those of us who like to tinker an apology. Are YOU a cheat? Because that is what you are implying about us.

I'll bet if you asked a large number of experts if they like all the complexity, I think most do not.

Proof please!

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Dec 6 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

I'll bet if you asked a large number of experts if they like all the complexity, I think most do not.

Proof please!

Just off my head, Meckstroth, Hamman, and Rosenberg are all on record as believing that it would be better for bridge to eliminate complexity in the bidding. Please note:

- I am aware that group does not play the simplest system themselves.
- This may not be the same thing as saying they do not "like" complexity, whatever that means.

If you truly insist on proof I bet I could dig up a quote or two tonight.

BTW, although I didn't quote them I very much agree with the sentiments from the rest of your post.