[hrothgar]

Many of the discussions to date have focused on two polar opposites in terms of convention regulation and devising suggested defenses:

Option 1:
Place the burden on the players
Force the players submitting methods to develop defenses
Have the Conventions Committee approve or refuse said defenses

Option 2:
Place the burden on the Conventions Committee
Players devises new methods
The Conventions Committee develops defenses

Personally, I think that both of these systems are unworkable.

I don't think that the players submitting defenses are the best choice to develop defenses.

* Players are very likely to have blind spots regarding their own pet methods.
* Players don't have an incentive to develop sound defenses to their pet methods
* The system requires large amounts of supervision from the Conventions Committee

The second system requires even more direct work by the Conventions Committee and is even less scalable.

I think that a distributed system is much more practical / workable

Consider the following:

The Conventions Committee develops a set of Conventions Charts. The Convention Charts should identify some set of methods that are legal but require suggested defenses.

Players have the right to develop new methods. Methods that require suggested defenses following the following process:

1. Players post a description of their method on a public forum administer by the ACBL
2. A counter starts. Six monthes after said method has been listed, players can legally play that method in events.
3. During the intervening half year, interested parties can discuss said methods and work on developing appropriate defenses. I suspect that this type of collaborative development process will yield reasonable defensive methods without the need for much direct supervision by the Conventions Committee.
4. At the close of the six month period, the Conventions Committee will review the top contendors and bless one (or more of them) as official defenses. Players (obivously) have the option of adopting any defense listed on the web site or devise their own homebrew defenses...
5. In theory, the Conventions Committee could chose to bless a method before the timer counted down
6. If the COnventions Committee believes that it is impossible to develop and adequate defense to some specific method they need to change the Conventions Charts

This process forces players who want to play new methods to submit complete descriptions of their new toys. It also forces them to wait up to six monthes before they get to use their new toy.

At the same time, this method is open, its transparent, and it ensures that players will eventually be able to use their new methods...

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Dec 6 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

I think that a distributed system is much more practical / workable

Conisder the following:

I like it!

It may not be perfect, but it's a damn good start.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Dec 7 2008, 04:03 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 6 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

I think that a distributed system is much more practical / workable

Conisder the following:

I like it!

It may not be perfect, but it's a damn good start.

I like it too.

Perhaps an additional probation period is required where the method has restricted approval so that it can be played in certain events (probably not major championships) without an approved defense or perhaps with a trial approved defense so that there can be some feedback as to how a defense works in practice.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 7 2008, 12:47 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.

"innovative" from "innovate" which means "to introduce something new; make changes in anything established." www.dictionary.com

I simply mean the introduction of something new and unfamiliar.

I don't know what the committee's motivation is and I am not trying to judge their motivation. What is clear is that if they ban innovation then they risk banning methods that "...are (or might be) better than the ones they use".

Any constraint on methods necessarily does this unless we have a solid proof that the optimal methods do not lie with the methods that have been constrained.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 6 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

"innovative" from "innovate" which means "to introduce something new; make changes in anything established." www.dictionary.com

I simply mean the introduction of something new and unfamiliar.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing, but I agree with jdonn that "innovation" connotes advancement for the better.

[Cascade]

ArcLight, on Dec 7 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

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.

I too find this comment offensive.

My experience has been that on average players who play unusual systems give better explanations and are more helpful when required than standard system players.

It is also my experience that most players playing unusual systems believe that playing those systems makes the game more not less enjoyable.

I certainly enjoy the innovation of new system ideas as an opponent of those systems.

My only experience of playing HUM systems as a player was short lived around 17 years ago. I did have a longer 2-3 years partnership playing submarine (transfer opening) symmetric.

I usually play a fairly standard standard front end system with a few tweaks (4-card majors, variable NT - including 10-13 1st/2nd NV) but with several non-standard gadgets in later auctions.

In a secondary partnership I play pretty much vanilla symmetric relay (although I hate that term to describe something plain as vanilla is one of my favourite flavours).

This means that most of my experience with HUM or transfer openings etc has been as an opponent. More power to them.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 7 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 6 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

"innovative" from "innovate" which means "to introduce something new; make changes in anything established." www.dictionary.com

I simply mean the introduction of something new and unfamiliar.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing, but I agree with jdonn that "innovation" connotes advancement for the better.

I am sure even in America there have been plenty of innovations that have turned out for the worse.

[H_KARLUK]

HUM (highly unusual methods) allowed only on competitions of Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup level, with additional provisions that the pair playing HUM must submit their convention cards in advance, and their team loses the right to chose the opponents (i.e. they must seat first and let the opposing team to select the lineup).

HUM systems are banned on lower-level competitions, especially on pairs events (as a round of 2-3 boards is too short to require all other players to prepare the defense against strong pass in advance).

There are several Strong Pass systems in many countries.

I handle the case similar F1 races. The Organisation is responsible to take security of contestants and kibitzers bcos very fast and strong rather than daily life engines there. Similar to our game Bridge, it's a very hard system to use and defend well.

Perhaps authorities want to make life easier for average bridge addicts. Being skilled in game require years and sometimes hardwork. That's why they might allowed HUM only amongst pros.

I hope my words not mistaken. Sorry, English is not my native language.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Dec 6 2008, 10:03 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 6 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

I think that a distributed system is much more practical / workable

Conisder the following:

I like it!

It may not be perfect, but it's a damn good start.

Well, I've heard that there will be a new ACBL committee next year to look into "electronic" things - from the standpoint of how better to use the internet and things like electronic scoring devices, not barring cell phones . That committee might be the appropriate one (along with C&C) to which to present this sort of idea.

Your suggestion is close to what is done in the WBF, where all methods are allowed for the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup, but the methods have to be described in advance, and when opponents ask for clarification so they can develop defenses, the proponents have to provide that clarification. There is usually 2-3 months from the date on which unusual methods have to be disclosed until the date of the tournament. There are some situations where a recommended defense is also required but I've forgotten when.

Your approach is pretty much exactly what the USBF does - require disclosure of unusual methods well in advance (disclosure includes submission of a defense); allow the method unless other players object to the disclosure and/or the defense. If there is an objection, the conventions committee gets involved and either approves the submission or works with the proponents to correct what they've submitted or disapproves it.

But the situation with the Midchart is quite different from that in either the WBF Championships or the USBF Trials - most of the people who will play against the proposed methods probably aren't going to be involved in looking at a website and reviewing proposed methods and defenses. I don't know whether there will be enough people who are interested in reviewing to make it work. I'm just saying that there is less incentive for people to review methods that they might or might not encounter than there is for people to review methods that they are certain to encounter. And my experience suggests that even in the WBF & USBF not very many people actually review what is submitted. For example, about 2 weeks before one World Championship, someone asked me to look at a BS method that had been submitted by a pair in the Venice Cup. I downloaded the convention card and supplementary notes, only to find that the suit symbols were all garbage. That happens, and Anna Gudge fixed it as soon as I pointed it out. But this was 2 weeks before the tournament, probably about 6-8 weeks after the system cards had been posted, the card and particularly the notes were completely unreadable, and NO-ONE had yet complained. To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event. That experience and some others I've had make me less than confident that review by people not charged with the task will work. But it might - after all, there will be more people who might be interested in reviewing Midchart methods than there are who are playing in a World Championship.

I have no idea whether you can convince the ACBL Board that this is the way to go. And it is the Board and not the C&C committee whom you will have to convince.

[Echognome]

I also like Richard's suggestion as a start, but I think an important point to cover is how to prevent a large number of submissions that would thus put an onus on the C&C to address them all. I know that the C&C must address all the submissions now (or choose to ignore them), but it would seem that submissions should first have to pass a "smell test" or "laugh test" (or whatever you want to call it). There just needs to be something. I mean this could be as simple as making sure the convention isn't already allowed by GCC or banned already at midchart or has already been submitted by someone else.

[Free]

TimG, on Dec 6 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

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

Then compare it with chess... Years ago when someone came up with a new opening, they didn't have to tell their opponents how to defend against it.

[Free]

jdonn, on Dec 7 2008, 03:16 AM, said:

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.

Ofcourse they want simplicity, it's a lot easier. If you could chose to bid everything in a simple way, or in a complex way, the choice is clear. It simply isn't possible.

Everyone would love to play soccer without having to run after a ball... (yes, sports again)

[Free]

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2008, 03:41 AM, said:

Conisder the following:

The Conventions Committee develops a set of Conventions Charts. The Convention Charts should identify some set of methods that are legal but require suggested defenses.

Players have the right to develop new methods. Methods that require suggested defenses following the following process:

1. Players post a description of their method on a public forum administer by the ACBL
2. A counter starts. Six monthes after said method has been listed, players can legally play that method in events.
3. During the intervening half year, interested parties can discuss said methods and work on developing appropriate defenses. I suspect that this type of collaborative development process will yield reasonable defensive methods without the need for much direct supervision by the Conventions Committee.
4. At the close of the six month period, the Conventions Committee will review the top contendors and bless one (or more of them) as official defenses. Players (obivously) have the option of adopting any defense listed on the web site or devise their own homebrew defenses...
5. In theory, the Conventions Committee could chose to bless a method before the timer counted down
6. If the COnventions Committee believes that it is impossible to develop and adequate defense to some specific method they need to change the Conventions Charts

This process forces players who want to play new methods to submit complete descriptions of their new toys. It also forces them to wait up to six monthes before they get to use their new toy.

At the same time, this method is open, its transparent, and it ensures that players will eventually be able to use their new methods...

I find this a very good suggestion!

[H_KARLUK]

Free, on Dec 7 2008, 10:24 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 6 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

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

Then compare it with chess... Years ago when someone came up with a new opening, they didn't have to tell their opponents how to defend against it.

In Chess I see my opponent's pieces. Rest depends your repertoire. You have at least a chance not to operate in a fog of uncertainty. Moreover openings and defence already widely classified. Variants and new ideas are easy to reach in records. As far as I know, in serious events when something unusual th CC owners are expected to write down it's defence methods.

Are you able to see opps cards like in Chess board? What do you prefer? Only guess when they play HUM or analyse and improve strategies before match/teams? HUM is definitely different than main structure of natural based bridge.

Sorry i could not find any similarity. The idea at any sportive competition should be to start EQUAL. It is senseless to use a strong lantern and make blind the "victim" in fishing. Or using dynamite. No where to escape, no struggle, no defense. What a hunting. Lol. Just humiliate!

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2008, 03:41 AM, said:

Conisder the following:

The Conventions Committee develops a set of Conventions Charts.  The Convention Charts should identify some set of methods that are legal but require suggested defenses.

Players have the right to develop new methods.  Methods that require suggested defenses following the following process:

1.  Players post a description of their method on a public forum administer by the ACBL
2.  A counter starts.  Six monthes after said method has been listed, players can legally play that method in events.
3.  During the intervening half year, interested parties can discuss said methods and work on developing appropriate defenses.  I suspect that this type of collaborative development process will yield reasonable defensive methods without the need for much direct supervision by the Conventions Committee.
4.  At the close of the six month period, the Conventions Committee will review the top contendors and bless one (or more of them) as official defenses.  Players (obivously) have the option of adopting any defense listed on the web site or devise their own homebrew defenses...
5.  In theory, the Conventions Committee could chose to bless a method before the timer counted down
6.  If the COnventions Committee believes that it is impossible to develop and adequate defense to some specific method they need to change the Conventions Charts

First of all, let me say that if I was running a committee I would certainly make use of a public forum to help come up with defences.

But it seems like your system is designed with a primary aim of keeping the committee in check. That's understandable if you don't trust the committee. On the other hand, if the committee is trustworthy then I think it is better to allow them to decide which methods are under consideration. Otherwise you are creating an expectation amongst the players that their methods will be dealt with, which you may later find you are unable to meet. There is a danger of your scheme disintegrating into a free-for-all where methods are not given the scrutiny that they deserve.

nige1, on Dec 7 2008, 01:59 AM, said:

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!

I don't understand David's objection. An important responsibility of the committee is to ensure that each new method comes with a defence. It seems sensible to insist that the innovator provides an adequate written defence for opponents, who won't have time to prepare for all eventualities. There will not always be an appropriate generic defence.

I was imagining something like this:

"1♥ opening showing 5+ spades.
This defence applies to an opening bid which:
- is forcing, and promises a minimum of at least 10 HCP;
- has a 1♠ response which is non-forcing and includes all hands which would pass a standard 1♠ opening."

So, not exactly a "generic" defence, but still something which leaves a little room for variety. The defence on the ACBL site specifies SAYC-style responses, which is going too far. You don't want to have to write out the same thing again when someone comes along wanting to play 2/1. If the committee had to approve separate defences for every minor change in the continuations then their workload would indeed quickly become prohibitive.

[csdenmark]

JanM, on Dec 7 2008, 08:29 AM, said:

To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face?

[TimG]

david_c, on Dec 7 2008, 05:42 AM, said:

I was imagining something like this:

"1♥ opening showing 5+ spades.
This defence applies to an opening bid which:
- is forcing, and promises a minimum of at least 10 HCP;
- has a 1♠ response which is non-forcing and includes all hands which would pass a standard 1♠ opening."

So, not exactly a "generic" defence, but still something which leaves a little room for variety. The defence on the ACBL site specifies SAYC-style responses, which is going too far. You don't want to have to write out the same thing again when someone comes along wanting to play 2/1. If the committee had to approve separate defences for every minor change in the continuations then their workload would indeed quickly become prohibitive.

The detailed responses were required by the C&C Committee. The original submission was meant to be much more generic in terms of method and defense.

For instance, the defense presented for the 1H transfer opening assumes the opening was 1S for all intervenor actions of 1NT and above. That is, (1H)-2S is a cue-bid overcall, specified as Michaels (showing hearts and a minor) in the defense. It was not sufficient to suggest that (1H)-2S meant whatever (1S)-2S meant in the defenders' methods.

The original defense specified that defenders should use their normal defenses to a 1S opening for all calls 1NT and higher, but the committee rejected that in favor of spelling out a specific meaning for each call. To me, this makes the suggested defense more confusing. Suppose you play (1S)-2S to show top and bottom, if you use the suggested defense you have to switch methods or risk being on a different page than your partner.

It was also required that I spell out the competitive methods the opening side would use. So, I had to list things like negative doubles and unusual vs unusual. In my opinion listing those sort of things has no benefit and makes the suggested defense longer, more intimidating, and more time consuming to use.

Yes, if more methods that require suggested defenses were allowed, I believe there would be a short adjustment phase where players get used to using the defenses provided. Not the specific defense, but simply get used to using a suggested defense.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 7 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

Well, I've heard that there will be a new ACBL committee next year to look into "electronic" things - from the standpoint of how better to use the internet and things like electronic scoring devices, not barring cell phones . That committee might be the appropriate one (along with C&C) to which to present this sort of idea.

Your suggestion is close to what is done in the WBF, where all methods are allowed for the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup, but the methods have to be described in advance, and when opponents ask for clarification so they can develop defenses, the proponents have to provide that clarification. There is usually 2-3 months from the date on which unusual methods have to be disclosed until the date of the tournament. There are some situations where a recommended defense is also required but I've forgotten when.

Your approach is pretty much exactly what the USBF does - require disclosure of unusual methods well in advance (disclosure includes submission of a defense); allow the method unless other players object to the disclosure and/or the defense. If there is an objection, the conventions committee gets involved and either approves the submission or works with the proponents to correct what they've submitted or disapproves it.

But the situation with the Midchart is quite different from that in either the WBF Championships or the USBF Trials - most of the people who will play against the proposed methods probably aren't going to be involved in looking at a website and reviewing proposed methods and defenses. I don't know whether there will be enough people who are interested in reviewing to make it work. I'm just saying that there is less incentive for people to review methods that they might or might not encounter than there is for people to review methods that they are certain to encounter. And my experience suggests that even in the WBF & USBF not very many people actually review what is submitted. For example, about 2 weeks before one World Championship, someone asked me to look at a BS method that had been submitted by a pair in the Venice Cup. I downloaded the convention card and supplementary notes, only to find that the suit symbols were all garbage. That happens, and Anna Gudge fixed it as soon as I pointed it out. But this was 2 weeks before the tournament, probably about 6-8 weeks after the system cards had been posted, the card and particularly the notes were completely unreadable, and NO-ONE had yet complained. To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event. That experience and some others I've had make me less than confident that review by people not charged with the task will work. But it might - after all, there will be more people who might be interested in reviewing Midchart methods than there are who are playing in a World Championship.

I have no idea whether you can convince the ACBL Board that this is the way to go. And it is the Board and not the C&C committee whom you will have to convince.

Hi Jan

Couple comments:

1. As to your closing remark about convincing the Board...

If there is one thing that I have learned from many years in management, its that you don't go into meetings like this one without all your ducks in a raw. Reagrdless of what the Board might think, I really doubt if they set policy. Rather, these types of bodies ratify decisions and consensus that have emerged in other parts of the organization.

The Board is not going to chance policy unless key stakeholders - in this case, the members of the Conventions Committee - support the initiative in question. In a siilar vein, I suspect that the new Committee Dealing with "Things Internet" is a distraction. A brand new committee isn't going to go around stepping on any toes or shaking things up. (If they do, they are headed for a a short and unhappy life)

I suspect that the impetus for change needs to come out of the Conventions Committee. Unless the CC is willing to support this initiative, nothing is going to happen. If the CC is willing to support these types of changes, its then reasonable to discuss how the recommendation should be forwarded to the Board of Directors....

2. As to your comments regrding differences between the Midchart and the USBF/Bermuda Bowl/whatever...

In my mind, the salient issue is the number of the people that compete in various events. [You noted this as well] ere are a handful of folks who compete in the USBF. In a similar vein, the number of folks who compete in the Bermuda Bowl is miniscule. In contrast, I suspect that that the total number of people who compete in Midchart events is quite a bit higher. Moreover, I am willing to beat that the age profile of these players skews quite a bit lower. (They are more likely to be computer savey and more likely to be familar with web based forums)

In short, I think that this type of distributed system is more useful for the ACBL Midchart than for top tier events.

[TimG]

TimG, on Dec 7 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

The detailed responses were required by the C&C Committee. The original submission was meant to be much more generic in terms of method and defense.

As an aside, I've often wondered whether a slight change in methods would invalidate the approved defense. Suppose we decided to play penalty doubles instead of negative doubles, for instance, or change our jump raise from preemptive to limit, would this require a new approval, or would it be OK to simply note this change in the methods section and carry the suggested defense as modified.

[nige1]

TimG, on Dec 7 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

As an aside, I've often wondered whether a slight change in methods would invalidate the approved defense.  Suppose we decided to play penalty doubles instead of negative doubles, for instance, or change our jump raise from preemptive to limit, would this require a new approval, or would it be OK to simply note this change in the methods section and carry the suggested defense as modified.

IMO the committee should license conventions not systems; and have to resubmit a defence with each change to the convention.

Doubts have been expressed about the innovators being the best choice to concoct a defence. I still think it should be the innovators' responsibility because

• As far as I can make out, this closely mirrors existing ratification protocol.
  
• The inventors are well-placed to know the strengths and weaknesses of their own convention.
  
• While devising their new idea, they will consider likely counters.
  
• It's unreasonable to expect others to spend time devising defences to lots of different new conventions. (but, of course it would be quite OK for the innovators, to consult others in formulating a defence).
  
• If, after all, the innovators submit a half-baked defence, the committee will reject the whole caboodle, and the innovators will have to go back to the drawing board.
  
• After ratification, if a more popular defence is devised, then the committee can change the official defence.
  
• This protocol puts the onus on the innovators themselves, and accelerates the process of ratification..