[awm]

fred, on Dec 25 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

The ACBL has something like 150K members. Probably upwards of 140K of these are content with the current state of affairs.

Justified.

Assuming that people who don't complain are satisfied with the current state of affairs, or that they would start complaining if things were to change, is not necessarily clear.

The fact is that virtually no one even understands the current regulations. This includes directors at the regional level and above. Certainly these particular regulations don't effect the majority of players. But the current approach seems to be "90% of the players don't care about these regulations, so lets screw over the other 10% and pretend it's the will of the majority." My guess is that of the 140K or so members you refer to:

(1) A substantial percentage don't even play outside their local clubs, so these regulations are totally invisible to them.

(2) Of the rest, most have no idea what the various charts allow or disallow, and would not even notice if it were changed (even if it were changed in a fairly drastic way).

(3) Some of the people you refer to would be flummoxed if faced with a strong club or a weak notrump. They may complain about these things. Sure, they would also complain if they had to deal with multi or a forcing pass system, but it is not clear that they would complain more or differently.

(4) Some of the people in this set are actually intrigued when they see different methods and find them fun to play against.

On several occasions I've played unusual methods (ACBL legal but still weird, like a strong diamond and light major suit openings) in various events. The reactions I get are generally:

-- Newer players think our methods are really cool, want to know where we learned them or came up with them. A far cry from "my weird bidding is scaring new players away from bridge."

-- Older "novice" players (who have typically been playing duplicate for 20-30 years) sometimes complain about the methods. Frequently this leads to calling the director and a long discussion because no one can really figure out the general convention chart. However, these folks also complain (and sometimes call director) if we alert any bid. So if we want to make these people stop complaining we probably have to ban everything alertable.

-- Expert players (even at the local level) usually laugh at us, sometimes make derogatory remarks about "crazy youngsters" but don't generally complain about having to play us.

-- The people who complain most are the "bunny bashers"; folks who are decent but not great players and play every day at the club, usually winning or placing very high because they are better than the typical club pair. Their most common complain is that our methods "will scare new players away."

[fred]

awm, on Dec 25 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

But the current approach seems to be "90% of the players don't care about these regulations, so lets screw over the other 10% and pretend it's the will of the majority."

It doesn't seem that way to me.

I hope when you say "it seems" you mean "I am frustrated so I feel screwed over" as opposed to "there really are black helicopters and they are screwing me over".

Quote

My guess is that of the 140K or so members you refer to:

(1) A substantial percentage don't even play outside their local clubs, so these regulations are totally invisible to them.

Agree. Many rarely if ever wander beyond their local clubs.

But these players have regulations too and I believe they are, by and large, content with these regulations. So there is no need to substantially change the regulations for these players.

Same goes for the players who play primarily in Sectionals and Regionals. Whether or not they are subject to the same set of regulations as those that are present at a given club, I believe that these players are, broadly speaking, content as well. So there is no need to substantially change the regulations for these players.

Same goes for the players who play primarily at the Nationals.

Counting all these content people we are getting close to that 140K now.

To me this is sufficient justification for avoiding sweeping changes either at any given level or (especially) across-the-board. If it ain't seriously broke, it doesn't need serious fixing.

Quote

(2) Of the rest, most have no idea what the various charts allow or disallow, and would not even notice if it were changed (even if it were changed in a fairly drastic way).

They would notice the consequences.

Quote

(3) Some of the people you refer to would be flummoxed if faced with a strong club or a weak notrump. They may complain about these things. Sure, they would also complain if they had to deal with multi or a forcing pass system, but it is not clear that they would complain more or differently.

Hello? Of course they would complain more.

Quote

The people who complain most are the "bunny bashers".

And some of the loudest advocates for change are bunny bashers as well. Unusual methods tend to work best when playing against bunnies.

In the great food chain of bridge, only a very small % of players are true predators. The rest of us spend some of our time as predator and some of our time as prey.

The bunnies may be at the bottom of the food chain, but their numbers are impressive. These numbers have spoken: we don't like being bashed.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

"Bunny bashers" are no doubt concerned about a reduction in the number of bunnies available to bash.

True experts - at least those not inclined to be rude - will not comment on your methods unless you ask. They'll just beat you at the table.

Regarding calling the TD on an alert of any bid: perhaps they just don't like alerts. There used to be a custom that one could ask opponents not to alert. In some jurisdictions (not sure about ACBL) that is now explicitly prohibited. Maybe we should bring it back, and let the eternal novices ask for "no alerts".

I play mostly in clubs, and I have at least read the charts. I won't argue that I understand them. The clubs around here refuse to specify what is and is not permitted ahead of time. The rule seems to be "you can play whatever you want" (direct quote from a club owner several years ago) - until someone complains, and then it becomes "yeah, it's GCC, but you have to treat it as midchart, prealert, and provide a written defense" (that same club owner, more recently) or just "that bid is banned in this club" (another club TD, who then immediately turned his back and walked away).

The bottom line seems, at least in the ACBL, to be that there shall be no support for "strange" methods, and very few places to play them. What constitutes "strange" may vary from place to place, but in general if it's not close to "standard american", "2/1" or "standard Precision" (whatever that means), it's gonna cause trouble. So forget anything new or different that doesn't trickle down from the very top, including political support from the regulators. That means any "innovations" are likely to take at least half a century to get down to the grass roots level - if they ever do.

[the hog]

hrothgar, on Dec 25 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 25 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

Jeff Meckstroth once defended a hand where They only took 4 tricks while Meckwell was cold for a grand.  The pair in question got a Top.  Jeff then had a long talk with Edgar Kaplan.
The result was a change in the scoring tables to give a dis-incentive for that sort of "bridge".

Hmmm

I recall a story where Meckwell bid a grand as a sacrifice, went down lots and received a good score.

As I recall, the scoring tables were changed.

I don't recall hearing the converse (that this happened to Meckwell). Nor anything about them running off and whining to Kaplan.

Can you please point to secondary sources that document this story...

Yes I agree wth Richard. I know Richard's version as well and not the converse.

Disagree that it is more difficult to prep, (sic) against a Strong pass system. That is a gross overgeneralisation as it depends on the systems and on the style of the pairs in question.

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Dec 25 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

The ACBL has something like 150K members. Probably upwards of 140K of these are content with the current state of affairs.

Justified.

Would they be more content if we banned precision at all levels? Would there be more content if we banned the kamikaze NT at all levels?

Fred's argument is flawed. If the goal is player satisfaction, then it is far from clear that the current regulations are the optimal way of achieving that. If the ACBL really had player satisfaction regarding regulations as the goal, it would conduct periodic surveys of its members for figuring out what conventions they would like banned.

I can equally validly claim that players can be more content if precision is banned. My claim and Fred's claim would then be on equal footing. Without proof, both these claims sound to me like "of course we knew Saddam had WMD".

[fred]

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

In the absense of surveys, letting wise people take their best guess is about the best we can hope for. If few people complain about the guesses of the wise people, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the wise people have guessed well.

If the ACBL has reason to believe that almost all of its members think that current system regulations are acceptable (and formal surveys are not the only way they have to know this), then taking the position "not worth the cost/effort" (to do proper surveys) becomes more understandable.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

My point is that the vast majority of ACBL's members do not know that a 2♥ opening showing 5+♥ and 4+♠ with 10-14 points is allowed, nor do they know whether a 2♥ opening showing 5+♥ and 4+♠ with 8-12 points is allowed, nor do they know that a 2♥ opening showing 4+♥ and 4+♠ with 10-14 points is disallowed.

They are equally likely (or unlikely) to complain and/or call director when any of these three bids is opened.

This being the case, I think it is somewhat inaccurate to argue that "the current regulations are good because the vast majority of players are not complaining." The vast majority of players don't even know what the regulations are.

[helene_t]

Might be different in acbl land, but over here such a survey would be joke. People would be just as unqualified of taking a position as when the European constitution was voted on.

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Dec 25 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

In the absense of surveys, letting wise people take their best guess is about the best we can hope for. If few people complain about the guesses of the wise people, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the wise people have guessed well.

If the ACBL has reason to believe that almost all of its members think that current system regulations are acceptable (and formal surveys are not the only way they have to know this), then taking the position "not worth the cost/effort" (to do proper surveys) becomes more understandable.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I for one don't really care about what the regulations are since :

1. I love the game too much and will play it irrespective of what the regulations are.
2. I consider it expensive, complicated and "not worth the cost/effort" to try to convince the current regulators that things can be improved.

This does not mean that I am content with the current regulations.

Until current players excuse themselves from regulatory committees, there is going to be a perception of conflict of interest between what is best for them and what is best for the bridge playing population. If the regulators feel right to pretend there is no conflict of interest, I will feel right to question their motives.

As an aside, I think the argument that most players are content is not a good one for justifying the current regulations.

Since we don't know if :

1. Majority of players will be more happy if precision is banned,
2. Majority of players will be more happy if kamikaze NT is banned,
3. Majority of players will be more happy is ... is banned,

I don't think any of us should say that the current system is optimal since most players are content.

That would be like saying the glass is half full. or half empty. I could say that most players are not content; in the sense that they would be more happy if precision was banned.

[Elianna]

fred, on Dec 25 2008, 05:28 PM, said:

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

In the absense of surveys, letting wise people take their best guess is about the best we can hope for. If few people complain about the guesses of the wise people, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the wise people have guessed well.

If the ACBL has reason to believe that almost all of its members think that current system regulations are acceptable (and formal surveys are not the only way they have to know this), then taking the position "not worth the cost/effort" (to do proper surveys) becomes more understandable.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

This is the first time I'm posting in this thread, mainly because I couldn't care less about Forcing Pass/multi/etc.

What I care about is that I believe that the existing rules are unclear, and are thus inconsistently enforced. I would not advocate changing what is/isn't allowed, but I DO think that the convention charts need to be clearer, and directors who are charged with enforcing those charts be given better guidelines about them. For example, if they had a set of systems/conventions that were both close to being legal (yet were illegal), and close to being illegal (yet are legal), then it might be easier for the director to decide on the legality of a random system/convention.

What I abhor is certain results of the current system: (all have happened, I just am not bandying names)

1) A pair plays a certain system that we believe is illegal, but they have been told by a random director is legal. We have to raise a big stink, get a director to call in to national HQ, and he finds out it is illegal, and they have to change their system. A few tournaments later, they are playing the same (old) system, because the director at the new tournament thinks that it is legal.

2) A pair is playing what is clearly a non-gameforcing relay system (not allowed). We call the director. We point out that this is a non-gameforcing relay system according to the definition. The director agrees. The opponents then tell the director that they're not relays (ie, they don't CALL them relays). The director rules the system legal.

And no, the same directors were not involved in 1) or 2), but one can see how a situation like in 2) could lead to 1).

My point (and I admit it took a while) is that I don't care what's legal or illegal, but that the charts need to be made MUCH clearer, and directors need to be better educated.

(P.S. Even though I'm friends with MatMat, I don't have the same anti-director hatred. I don't blame them for this situation, I blame the rules that led them to this situation.)

[fred]

awm, on Dec 26 2008, 01:41 AM, said:

The vast majority of players don't even know what the regulations are.

That is because they don't care what the fine print of the regulations says. Why should they?

The vast majority don't need to care about regulations to tell them what they can play because it is all but certain that, whatever they want to play, it will be legal.

The only reason the majority cares about the regulations is because the regulations draw a line for their opponents - the fine print is their problem.

Lacking of complaining is meaningful. If the line was moved so that the majority didn't like it anymore, there would be a lot of complaining.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

Suppose there was a ridiculously unfair law, but it was only enforced against 1% of the population. Most likely, 99% or so would not complain. Does this mean the law is good?

As things stand now, if the regulations were to change slightly, most people would not even notice. Most folks don't know the regulations well enough to realize that the people playing 1NT responses invitational or better, or playing four card weak twos, or opening 1♣ "could be short" on balanced 9-counts, are actually violating the regulations. So I doubt they would complain if the regulations made these things legal. Similarly, they wouldn't complain if a 2NT opening showing a weak hand with both minors were made illegal, or if an 8-10 opening 1NT range were made illegal, or playing suction against the opponents' strong club were made illegal. There is a lot of flexibility in these regulations before most people complain.

It's also the case that the regulations are enforced very erratically. If we were to enforce the regulations banning Bailey Twos (hard to see how these could be allowed if Muiderberg is not) or the regulations banning mini-roman 2♦ on less than ten points, or the regulations banning one level openings on less than eight points in third seat... chances are that a somewhat larger number of people would complain. But the regulations are vague and enforced only at director's discretion (i.e. against newer methods or younger players) and this reduces the number of complaints.

In general the argument that "not very many people are complaining" only holds water if the alternatives would cause a lot more people to complain. While it is conceivable that legalizing HUMs at local club games might have this effect (although who would play them? and who would care if no one played them?) any minor redrawing of the convention charts (in either direction) is likely to go mostly unnoticed.

[fred]

awm, on Dec 26 2008, 02:16 AM, said:

Suppose there was a ridiculously unfair law, but it was only enforced against 1% of the population. Most likely, 99% or so would not complain. Does this mean the law is good?

No. I think ridiculously unfair laws are bad.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

awm, on Dec 26 2008, 02:16 AM, said:

any minor redrawing of the convention charts (in either direction) is likely to go mostly unnoticed.

Agree completely (but of course sometimes players disagree in terms of what constitutes "minor redrawing").

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Dec 23 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

Hi Jan

During the course of this thread, there was some discussion regarding some private email exchanges between members of the Conventions Committee about MOSCITO that accidentially leaked to the outside world.

At one point in time, you mentioned that you were going to ask Chip about this.

Curious what he had to say...

Sorry - he said he didn't remember it. Not that it didn't happen, but he hadn't any recollection of it.

[JanM]

TimG, on Dec 24 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

2) Uncertainty caused by confusion about which defense applies, or how a defense applies.  To use David's example, the Martel-Stansby auction where they "overcalled" 1S and were now unsure whether their agreements over a 1S overcall or a 1S opening bid were in play.

But that wasn't the problem on that hand. They both "knew" that the 1♠ bid was an overcall and therefore their agreements about overcalls applied. The problem was that on the second round of the auction, Lew looked down at a bidding tray that had P-1♠-P-2♠ on it and it was such a normal looking auction that he momentarily forgot that the P was strong and 1♠ therefore an overcall.

[JanM]

Elianna, on Dec 25 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

What I care about is that I believe that the existing rules are unclear, and are thus inconsistently enforced.  I would not advocate changing what is/isn't allowed, but I DO think that the convention charts need to be clearer, and directors who are charged with enforcing those charts be given better guidelines about them.  For example, if they had a set of systems/conventions that were both close to being legal (yet were illegal), and close to being illegal (yet are legal), then it might be easier for the director to decide on the legality of a random system/convention.

I agree that it's very frustrating when the rules aren't clear and the directors don't understand them. And it doesn't only happen at club games. I was a Vugraph operator on a hand in a Vanderbilt or Spingold match once where a question came up about something having to do with systems and it took something like three director consultations to get an answer - at some point during the rather lengthy delay, the two pairs involved agreed that they'd let me tell them what the rules were .

Have you looked at the newly drafted Midchart? That was designed primarily to clarify what is and is not allowed (although of course no one is paying any attention to that, they're just griping about not allowing multi in events with short rounds). Hopefully, that will reduce the inconsistent director rulings, and make it less likely for the examples you gave to happen. Although I confess I don't know what will work to correct the notion that if you don't call something a relay it isn't. I do like your idea of giving directors examples of borderline things - I'll pass it on.

[cherdano]

JanM, on Dec 26 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Have you looked at the newly drafted Midchart? That was designed primarily to clarify what is and is not allowed (although of course no one is paying any attention to that, they're just griping about not allowing multi in events with short rounds). Hopefully, that will reduce the inconsistent director rulings, and make it less likely for the examples you gave to happen. Although I confess I don't know what will work to correct the notion that if you don't call something a relay it isn't. I do like your idea of giving directors examples of borderline things - I'll pass it on.

At the LMP in Las Vegas, our opponents called the director after learning about our 1NT defense. (IIRC they had seen a director rule a similar defense illegal - of course, that ruling was obviously incorrect, any defense against 1NT is permitted in midchart.) After consultation, the director came back to the table and while he gave the correct ruling, he still managed to misinform us - he claimed (incorrectly) that we wouldn't be allowed to play it any more in the new midchart.

I can't blame the midchart itself on this one.

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 26 2008, 03:28 AM, said:

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

In the absense of surveys, letting wise people take their best guess is about the best we can hope for. If few people complain about the guesses of the wise people, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the wise people have guessed well.

If the ACBL has reason to believe that almost all of its members think that current system regulations are acceptable (and formal surveys are not the only way they have to know this), then taking the position "not worth the cost/effort" (to do proper surveys) becomes more understandable.

A simple internet test-poll to be displayed via announcement on BBO does not need to involve costs.

How about that?

[matmat]

csdenmark, on Dec 26 2008, 05:18 AM, said:

A simple internet test-poll to be displayed via announcement on BBO does not need to involve costs.

How about that?

that makes a lot of sense because:

the majority of BBO players are ACBL members and care about the ACBL and its regulations

the people who play online are a representative sample of the ACBL population in general

everyone always reads the login messages from bbo carefully and thinks about them