Conventions – is the ACBL falling behind
Playing 2H is weak with 5/5 in hearts and a minor doesn’t seem very hard to defend. If you don’t want to think about it too much you can play your normal defense to weak 2 bids quite adequately. Still we can’t play this convention in many competitions. I had to submit 9 copies of the ACBL defense to the convention weeks ago. I have to bring 2 copies to the table. Is this really necessary at an event where we pick an international team? I find it a bit scary.
You can see from the poll on my blog site which I will leave up until I get back from the west coast that most of you think the ACBL is falling behind. The strange thing for me is that the current list of conventions don’t prevent partnerships from playing unfamiliar conventions anyway. I can play 4 card majors with canape and transfer responses, no problem. I am fine with the idea that in events limited to players with less than 500 master points that conventions are restricted. I see no reason to restrict any other events with the exception of excluding Highly Unusual Methods (HUM’s) such as forcing pass.
The reason North American pairs have trouble when they meet up with slightly different conventions is that they don’t get to play against them. Innovations are stiffled or sent in directions that work within the “allowed” system but may not be best. Get with it ACBL. There must be a better way.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
I believe that for an international trial you should permit the methods and agreements that are permitted in the target event. However I’m not sure how much difference that this would make in the ACBL as pairs would only ever play such methods at the trial and, not permitted to play them regularly, most would default to the mundane.
So I agree that the ACBL needs to do more, but I live in the land of the free (or at least less constrained) known as the UK. But the vast majority of players in the ACBL do not agree. So it is hard to argue that the ACBL is wrong when they are keeping most of their constituency happy.
A tough position.
I think it’s time for the ACBL to have another look at SAYC — this time with more than just a roundtable meeting at an NABC. When I played in the Green Point events sponsored by the Pro Bridge Tour we played a standard modified SAYC card where we agreed on a few carding and treatment methods left optional by the Yellow Card and we added Splinter bids. It worked. But SAYC is antiquated. Why not take a year with a committee of some of the finest players proposing a simple card that works, and let folks comment, then lock in the result for a new decade. Maybe folks could then learn and play with some idea of what is considered good bidding by the majority.
Chris, I think there are two different ideas and that your proposal doesn’t really address the issue that Linda raises.
Issue 1 is the ACBL babies its players by being overly restrictive and not allowing conventions that would be legal in most of the world. Part of this is tied to GCC being too common and too restrictive and midchart being still not that loose, and still not that common. Multi is the most obvious and most commented on issue, but other bids like the 2M weak with 5 in the major and 5 in a minor being midchart or a multi-landy defense to 1nt being midchart are other examples.
Issue 2 is that the SAYC is not well known and doesn’t reflect what most people play. US expert standard would be 2/1, and a 2/1YC could be developed and allow people to play with what is considered good bidding by the majority. BWS sort of does that at the world stage, although BWS may be more extensive and less simple to follow than SAYC.
There are multiple problems with issue 1, the one Linda mentions. One is it upsets people who like to experiment with different systems. These are often the same young people that clubs and the ACBL would love to see more of. Another is that you can’t get as good practice playing this system if you were planning on playing it where legal (like in world competition). And of course you also don’t get good practice defending against it. Another is that it develops an attitude that anyone who doesn’t bid the way the typical ACBL player expects is viewed as suspect and borderline cheating by many. And partially as a result most people don’t develop partnership meta-agreements that could handle unusual or unexpected situations.
Michael your comment sums it up perfectly
I concur, but the ACBL must cater to its membership, most of whom have no interest in world class or even NABC++ events, and therefor don’t want any part of allowing newer methods into their clubs. One of my partners (and co-author/system inventor) play Advanced American which,while different, is entirely within the GC. We are moving into Expert American now that it is almost published (I finally got to write it!) and it, too, is within GC guidelines. But we still get snide remarks when we play it at the club. Nevertheless, many have adopted parts of it like 1C CBS (2 cards) and CRO responses to Blackwood. So maybe there is hope…
Perhaps the idea of allowing a free-for-all in some unrestricted regional events might be the solution. That would allow everyone to practice their systems and defenses to same.
“the ACBL must cater to its membership, most of whom have no interest in world class or even NABC++ events, and therefor don’t want any part of allowing newer methods into their clubs”
–
I find that to be an interesting comment. Why is it that Americans aren’t interested in anything new or different? Or is it even true? I’m not at all sure that it is so, and even to the extent that it is, perhaps if people were exposed to some different things their attitude would change.