[fred]

david_c, on Dec 5 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 5 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

The obvious explanation is that the committee consists of people with good intentions whose judgment differs from yours (plus what sounds like some poor administration and I don't think it is reasonable to assign all of the blame for this to the bridge experts who served on the committee).

Sorry Fred, but it is not enough to have good intentions. The committee has a job to do, and they failed to do it adequately.

Fair enough. As I have been saying all along, I have no problem if people want to criticize the job the committee has done or their judgment in specific cases. In some cases I might even agree with them (once I listened to the other side of the story) and I might even be willing to accept some % of the responsibility myself.

What I object to is the suggestion that the committee has some kind of secret evil agenda or that they are corrupt or lazy. That is not true and it is not acceptable for me when people make posts on this site that contains such slanderous remarks, particularly when such remarks are directed toward people we all should admire.

Quote

I can name half a dozen people just from this forum who have proved themselves capable of doing it. If the committee is incapable of doing their job then they should be replaced.

With all due respect to you and the people I suspect you are referring to, I do not agree with you here.

There has to be some element of moderation in terms of what is allowed. I don't see any of that coming from most of the people who have been contributing to this discussion.

There has to be enough bridge expertise among the committee members to recognize that an adequate defense to a convention like Multi or Ferts requires considerably more than a few lines of notes. Though I have plenty of respect for the bridge skills of plenty of Forums contributors, my strong sense is that many of these people do not have much of a clue about this particular aspect of the game.

Ideally the people on such a committee need to be at least somewhat in touch with the desires of "average bridge players" and the practical considerations that are involved in running large bridge tournaments. My sense is that most of the people you are referring to are floating somewhere in outer space as far as these matters are concerned.

I don't know for sure who the 6 people you are referring to are, but (no offense to either them or you) I suspect that if they are the people I am thinking of then appointing them to the C&C Committee would just make a bad situation worse. It would not surprise me in the least if they were to do a much better job of things like creating minutes, responding quickly, etc, but such gains would easily be offset by the disastrous decisions that they would make.

FWIW off the top of my head I can think of only 1 (perhaps 2) regular Forums poster who are both ACBL members and who I think might be up to the task.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

david_c, on Dec 5 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

To be specific, the worst failings in my opinion are:

1. The fact that the convention charts are riddled with ambiguities, and yet the committee has made no attempt to correct them in at least five years.

2. The fact that from 2002 (maybe earlier?) to 2007 the committee received several proposed defences for transfer openings, without doing one of the following:
- approve a defence (doing some of the work itself if necessary); or
- amend the midchart to say that such openings were not allowed.

1) I don't think the C&C Committee can make changes to the charts on their own, they can make recommendations to the BOD who have the ultimate authority to approve changes. A few years ago (less than 5, but maybe not by much) the C&C Committee did indeed recommend to the board that weak two-suited openings that could be made on 44 hands should be considered destructive. The BOD passed a change to the charts to say that such openings had to promise at least 54.

Just this past summer, Multi was moved from 2+ board segments to 6+ board segments.

Further, we don't know what other recommendations might have been made but ignored.

2) I have been told that this midchart section:

Quote

4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits.

is going to be removed. The "any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit" clause is the one that proponents of transfer openings have been citing as making their methods legal (and making it very frustrating that approved defenses are very slow to come). Removing this section will do just what you suggest: amend the chart so that the method is not allowed (the charts are written such that methods not specifically allowed are disallowed).

[cherdano]

I don't know if David_c is an ACBL member, but if he is I hope you would include him in your list Fred

IMO it is the process that is flawed. If the process would be more open, we would not need a few more top experts deciding by themselves which defenses are appropriate, just good bridge players with reasonable judgment and willingness to listen. If the C&C committee thinks a defense is at least somewhat reasonable, it should be published with request for comments (website, bulletins at a National, ACBL bulletin or whatever). No doubt there would be some flames (esp. if some of the ways to comment are a comment thread in an internet forum), but I am sure there would be enough productive comments and good catches (that even 3 of the best bidding theorists might miss).

This way the workload would be shared by more people.

[paulg]

Cascade, on Dec 5 2008, 05:25 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Dec 6 2008, 02:01 AM, said:

...indeed in Vegas it frequently resulted in a TD call prior to play.

If these calls were simply because you were playing mid-chart in an event that was mid-chart then I think this type of TD call is simply gamesmanship.

"Omigod you're playing what! That can't be legal, can it? Director!"

I honestly don't think it was gamemanship, it was just that most people's understanding of Mid Chart is that you can play any defence to 1NT. Almost everyone is friendlier after the game (when they realise our disclosure is significantly better than theirs and we are not trying to bamboozle them) but most would prefer not to face us again.

p

[awm]

fred, on Dec 5 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

Quote

(from awm)
I don't know what the "motives" of the committee are and I don't care to guess.

There is no need to guess. I know and I have told you. Jan knows and she has told you. Frances knows and she has told you. Anyone who has a personal relationship with any past or current members of the committee will know and I am sure they will tell you too if you ask them.

If you really think that all of us are lying and that there is some kind of massive conspriracy going on, that is your right of course. But you seem to be too bright to be swayed by such a stupid notion. The obvious explanation is that the committee consists of people with good intentions whose judgment differs from yours (plus what sounds like some poor administration and I don't think it is reasonable to assign all of the blame for this to the bridge experts who served on the committee).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It is interesting that I specifically stated that I do not want to guess at motives, and here you are accusing me of impugning their motives.

All I am trying to say is that:

(1) The committee has made decisions which are potentially controversial, which a lot of people disagree with. Given the poll results, it may even be that a majority disagree with the transfer opening decision for national-level events.

(2) The committee has made these decisions with absolutely no explanation for their reasoning. They have done this even though the regulations creating the committee require minutes to be posted. There have also been indications (mis-CC'd emails, etc) that the nature of discussions going on in the committee is very different from what they communicate in their rare email responses.

(3) This creates a situation where a number of people are unhappy. Methods they would like to play have been disallowed. The reasoning by which this is done has never been explained. The necessary steps to change the situation have never been explained. The committee appears to ignore many emails, or take a very long time in replying, and when they do reply it is usually with very terse "we will not allow it" or "your defense is insufficient" types of responses.

(4) The people serving on the committee obviously have friends (and spouses) who are willing to defend their motives. Fine, most people do. Nonetheless it seems odd that most of the folks on this committee seem to be part of the same "clique" and that some folks have served on the committee for a very long time despite a number of complaints about the committee's performance and repeated claims that this committee is "a lot of work." It's easy to imagine that this small "clique" might have very similar views on some matters which might not reflect the views of bridge players at large. And in fact the two people on these forums who seem to know the committee members best and defend their motives the most (Fred and Jan) also seem to hold some of the most negative views about proliferation of methods in bridge.

(5) It is distressing that while the English Bridge Union was creating their amazingly clear set of regulations (with many useful examples) and also leaning towards allowing more and more methods, the ACBL is moving in exactly the opposite direction. While there might be some justification for banning multi in national pairs events (and the Reisinger!), those of us who might want to play multi in those events have, for the most part, not been privy to the justification. In fact it makes ACBL look rather ridiculous that one of their premier events (Reisinger is perhaps the most prestigious BAM event in the world) disallows a convention that is played in clubs around the world. Not only have the regulations been becoming more restrictive, but the manner in which the regulations are presented (which has always been far from clear) seems to be getting worse. There have been any number of debates on this forum about whether a particular method is allowed in ACBL events, and even repeated queries to the league meet with contradictory replies (admittedly it is not the C&C that replies to these, but they are responsible for creating the regulations that even Mr. Flader and Mr. Beye seem unable to fully understand).

I'm sorry if this seems to impugn the motives of your friends. But I am just stating facts here. There are many possible explanations, but the facts of the matter are that your friends have decided to be very restrictive in what methods they allow (relative to what people on the forums want, relative to the rest of the world, etc). Whether they do this because they firmly believe it's "best for bridge" or for some other reason is unknown, but the fact that they refuse to publicly state their reasons (even in the required minutes that never appear) tends to create suspicion that their motives may not all be above-board.

This is unfortunate, especially if the committee doesn't have nefarious motives (as their friends and family are quick to insist). However, I suggest that the best way to solve the problem is not to challenge people to "grudge matches" at the bridge table, but to encourage the committee members to make their proceedings more transparent, so all interested parties can see their reasoning and the type of issues they struggle with. Perhaps take Rob Forster up on his offer. If the committee is doing the best they can and everything is fair and above board, then they have nothing at all to hide.

[FrancesHinden]

cherdano, on Dec 5 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

I don't know if David_c is an ACBL member, but if he is I hope you would include him in your list Fred

I'm pleased to say David_c is an EBU member.

[TimG]

fred, on Dec 5 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

There has to be some element of moderation in terms of what is allowed. I don't see any of that coming from most of the people who have been contributing to this discussion.

Well, I'm not in favor of anything goes. But, I am in favor of approving defenses for what is allowed as the charts are currently written.

Quote

There has to be enough bridge expertise among the committee members to recognize that an adequate defense to a convention like Multi or Ferts requires considerably more than a few lines of notes.

I have enough bridge expertise to recognize that an adequate defense to a standard American, natural 1H opening requires more than a few lines of notes. You talk about the desires of "average bridge players" whose full system notes are likely their convention cards, but apply a different standard of "adequate" to approved defenses. I agree that approved defenses should be more thorough than what the "average bridge player" has for conventional openings that they are likely to encounter occasionally, but I get the strong sense from my correspondence with committee members that their idea of "adequate" is a higher standard than "reasonable, if not ideal".

Quote

FWIW off the top of my head I can think of only 1 (perhaps 2) regular Forums poster who are both ACBL members and who I think might be up to the task.

I think it is natural (and unfortunate) that opinions expressed in forums tend to be stronger than you would understand if you spoke to the writer in person, and that individuals appear more strong willed, hard headed, etc, when they post than if you discussed the matters with them in person. I expect that there are a number of people who post to these forums that would make good C&C Committee members, better than their posting style would suggest.

Tim

[cherdano]

fred, on Dec 5 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

There has to be some element of moderation in terms of what is allowed. I don't see any of that coming from most of the people who have been contributing to this discussion.

I think the general dissatisfaction with how the C&C works hides the fact that there are probably rather diverse views among the posters in this thread about how much should be allowed. There is some space between "Multi should be allowed in the Reisinger" and "I don't understand how anyone could ban Ferts in NABC pair games with no MP limit".

[fred]

awm, on Dec 5 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

I'm sorry if this seems to impugn the motives of your friends. But I am just stating facts here. There are many possible explanations, but the facts of the matter are that your friends have decided to be very restrictive in what methods they allow (relative to what people on the forums want, relative to the rest of the world, etc). Whether they do this because they firmly believe it's "best for bridge" or for some other reason is unknown, but the fact that they refuse to publicly state their reasons (even in the required minutes that never appear) tends to create suspicion that their motives may not all be above-board.

Adam,

I did not suggest that your posts have been impugning as to motive (I wish I could say the same for some of the other posters). IMO your posts in this thread have, as usual for you, been refreshingly rational.

I can also appreciate why you would not want to guess at the motives of the C&C Committee members. I wouldn't want to guess either. Probably even if you have your own private guesses about such things, you woud be sensible enough not to post them publicly.

The only reason I responded to your point is because I claim there is no need for you or anyone else to guess because I (and some other posters who, like me, are in a position to know) have supplied you with the correct answer.

If you choose not to believe us or if you think motives don't matter, that is entirely up to you of course, but you do not strike me as the sort of person who would think that way.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

fred, on Dec 5 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

The only reason I responded to your point is because I claim there is no need for you or anyone else to guess because I (and some other posters who, like me, are in a position to know) have supplied you with the correct answer.

Many of us on this forum would like to know why multi is banned in national pairs and BAM events.

When you state that you've supplied the answer, the issue is that there are two possible ways to read that:

(1) You have discussed this matter privately with some of the people on the committee and they have explained their reasons to you in detail.

(2) You know the people on the committee personally, believe they are good people, and therefore assume their motives to be "for the best" even though you haven't discussed the matter with them in detail.

In the first case, great, we'd love to hear more about this discussion!

However, the strong impression we get is that it's more of the second case. This is certainly understandable (you are just defending your friends' honor) but it doesn't really go a long way towards changing the views of people who don't know these folks very well and can't imagine what they might've been thinking. Unfortunately that's most of the forum.

[fred]

awm, on Dec 5 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 5 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

The only reason I responded to your point is because I claim there is no need for you or anyone else to guess because I (and some other posters who, like me, are in a position to know) have supplied you with the correct answer.

Many of us on this forum would like to know why multi is banned in national pairs and BAM events.

When you state that you've supplied the answer, the issue is that there are two possible ways to read that:

(1) You have discussed this matter privately with some of the people on the committee and they have explained their reasons to you in detail.

(2) You know the people on the committee personally, believe they are good people, and therefore assume their motives to be "for the best" even though you haven't discussed the matter with them in detail.

In the first case, great, we'd love to hear more about this discussion!

However, the strong impression we get is that it's more of the second case. This is certainly understandable (you are just defending your friends' honor) but it doesn't really go a long way towards changing the views of people who don't know these folks very well and can't imagine what they might've been thinking. Unfortunately that's most of the forum.

You are correct that the only claim I am making is about 2. I have no doubt that whoever made this decision thought they had good reasons for it and thought they were doing the right thing. I don't know what those reasons are and, if I did, I have no idea if I would agree with them or not. On the surface it sounds like I would not agree, but I could well be missing something.

Hopefully I have managed to change the views of some people - those who are willing to give people they know (even if only in the online sense) the benefit of the doubt when such people say "trust me - he is OK".

I prefer to go through life with that attitude. Trusting that most people are basically OK makes it easier for me to sleep at night though, I must admit, there have been a few occasions in which I have regretted this approach.

I suppose that if a person can't stop looking for black helicopters, then there is probably no point in me (or anyone else) trying to tell that person, at least as far as the C&C Committee is concerned, that I know they don't exist.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[david_c]

TimG, on Dec 5 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

2) I have been told that this midchart section:

Quote

4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits.

is going to be removed. The "any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit" clause is the one that proponents of transfer openings have been citing as making their methods legal (and making it very frustrating that approved defenses are very slow to come). Removing this section will do just what you suggest: amend the chart so that the method is not allowed (the charts are written such that methods not specifically allowed are disallowed).

Actually I thought that had been done already. Yes, it was an excellent development. But it really shouldn't have taken so long.

[david_c]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 5 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

I'm pleased to say David_c is an EBU member.

You're not half as pleased as I am!

[TimG]

david_c, on Dec 5 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 5 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

2) I have been told that this midchart section:

Quote

4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits.

is going to be removed. The "any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit" clause is the one that proponents of transfer openings have been citing as making their methods legal (and making it very frustrating that approved defenses are very slow to come). Removing this section will do just what you suggest: amend the chart so that the method is not allowed (the charts are written such that methods not specifically allowed are disallowed).

Actually I thought that had been done already. Yes, it was an excellent development. But it really shouldn't have taken so long.

Yes, apparently in July. I was told in April and assumed from your post that the wording had not been changed, now I see from your "~2002-2007" that you were just suggesting the change should have occurred sooner.

[david_c]

fred, on Dec 5 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

I don't know for sure who the 6 people you are referring to are, but (no offense to either them or you) I suspect that if they are the people I am thinking of then appointing them to the C&C Committee would just make a bad situation worse. It would not surprise me in the least if they were to do a much better job of things like creating minutes, responding quickly, etc, but such gains would easily be offset by the disastrous decisions that they would make.

As fun as it might be, I wasn't actually suggesting that the committee should be completely replaced by BBF regulars. But I do think we could teach the committee a thing or two about:
- writing clear regulations;
- making sure that the conventions that are allowed (or are under consideration) have good suggested defences;
as well as good procedure and communication.

[nige1]

fred, on Dec 5 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

I am sticking up for my friends, but there is nothing "mere" about it. I am sticking up for them because they are not here to stick up for themselves, because they deserve to be stuck up for, and because I will not allow a site that I created by used as a medium for unjustified personal attacks (especially when those attacks are against people I care about).

IMO

• Few approve of ad hominem personal attacks. It would be great if a committee member joined BBO to explain how the committee works.
  
• Most feel that constructive criticism of public bodies like committees is healthy and justifiable. For example, it seems fair for ACBL members to suggest that a minute-taker be appointed to the committee.

[han]

I'm looking forward to hear from Jan if the story sketched by Richard is correct or not. I'm talking about the transfer 1D opening that would be legal in midchart games if a proper defense is submitted, but the defense being rejected not because it isn't good enough, but because the committee does not want the transfer opening to become legal.

Fred, do you have reason to believe that this story is incorrect?

If it is correct then I agree that the committee is not handling it properly. If the committee does not want to allow such openings then that should be written in the rules, or they should at least say so openly.

[fred]

han, on Dec 5 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

I'm looking forward to hear from Jan if the story sketched by Richard is correct or not. I'm talking about the transfer 1D opening that would be legal in midchart games if a proper defense is submitted, but the defense being rejected not because it isn't good enough, but because the committee does not want the transfer opening to become legal.

Fred, do you have reason to believe that this story is incorrect?

No - I am not in a position to either confirm or deny this story (sorry).

I have only a vague recollection of the events in question. Sorry about that, but my memory of such things is not great and I had to deal with a lot of submissions during the period in which I was on the C&C Committee. It was far from rare for the same people to make essentially the same submissions again and again despite being told "no" for good reasons. Many of these people did not understand probably because they did not want to understand. Some were quite rude about it. Most of the details are little more than a blur to me now. Only one particular case stands out in my memory and it did not involve Richard.

As I said in a previous post, I have a strong tendency to trust people. Although I wouldn't say I know Richard any better than I know you (or many other people who I have met occasionally in person and/or through e-mail and/or Forums), my natural reaction would be trust him (or you or...). I would be most surprised if Richard were intentionally inventing the facts of his story.

That being said, I am not the only person who has an imperfect memory of the details of events that happened many years ago. It would not surprise me in the least if Richard's (or anyone else's) recollection of the details was less than perfect, if his tendency to sometimes respond emotionally to adversity (welcome to the club) might have clouded his judgment/memory, or if his lack of knowledge of what happened behind closed doors might have had an impact on his version of the events that took place.

Finally let me say that, although I like Richard and think he is undoubtably a very smart guy, he has demonstrated on Forums that he has the potential to be a real hothead who is not above sarcasm (welcome to that club too). Perhaps an inappropriate reaction by him to initial rejection by the committee managed to piss off or offend the committee and they (not unreasonably in my view) decided that they did not want to spend any more of their time dealing with a person who, to them, seemed like a complete jerk. Like I said, the committee had a lot of submissions (and other matters) to deal with and only so much time to devote to these things.

I have no reason to believe that this might have actually happened, but from what I know of the characters involved it is not much of a stretch for me to imagine that such a scenario as a lively possibility.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jikl]

I have refrained from responding to this for some time now.

"In the best interests of bridge" is a very interesting comment. The problem is:

1) The best interest now?
2) The best interest later?
3) Whether the game dies?

1)
The problem here is we have a severe problem with people getting old and then perhaps no longer being with us. Unfortunately, this is the average bridge player. I could look it up but I am guessing the average age of an ACBL member is getting up to 67ish; if I am wrong so be it. However you get the point. The best interest now is to keep these people happy, but what happens in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?

2)
Here in Australia, most multis are allowed in virtually everything. All the older people are so used to them there is never an eyebrow raised, they already have a pre-defined defence in their head for all 2 suited multis so that even if they come across a new one they are ready. Very few people even raise an eyebrow to MOSCITO; "transfer openings?" we are used to them. We have general defences to certain types of bids; we don't have a 200 page exchange of notes before each round in a pairs or a teams event. That is only for national events.

What I am saying here is that, protecting the older players might be good for revenue now but as the average bridge player age increases and the people that want to do the wild and wonderful things in the bidding are not allowed to do it are denied they will stop playing. This over-regulation will stop the younger players coming in. Which leads to 3)

3)
If we don't get young players involved in this wonderful game it will not exist in 50-75 years unless we try to rectify it now. Many card games fade from existence every year. If you can't play them online, not interested, is the general case. If gambling isn't involved, not interested, same reason. Some people want to get it on TV, won't really work. SAYC or even Acol or Precision are far too complicated for a TV audience to understand. They have no investment in watching, where Poker has worked on TV is that the watcher has an investment in the watching: "What would I have done?" or "I hope this person wins" or "I can't believe that idiot just folded, I would never have done it (even though they might never understand why it happened)". It is instant TV. It all happens quickly, bridge does not. Poker is easy to understand, bridge is not.

Whilst protecting the older population of the bridge market will help the game now, it is perhaps dooming the future of bridge. Bridge in its current state will never be as accessible as chess, chess needs 2 people, easy, child vs parent. Child gets hooked, add another chess player. Bridge; hrm, need 4 people, we have a problem. The most potent place to recruit people to bridge (assuming they don't have a parent playing) is from college/universities, they are the target audience now. Sure targetting high schools is good but there is only so long these teachers will be available.

Bridge will never be a mass market game, it is far too complicated unless it is reduced back to rubber bridge form. Rubber bridge will not happen because then there is no mass market.

-----

So perhaps we should look to the future instead of the now and allow some wild and woolly things in the bidding instead of thinking of the bottom line.

Sean

[TimG]

fred said:

han, on Dec 5 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

I'm looking forward to hear from Jan if the story sketched by Richard is correct or not. I'm talking about the transfer 1D opening that would be legal in midchart games if a proper defense is submitted, but the defense being rejected not because it isn't good enough, but because the committee does not want the transfer opening to become legal.

Fred, do you have reason to believe that this story is incorrect?

That being said, I am not the only person who has an imperfect memory of the details of events that happened many years ago. It would not surprise me in the least if Richard's (or anyone else's) recollection of the details was less than perfect

I believe that the situation Richard was referring to regarding the 1D transfer opening was a result of my correspondence with the C&C Committee. Here is a message I received from one of the C&C Committee members regarding the 1D transfer opening:

Quote

Tim,

There are other problems with approving this type of method, mainly other
similar but more diabolical methods. It's difficult to say yes to this and
not allow these other transfer opening systems.

I feel it unlikely to be approved for anything other than knockouts.

Jeff

My submission, which was eventually approved (for knockouts) and still can be found in the defense database, was for a defense to a 1D transfer opening that showed the equivalent of a Standard American 1H opening (and was forcing to 1H). 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.

As I said, the committee did approve my method, so there was no refusal on their part to approve something that was clearly mid-chart legal. I do think it is fair to say there was considerable reluctance on their part.

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