[JanM]

I don't know where to start! I've spent all of my spare time the last 3 days dealing with people spamming the USBF website (want to buy viagra kind of people), and now I come back here and this thread seems to have branched off in several different directions and I feel as if I should respond to a lot of the posts, but if I start quoting and answering it'll take forever. So I'll try to say a few things and hopefully will answer at least the legitimate questions.

1. C&C Committee
Frances asked how the committee is selected and Fred answered quite accurately - ACBL committees are appointed by the ACBL President(s) subject to approval by the ACBL Board. As far as I know, members of all ACBL committees serve multi-year terms and the terms are staggered, so each new ACBL President appoints only one third (usually) of the committee. I don't know whether all committees are the same as the one I happen to know about (Hall of Fame), but on that committee, members serve 3 year terms and can serve only 2 consecutive terms. I suspect the other committees are the same. The requirement for Board approval of the President's appointments is pretty new (came in within the last 5 years I'm sure), and arose after one President ignored recommendations by several committees and arguably used the committee appointments for the President's private purposes. There are not a large number of people asking to serve on the various ACBL committees, particularly C&C which has the biggest job and meets for two mornings at every NABC (other committees only meet for one morning), in addition to working between meetings. Mostly the existing members or sometimes Board members try to recruit people to serve.
C&C has a very wide-ranging area of responsibility - the Convention Charts are only a small part of Competitions & Conventions. I know that for several years much of their time was taken up with working out the format for the major KO events. Hmmm - maybe I could start a thread on whether it makes sense to take a whole day to cut a field of 68 to 64 (or whatever the number is where there's a ridiculously small cut the first day). Silly as that seems when it happens, the current format is almost certainly the best resolution of the conflicting desires not to have 3-way matches and not to have the first day cut too severe.

2. Convention Charts
Please note the name - ACBL Convention Charts and General Convention chart. The Mid-Chart and Super-Chart don't have "Convention" in their names (maybe because it sounds funny) but they also regulate only conventions, not natural bids. That's why you don't find anything in any of the charts specifically allowing a 1♠ opening bid or overcall that shows 4+ spades - that is not a convention and isn't regulated by the convention charts. Until a year ago, it couldn't have been so regulated and at the moment ACBL has not chosen to take advantage of the new authority granted in the Laws to regulate natural bids.
Although I agree that the GCC is not a wonder of clarity, perhaps you can agree that this doesn't seem to be causing much difficulty. People pretty much know what can be played in GCC events. Sure, strong, artificial & forcing 1♣ bids should have their own separate "allowed" sentence, instead of being lumped in with "all-purpose" 1m opening bids, but no one is claiming that Precision isn't allowed under the GCC. Sure, I agree (strongly as a matter of fact) with Richard's argument that what overcalls are allowed over a 1♣ opening should not be dependent on whether the bid shows 3+ clubs, but rather on whether the bid is really "artificial." But although some of the people who like to play CRASH and even more exotic things over a strong club also think they should use their gadget over 1♣ either clubs or balanced, most sensibly don't, and even the ones who do probably wouldn't use the gadgets in a club game against someone who opens 1♣ with 2 clubs only when 4432, so there's no serious harm being done. Yes, it would be better to clarify "all-purpose," but outside of a few BBO forum posters, I think everyone really does know what this means (and it isn't 1♣ shows 4+ hearts).
The Mid-Chart, on the other hand, was causing problems. When it was first drafted, the drafters decided that they should list the sort of bids that would be allowed and then provide that specific bids would be allowed only after their proponents had provided a description of the bid and a recommended defense that had been approved by the Convention & Defense Approval Subcommittee. Unfortunately, the requirement for approval of the description and defense wasn't very clearly stated, nor was there a good procedure for communicating with people who wanted to use different methods when those methods were in fact Mid-Chart legal because a defense had been approved. So a few years ago, the C&C Committee decided that the Mid-Chart needed to be re-written to make it clearer. That has now been done. While the Committee (or a Subcommittee, probably) was re-writing the Mid-Chart, they also considered whether some bids should be allowed in (essentially) KOs and others in pair games (and Board a Match), where rounds are shorter. They carefully reviewed the bids that had already been approved and provided that some of them would be allowed in events with 2 board rounds and some would only be allowed in events with 6 board rounds or 12 board rounds. (By the way, someone asked why Multi is in the 6 board round category - I think that was discussed at some length immediately after the Reisinger, but I believe the primary reason was because of the time pressure involved in 2 board rounds. Also of course, Multi is really tough to defend against - the only reason it's allowed at all is because it's been around so long). Instead of having a list of the kinds of bids that would be allowed if there was an approved description and defense, the Mid-Chart now lists those bids for which there is an approved description and defense. It will have to be updated regularly (maybe the bad formatting in item number 5, which contains the description of items 6-20, will also be fixed sometime). No, I see I'm wrong; additional approved bids will be listed in the defense database before being added to the Mid-Chart list. I suppose that makes sense as a practical matter (the Convention Charts are printed on paper as well as posted on the ACBL website), but hopefully there will be frequent updates of the Mid-Chart so people won't have to look two places to know what is allowed.
Whether the C&C Committee will decide that the flaws in the GCC merit re-writing it I don't know. That may depend on the other things on their plate. I suspect that most of the complainers here would rather see more prompt action on requests for convention approval than a re-write of the GCC and those things are clearly related - there are only so many hours in every day.
One other thing about C&C has to do with comments (fair ones) that emails to C&C don't get answered very promptly, or apparently in one case mentioned earlier, as politely as they should. I believe that ACBL is in the process of some reorganization and it may not be clear at the moment who is responsible for dealing with C&C emails. Rick Beye isn't any more. I'd be surprised if Butch Campbell was Rick's permanent replacement in this position (I have absolutely no inside information here - I'm just guessing based on the other things that Butch does). I do have "inside information" that no requests for convention approval have been forwarded to the Subcommittee responsible for that in several months.
C&C, like all ACBL committees, should have Minutes and those Minutes should be posted on the ACBL website. My guess is that the reason they are not is that no one has managed to prepare Minutes for several meetings. Perhaps it's because they haven't gotten posted. Hopefully that state of affairs will change. However, I also note that the Hall of Fame Committee members aren't even listed on the website , so there's actually more information about C&C than HoF. Or at least a little more - the 2009 C&C Committee isn't listed yet.
You'll notice that Minutes are posted for the Laws Commission. Much as I'd like to give my husband the credit for that, it really belongs to Gary Blaiss, who's the ACBL staff support for that committee and does an outstanding job preparing Minutes.

2. The Australians and Jan & Chip
Someone asked why I had complained to the Director. Well, I'm a big believer that summoning the Director shouldn't be viewed as a "complaint." Also, I believe that it was actually Chip who first called the Director. He did so because he knew that transfer 1 bids were not supposed to be legal in Mid-Chart events. I didn't participate very much in any of the discussion, but as far as I recall, the opponents said they'd been told they could play the transfer 1 bids and pointed to the line in the Mid-Chart that said bids showing 4+ cards in a known suit were allowed; Chip explained that there also had to be an approved description & defense and suggested to the Director that he consult the ACBL management person who at that time was in charge of Conventions (I honestly don't remember who it was). The Director did so and was told that the method was not legal. He therefore told the players that it was not legal. How a defense was posted on the website I do not know & neither does Chip. I do not recall that the opponents had a defense from the website, but I certainly have no recollection that they didn't either. If Josh says they did, I'm sure he's right. I'm also confident that the Director's ruling was correct and was made after careful investigation. Richard may be right that the fact that a defense had been posted on the ACBL website gave the players grounds for a lawsuit (I don't think so but maybe), but it did not give them the right to play the bids.
I called the Director (and I am willing to have this call classified as a "complaint") when I heard the pair tell their next round opponents that 1♦ showed 4+ hearts and 1♥ showed 4+ spades. I remember that part of the whole thing much more than anything else because I was shocked and unhappy that anyone would deliberately disobey the Director's clear ruling.
By the way, many of the posts complaining about the C&C committee say things like that they are acting in their own best interest and not in the interest of bridge. I suspect that Chip & I were, even back then, far better able to deal with a transfer opening bid than the other pairs in our section. So it would actually have been in our best interest to let the opponents play their transfer bids, we wouldn't be bothered and every time someone else in our section had a problem with them we'd get a matchpoint. It would certainly have been in our best interest, after we had prevented the opponents from playing transfers at our table, to ignore the fact that they were continuing to play them at the next table. But we're bad guys and out to promote our own best interest, not that of bridge, so of course we did all of this for nefarious reasons.
Finally, JoshS (amazing that this forum has more Josh's posting than Jan's ) commented:

Quote

Personally, I will never understand how a bid suggesting a strain is not legal, while a bid that may be their sides longest OR shortest suit (Precision 1D or could be short 1C) is legal. I think those are much harder to defend and much more pernicious. But thats another matter...

I'm sure you really know why - because Precision 1♦ and short 1♣ have been played by "mainstream" players for years, long before any of these Convention Charts were even thought of, and the drafters of the Convention Charts weren't trying to rock the boat or ban things that were commonly played. Exactly the same reason why Multi 2♦ is not classified as a Brown Sticker bid by the WBF. I could quote you "much harder to defend and much more pernicious" about that too, but by the time the Systems Regulations were being written, it was so common that the regulators really couldn't bar it.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Feb 6 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

He did so because he knew that transfer 1 bids were not supposed to be legal in Mid-Chart events. I didn't participate very much in any of the discussion, but as far as I recall, the opponents said they'd been told they could play the transfer 1 bids and pointed to the line in the Mid-Chart that said bids showing 4+ cards in a known suit were allowed; Chip explained that there also had to be an approved description & defense and suggested to the Director that he consult the ACBL management person who at that time was in charge of Conventions (I honestly don't remember who it was). The Director did so and was told that the method was not legal. He therefore told the players that it was not legal. How a defense was posted on the website I do not know & neither does Chip. I do not recall that the opponents had a defense from the website, but I certainly have no recollection that they didn't either. If Josh says they did, I'm sure he's right. I'm also confident that the Director's ruling was correct and was made after careful investigation. Richard may be right that the fact that a defense had been posted on the ACBL website gave the players grounds for a lawsuit (I don't think so but maybe), but it did not give them the right to play the bids.

This last statement is simply not accurate in that it does not comply with the laws of bridge.

Specifically the director is bound by the laws and announced regulations.

It is irrelevant what Chip or some other luminary thinks has been approved if the announced regulations include an approved defense then the director by law is bound to allow the pair to play that method.

The director is completely outside his authority if he rules otherwise.

[jdonn]

Jan, or JoshS if you're reading this, or anyone who was there, I guess I'm wondering how you think this happened. There are just so many unanswered questions. Why did Chip call the director if they had printed defenses? Was he on the C&C committee at the time and thus 'knew' those defenses hadn't been approved by the committee, or did he know some other way? And if so how did the defenses get on the website, and for that matter why did that director who was corresponding with Josh say they were approved, was he just wrong? Or did the conditions of contest or some regulation state that defenses posted on the website were automatically approved? But if that's the case then how can a website overrule the committee who is tasked to make such approvals? Further, Josh says the director he was corresponding with was coordinating the committee, but is that committee even coordinated by a director?

I mean whether you think fault is with the director that day, the powers-that-be who he consulted with, Chip, the director who corresponded with Josh, the invisible gremlin who posted the defenses on the website, the committee who over 2 years possibly failed to notice that defenses they hadn't approved (or had they?) were listed on the website, or whoever, it all just looks hopelessly bad for the ACBL!

I have generally felt very reluctant to criticize the ACBL as much as many people do, despite sharing many of the commonly held feelings. It's a job I wouldn't want to do, it's probably not very high paying for most positions, it allows me to play bridge which I love to do, it sends me a monthly bulletin that kills half an hour of my life every month, many people who work for it and volunteer on committees are my friends, and in practice all the 'crap' causes me very few problems*. But how could an organization with so many members possibly be so dreadfully mismanaged like this? It's really shameful. Sorry Jan, I have mostly come to your defense here and in general but I feel I have to say, I don't buy that they are in the process of reorganizing. They certainly could use that but this has been going on for much much longer than such a process would take. And frankly if they are reorganizing, what benefits have we seen from it so far? That sounds to me like a fairly lame excuse.

*Notable exception: Cell phone ban!

[straube]

I was thinking how we got to this point in the thread. Wayne wrote...

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

The laws restrict a directors power.  If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

To a subsequent and similar quote, Fred responded...

fred, on Feb 2 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

Well I have a little more respect for most TDs than to refer to their judgment as "whims", but let's call it that if it makes you happy.

Yes, this is a flaw, but the source is something that I was assuming as a given: that the GCC itself is flawed. This necessitates *someone's* whims being used to resolve ambiguity.

Can't you see that it is better to have the whims of a single person (who is in theory unbiased and in theory skilled in such matters) being the only whims that count as opposed to the whims of all the players (who are biased and who, by and large, have no skills and training in this area)?

I haven't seen anyone state very clearly that they prefer to have the whims of all the players to that of a TD. Doesn't one concede the argument unless one can state exactly that?

Wayne's line of reasoning prompted Jan to offer this experience....

JanM, on Feb 1 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

Your comments on this thread remind me of a time many years ago when I was playing in an NABC pair event with Chip. A pair came to our table and explained that their 1♣ opening showed 4+ hearts and their 1♦ opening showed 4+ spades. I asked Chip what we did against that and he said that we called the director because it was illegal. We called the director; the opponents said that the method was legal because the Midchart said you could play any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. Chip said that he knew it was illegal because the Midchart also requires an approved defense. The director looked confused, went off to consult with someone else and eventually returned to say that (surprise) Chip was right and the opponents could not use their methods in this event. We played the two boards against them. They went off to the next table, where we heard them explaining to their new opponents that their 1♣ opening showed 4+ hearts and their 1♦ opening showed 4+ spades! Of course, by this time we were late, so although we did call the Director, we didn't pay attention to what went on at the next table, so I don't know whether they were penalized or just told not to do that any more.

She didn't state names. She didn't say where the pair came from. Her point wasn't about whether the pair was using illegal methods or not. Her point was that they decided to ignore the director...just as Wayne was proposing. She thought that was wrong. So would a lot of people.

In her last post, she said that the pair might have grounds for a lawsuit (she didn't think that was probably the case) but as she wrote...

JanM said:

I remember that part of the whole thing much more than anything else because I was shocked and unhappy that anyone would deliberately disobey the Director's clear ruling.

I'm just asking whether the focus of the prior debate is being shifted away from whether the TD's rulings should be followed. It seems that Jan is making allowance for the Australian pair having been wronged (by the ACBL), but she still obviously feels that the TD should have been respected and that any redress should have occurred later.

There's a saying "Hard cases make for bad law." Now it looks like the Australian pair had a very hard case. Assuming that all the facts are on their side and given that they'd done all the correct preparation and flew all that way and paid all that money. And given that they then had to randomly throw tops to whomever and ruin their own game besides...do we really want to go so far as to suggest that they made the right decision in playing their system...at least at the next table? To set themselves up as the final authority in that room as to the legality of their methods?

Now I wouldn't like it if I thought that a TD listened to my opponent over me because he was a "luminary". But what's to be done really? Do "luminaries" not have the right to question their opponents' methods? Must directors rule against them because they are "luminaries"?

It seems like we're starting to rehash the particulars of an old case and aspersions are being cast without all of the facts.

The debate we were starting to have on revisions to the charts so as to get more consistent rulings seemed more constructive.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Feb 6 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

I'm also confident that the Director's ruling was correct and was made after careful investigation. Richard may be right that the fact that a defense had been posted on the ACBL website gave the players grounds for a lawsuit (I don't think so but maybe), but it did not give them the right to play the bids.

Let me preface the following by stating directly that I don't agree with the Aussies decision to ignore the directors ruling and try to use their same methods at the next table.

I criticized this decision when I originally heard about it.
I still think that their decision was wrong.

At the same time, this seems to be a case where the director made a very big mistake.

As I already noted, the ACBL's published conventions licensing structure established requirements that a suggested defense be published in the ACBL's defensive database.

The licensing system said nothing about whether or not the Conventions Committee needed to approve said defense. (The reason that I know this is that I specifically recall that the wording struck me as more than a bit odd).

The reason that I find this thread so ludicrous is that all of the principles are making the precisely the same mistake.

Jan is perfectly correct when she criticizes the Aussies from ignoring the Director's instruction. At the same time, she is asserting that Chip and the director are correct in ignoring the written Conditions of Contest and inventing rulings that are consistent with the way the regulations were supposed to be written.

I would argue that the requirement that the directors enforce the Laws as written, warts and all, is directly equivalent to the requirement that players obey an incorrect ruling.

BTW, while you might be quite sure that the Direcotr's ruling was correct, I'm equally sure that its wrong. I can point to any number of screw ups by senior directors in National level events. This director was working under the special handicap that a member of the Conventions Committee was raising a complaint directly related to his area of supposed expertise...

[david_c]

JanM, on Feb 6 2009, 07:08 AM, said:

2. Convention Charts
Please note the name - ACBL Convention Charts and General Convention chart. The Mid-Chart and Super-Chart don't have "Convention" in their names (maybe because it sounds funny) but they also regulate only conventions, not natural bids. That's why you don't find anything in any of the charts specifically allowing a 1♠ opening bid or overcall that shows 4+ spades - that is not a convention and isn't regulated by the convention charts.

You are right of course (I think most people here are aware of this). But the point is, it shouldn't be like this. A large part of the ambiguity in the charts can be put down to the fact that non-conventional bids are dealt with only implicitly.

It is bad enough having an implicit rule in the first place, but this one is particularly bad in that the term "convention" isn't well defined. And, even worse, the charts define a term "natural" that a naive reader might think was intended to be synonymous with "non-conventional", whereas we know that actually it isn't. (See Adam's favourite example of 2M showing 5M4+m weak.)

Here in EBUland things are done explicitly: whether or not a bid is conventional, it is only allowed if there is a particular rule that covers it. Of course, the rules are carefully designed to include all the usual natural bids, so the end result is what you would expect. For example, a two-of-suit opening bid can have "any single meaning that includes at least four cards in the suit bid", which includes all your natural two-bids (and much more as well). We don't need to worry about what is or is not conventional, because everything that is allowed is there explicitly. (And as a result, we don't call our regulations "convention charts": we use the term "permitted agreements".)

It is possible that the ACBL's implicit approach could be improved. A good start would be an explanation of why they have defined the word "natural" - what is the relevance of that to what is allowed? But I suspect that it's impossible to get really clear regulations in this way, and explicit rules are the solution.

[qwery_hi]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

I would argue that the requirement that the directors enforce the Laws as written, warts and all, is directly equivalent to the requirement that players obey an incorrect ruling.

I agree 100% with what you say. Players and TD's should follow the laws. Which is why extra care should be taken to make the laws about what bids are allowed / disallowed as crystal clear as possible.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again -IMO, the GCC is unnecessarily complicated. I think players with less than 1000 MPs typically play in events where only the GCC is allowed. How many of these players play something other than {SAYC, 2/1, precision, short club}? If the GCC was changed to allow only these systems, the vast majority of players who play in events where only the GCC is allowed will have no complaints.

The intent of the TD's and the GCC committee today is to "protect" these members from esoteric systems where, for example, 1D would show 4+ spades. As someone with less than 100 MPs I find this satisfactory. If the GCC was changed as above, what is the worst accusation someone could make about the committee - that they are inhibiting innovation at the lower levels of the game? If I was on the committee, I would lose no sleep over this complaint.

All the enormously complicated discussions about what constitutes a psychic 2C opening are not something the GCC players should have to worry about. Clear guidelines at the GCC level for what constitutes a psych of a 2C opener can be given. Of course, I realize this will not satisfy everyone even in the GCC level.

I realise that the above proposal doesn't solve any of the real issues. It just moves them from the GCC to the mid-chart and above.

[glen]

A couple of examples of the masses not "protected" from the well knowns:

1) Last Washington NABC, Pairs event:

1♣-1♥(o/c)-1♠ Alert!

Please explain: "Denies 4 or longer spades"

TD Please

I say to the TD "nowhere in the convention charts is this artificial bid allowed"

Opponents, well-known: "We talked to the chief TD beforehand, and he said its okay"

TD: "carry on"

2) Use of Drury opposite a 1st or 2nd seat major suit opening - had been done and continues to be used by well known pairs.

[blackshoe]

david_c, on Feb 6 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

You are right of course (I think most people here are aware of this). But the point is, it shouldn't be like this. A large part of the ambiguity in the charts can be put down to the fact that non-conventional bids are dealt with only implicitly.

At the time the charts were originally drafted (and in fact until last September, in the ACBL) the Laws did not allow regulation of (most) natural calls. Therefore, presumably, there seemed no point to the drafters in mentioning them. Perhaps that was naive, certainly it should be re-examined in the light of the new laws, but I don't think It's as big a problem as you seem to think.

Quote

It is bad enough having an implicit rule in the first place, but this one is particularly bad in that the term "convention" isn't well defined.

That there was controversy over the definition is the reason the term is no longer defined at all. The current laws speak to "artificial calls", viz. "A bid, double or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named, or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or promises or denies values other than in the last suit named." I'm sure there are those here who will take exception to this definition, but it seems clear enough to me - and clear enough that the the example bid (2M showing 5M and 4+m, weak) is artifiicial. The laws also speak to "special partnership understanding", viz. "one whose meaning, in the opinion of the regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." By this definition it seems clear to me that in general both the example above and the "1m transfer with 4+M" bid are candidates to be so regulated.

That the ACBL has not yet caught up with the new terminology is unfortunate, but these thing do take time.

qwery_hi said:

How many of these players play something other than {SAYC, 2/1, precision, short club}? If the GCC was changed to allow only these systems, the vast majority of players who play in events where only the GCC is allowed will have no complaints.

I can't speak to the history of regulation in the ACBL, but I came back into duplicate in England at a time when the EBU was changing from regulating systems to regulating individual conventions. The reason they did that is that it had become clear that what constitutes any particular system was a matter of (many different) opinion(s), so that regulating systems as such had become untenable. I suspect much the same thing happened here in North America.

In theory, I can play Romex under the GCC. At its heart, the only significant difference between Romex and (some forms of) 2/1 is the structure dealing with strong openings. One of those is an artificial 1NT opening. I'd hate to lose my opportunity to play Romex because this one bid (a linchpin of the system) is removed from the GCC.

[blackshoe]

Glen: in case 1, I would have asked to speak to the CTD. I would have asked the CTD to show me the regulation allowing this. In case 2, this is clearly illegal, and a TD who does not so rule should IMO be fired.

[jdonn]

glen, on Feb 6 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

A couple of examples of the masses not "protected" from the well knowns:
...
2) Use of Drury opposite a 1st or 2nd seat major suit opening - had been done and continues to be used by well known pairs.

Well known pairs? Such as?

[straube]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again -IMO, the GCC is unnecessarily complicated. I think players with less than 1000 MPs typically play in events where only the GCC is allowed. How many of these players play something other than {SAYC, 2/1, precision, short club}? If the GCC was changed to allow only these systems, the vast majority of players who play in events where only the GCC is allowed will have no complaints.

I don't think this restriction would work. There's lots of variants of these systems. For instance, there's Power Precision and Matchpoint Precision and RM Precision and a number of home-baked systems that people call Precision; some of these systems promise 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 diamonds with their 1D opening, for example. There's Max Hardy's concept of 2/1 vs Mike Lawrence, etc. You'd have to specify which systems particularly you meant and then you'd deny people the opportunity to depart from notes that they didn't like. Also, you'd be excluding ACOL and Goren and any number of strong club systems like Blue Team or Schenken. The ACBL was right not to go down that road.

[hrothgar]

straube, on Feb 6 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again -IMO, the GCC is unnecessarily complicated. I think players with less than 1000 MPs typically play in events where only the GCC is allowed. How many of these players play something other than {SAYC, 2/1, precision, short club}? If the GCC was changed to allow only these systems, the vast majority of players who play in events where only the GCC is allowed will have no complaints.

Just to be clear, I didn't write this

Hrothgar (Who is currently trapped on the Carnival "Destiny")

[TimG]

I think it is a great idea to make the GCC more restrictive. Someone has already brought up the oddity of allowing a nebulous 1D opening but disallowing a 1D opening that shows hearts. (Yes, I am well aware that this was an effort to grandfather certain methods.) But, I would not be opposed to removing those grandfathered items and making the GCC consistent in its treatment of methods.

My suggestion would be to make the GCC such that it allows primarily natural methods. 4-card majors and 5-card majors, convenient minors or not, weak or strong NTs, etc. I'd be fine with removing strong club systems from the GCC, as well.

It would obviously be up to the tournament organizers, but my idea would be for the GCC to apply mostly to Flight C events.

Create a new chart between the General Convention Chart and the Mid-Level Convention Chart that would be intended for use in Open/Flights A pair events and Flight B events. This would likely be the most used chart and would be similar to the current GCC. Add items to this chart that would allow for common artificial methods. But, be consistent: if you allow an "all-purpose" 1C opening, also allow an "all-purpose" 1D or 1S opening; if you allow a nebulous 1D opening, also allow a nebulous 1C or 1H opening.

Structure the Mid-Level Convention Chart so that it allows certain classes of methods. Examples: a constructive opening bid that promises length in a known suit; a weak opening that shows the suit named and an unknown second suit; an opening which shows two known suits; a weak opening which could contain either of two suits (neither of which are the suit names); game forcing relay systems that start no sooner than opener's rebid; etc.

I'm not a real big fan of the defense approval process and am not really sure who should ultimately be responsible for creating the defenses. (I think the answer is probably that I should be responsible for creating a defense to my opponents' methods.) But, it would probably be nice to transition to this type of MLCC by providing generic defenses with examples of specific defenses to specific methods. For instance, a generic defense to a transfer opening would be provided along with the specifics of how this generic defense would be applied to a 1D transfer opening. But, there would be no need to also provide a specific defense to a 1H transfer opening. No, these generic defenses would not be perfect -- pairs that spend time preparing their own defenses might well have an advantage, but so do pairs that spend time working out the details of their non-competitive auctions.

This MLCC would be intended for use in Flight A events with 6+ board segments/rounds.

[akhare]

TimG, on Feb 6 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

I think it is a great idea to make the GCC more restrictive.  Someone has already brought up the oddity of allowing a nebulous 1D opening but disallowing a 1D opening that shows hearts.  (Yes, I am well aware that this was an effort to grandfather certain methods.)  But, I would not be opposed to removing those grandfather items and making the GCC consistent in its treatment of methods.

For what it's worth, I would like to voice my vociferous objection to such an idea. To me, it would be proverberial last straw and cause me quit the ACBL permanently.

Rewording the GCC so that it's more clear is one thing, making it a straitjacket is another (unless they put in a flight "C" restrictions only clause or something like that).

BTW, my objection stems from the fact that the GCC is the de facto standard for a lot of events. If this means that we'll have a lot of events that are NOT subject to the GCC, I would certainly be open to the idea.

[hrothgar]

While there are elements of Tim's suggestions that I very much like, I disagree pretty strongly on one important point: I don't think that the Conventions Committee should have the power to specify that tournament sponsors MUST use a certain set of conventions regulations in a given event.

I believe that the tournament sponsor is the one empowered to make this sort of decision. I'm quite sure that the local Districts agree (I can point to any number of examples where Districts in New England and California have started inventing their own conventions charts)

I don't see anything wrong with the Conventions Committee designing charts that it feels are appropriate for teams games with 6+ boards/pair games/no fear events what have you. I'd even go so far as to say that this strikes me as a good idea.

However, at the end of the day, the folks running the tournament are the ones that get to decide what is/is not legit... I suppose that the ACBL could decide to make a stink and refuse to grant master points for sectionals/regionals that don't conform to some stupid chart. However, I'll I think that pigs will fly long before the ACBL turns down card fees

[JanM]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

Jan, or JoshS if you're reading this, or anyone who was there, I guess I'm wondering how you think this happened. There are just so many unanswered questions. Why did Chip call the director if they had printed defenses? Was he on the C&C committee at the time and thus 'knew' those defenses hadn't been approved by the committee, or did he know some other way? And if so how did the defenses get on the website, and for that matter why did that director who was corresponding with Josh say they were approved, was he just wrong? Or did the conditions of contest or some regulation state that defenses posted on the website were automatically approved? But if that's the case then how can a website overrule the committee who is tasked to make such approvals? Further, Josh says the director he was corresponding with was coordinating the committee, but is that committee even coordinated by a director?

I honestly can't answer all of the "how did this happen" question. I can answer some of your questions:
Chip was, at the time, on the C&C Committee and also on the Subcommittee charged with approving conventions. Therefore he did in fact know that these bids had not been approved. I suspect, but don't know, that the Conditions of Contest said only that Mid-Chart methods were allowed. The C&C committee is "coordinated" by someone from ACBL management - that has usually been a person who had directing experience, but I don't know whether it always has been. As I said, I don't recall who the person was at that time.

Quote

I mean whether you think fault is with the director that day, the powers-that-be who he consulted with, Chip, the director who corresponded with Josh, the invisible gremlin who posted the defenses on the website, the committee who over 2 years possibly failed to notice that defenses they hadn't approved (or had they?) were listed on the website, or whoever, it all just looks hopelessly bad for the ACBL!

You are correct. People do sometimes get things wrong. In the case of ACBL, people got more things wrong 10 years ago than they do now and even more 20+ years ago. I first became involved with "administration" about 40 years ago because of the bad treatment women received then (no childcare, no Team Trials, I've forgotten the rest of the things that the now-defunct Forum for Women in Bridge dealt with). All we can do is try to help improve matters.

Quote

I have generally felt very reluctant to criticize the ACBL as much as many people do, despite sharing many of the commonly held feelings. It's a job I wouldn't want to do, it's probably not very high paying for most positions, it allows me to play bridge which I love to do, it sends me a monthly bulletin that kills half an hour of my life every month, many people who work for it and volunteer on committees are my friends, and in practice all the 'crap' causes me very few problems*. But how could an organization with so many members possibly be so dreadfully mismanaged like this? It's really shameful.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "dreadfully mismanaged." ACBL "manages" a lot of things. In my experience, much of what they do is very well managed - when I show up to play at a tournament, there's a place to buy entries, a place to play, cards to play with, directors to supervise the game. Time schedules are usually adhered to. There are committees to review Director rulings when a player disagrees with one. There are even reviewers to review the committees

Of course there are problems. I used to have trouble finding things on the ACBL website, but that's probably because my idea of how to organize things was different from whoever designed the site (and perhaps also the things I am most interested in aren't those that the majority of members care about). This particular incident resulted from some error somewhere (I don't know how it happened). Similarly, the confusion over whether a 1♣ opening bid that could be 2 clubs is "artificial" or not caused inconsistent rulings for a while. But both of those problems have been addressed - the Mid-Chart is now clear (I think) both on the point that transfer 1 bids aren't allowed (except a 1♥ bid showing 5+ spades) and on the point that a 1m bid is "natural" only if it shows 3+ cards in the suit named.

Quote

Sorry Jan, I have mostly come to your defense here and in general but I feel I have to say, I don't buy that they are in the process of reorganizing. They certainly could use that but this has been going on for much much longer than such a process would take. And frankly if they are reorganizing, what benefits have we seen from it so far? That sounds to me like a fairly lame excuse.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say that ACBL's current re-shuffle of personnel assignments in any way excused things that happened in the past. What I was trying to say was that current communication about C&C might be less good than it should be (and even less good than it has been recently) because there doesn't seem to be a management person assigned to that job yet, since Rick Beye's responsibilities have changed. But I should mention that recent changes in personnel have, I think, improved some things, notably information at NABC's about where to go for different events.

[DrTodd13]

If you want to restrict GCC to "natural" bidding then, IMO, you can only allow 4 card majors. 5 card majors and 3 card minors may be extremely common and second nature for you but it takes a bit of brainwashing to truly believe that bidding a 3 card suit when you have a 4 card suit is "natural." Defining "natural" differently depending on the level of the opening and whether it is a minor or a major is nothing but designed to allow existing systems.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

While there are elements of Tim's suggestions that I very much like, I disagree pretty strongly on one important point: I don't think that the Conventions Committee should have the power to specify that tournament sponsors MUST use a certain set of conventions regulations in a given event.

You misread the post, Richard. Included in my post:

Quote

It would obviously be up to the tournament organizers, but my idea [for when GCC would apply].

. I agree to a large extent that tournament organizers should have the power to set their own convention charts. Though I also think a good case can be made for standardizing the use of convention charts at all ACBL regionals.

[TimG]

akhare, on Feb 6 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 6 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

I think it is a great idea to make the GCC more restrictive.  Someone has already brought up the oddity of allowing a nebulous 1D opening but disallowing a 1D opening that shows hearts.  (Yes, I am well aware that this was an effort to grandfather certain methods.)  But, I would not be opposed to removing those grandfather items and making the GCC consistent in its treatment of methods.

For what it's worth, I would like to voice my vociferous objection to such an idea. To me, it would be proverberial last straw and cause me quit the ACBL permanently.

Rewording the GCC so that it's more clear is one thing, making it a straitjacket is another (unless they put in a flight "C" restrictions only clause or something like that).

Yes, part of my suggestion was an additional convention chart that "would likely be the most used chart and would be similar to the current GCC". Though if you read what I wrote, you will see that while the new chart would be similar to the current GCC, it would end up being a bit less restrictive than it is now.

While it would be my proposal that the new, more restrictive chart would be used primarily for Flight C events, it would ultimately be up to the tournament sponsors to determine which charts to use for which events.