From: piglet.caltech.edu!hastings (Curtis A. Hastings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: replies to conv restrictions and much more
Date: 3 Oct 1992 04:47:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bidboxes for leftys and 'pls hesitate' discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: christopher.caltech.edu
Originator: hastings@christopher

(much belabored discussion deleted, much more to follow)
> [out of context, clipped from Chip's first post]
> >> In the 1990 World Pair Olympiad no conventional openings which could  
be
> >> weak and did not promise length in a known suit were allowed (except
> >> multi which no longer has any surprise effect).
SO WHY IS MULTI STILL ILLEGAL IN ACBL PLAY????????????????????????
> This seems like an excellent idea for, say, a Flight A event in  
ACBL-land.
> Change "weak" to "less than 14", and make exceptions for a nebulous or
(maybe <11...If you can defend vs omnibus 1d (already legal, when  
accompanied by strong club) you can defend against other omnibus bids  
showing 10-13 or so hcp, whether they deny shape or no))
> balanced-shape intermediate-strength bid (including but not limited to
> Precision 1D), and it would work, no?  Leaves room for creativity, but
> also ensures that the opponents have an anchor suit to work with.
This is the crux of the situation.  My biggest complaint with the current  
system of convention restriction (basically, if its not on the gcc, you  
cant play it) is that innovative ideas that are _primarily_ natural and  
constructive are discouraged.  An example would be relays over 1/minor  
(which i believe to still be illegal).  If you know what the opponents  
have, who cares what actually just emerged from their mouths.  The auction  
1d-1h! (=spades)  is like the auction 1n-2h! (xfer)...if you have h, you  
can double.  Nobody has a problem with that (at least not in flight A).   
If you want to bid that suit preemptively you can still do so.
> Is anyone really scared of a 1D opening showing spades, or a nebulous
scared of defending it, or that the opponents are in for a good score  
since their special sequence has arien.  See below.
> 1S opening, or a 2H opening showing spades and a minor?  A rule such
> as this seems to be the best divider between "scary" systems and
> easily defendable systems that I've seen... comments?
Well, i _do_ understand the motivation between convention restrictions (to  
keep the lol's and lom's at tmnnts, and to encourage newcomers) but the  
situation has become grossly distorted recently.  Although i play very few  
tmnts, and am not an acbl member (see below), i have heard discussion of  
how flight B used to be 0-300 and now i have seen as high as 0-1500.  This  
has all become necesary because those same lol's and lom's who play every  
weekend have finally accumulated enough masterpoints that they have to  
play A or B, thus distorting the strength balance between the flights.   
So, to keep them coming, the acbl protects them in A.  Maybe for a strat  
game restrictions would be ok, but i think for those who really want to  
play bridge in all its complexity, there should be a flight with as few  
restrictions as possible. (personally, i only play A, and i dont join,  
since i see no real benefit for accumulating my mp's since they will never  
reflect my playing ability if i play 5 tmnts/yr, maybe 3 sessions/tmnt)
As for me, i have no problem playing against the conventions outlined in  
the preceeding paragraph, and in fact i play supermulti on okbridge (with  
milan2).  Every time it comes up the opponents get the detailed  
explanation, and nobody has complained yet.
I also think that some people resent original conventions, even ones that  
arise generally in power auction sequences, not because they must defend  
against them if their hands indicate they should enter the auction, but  
because they tend to occur only at the one table, which ususally means a  
bad matchpoint result is incipient.  My response is simple.
*Well, thats tough.  When opponents bid maxiroman against me, im getting a  
bad score, so when my descriptive 2d opener comes up, you can get a bad  
score too.*
I think a logical solution for the acbl would be to adopt both new  
classification scheme for flights, _and_ a new rating system that could  
float, simultaneously.  This would result in several profound changes.
1) people who wanted to could play in flights representative of their  
strength.
2) people wouldnt go to tournaments and play just to get masterpoints.
Of course, this would result in slightly lowered attendance at  
tournaments.  However, for some time (i dont think it is going on anymore)  
the uscf (us chess fed.), which uses floating ratings, gave 1 bonus point  
for each rated game played.  Of course, they had to pump points out of the  
system to compensate and maintain the avg and peak at same level, but  
those players who wanted to maintain an artificially high rating could do  
so by playing often.  perhaps a similar system could be made to work in  
acbl.
3) the effect of 2 would be manyfold.  first, at the end of pairs events,  
those people who were aware that they were not winning anything would not  
lack motivation to play well.  I can recall more than one case where  
opponents in late rounds came to my table and, basically, dumped points  
since they did not care.  Hence, the field protection dissapated.  Second,  
the ratings would be useful.  When the masterpoint system was first  
introduced it took (i think) 10 mps to become an LM.  well, if you can get  
mps for finishing with 50% in a club game, whats the point of judging  
skill by them anymore.  Third, the popularity of both chess and table  
tennis (which both adopted the Elo floating rating system in the '60s  
(chess) and 70's (tt)) rose as a result.  Fourth, titles, such as life  
master, would regain meaning, especially if their achievement was  
conditional on making "norms" such as the FIDE requires for international  
chess titles.  (a norm is a result that a player of that title would be  
expected to make in a given field, ie a GM norm would be that which a 2575  
gm would be expected to make in a field of certain strength).
Anyway, this discussion has become a _little_ longwinded, but i felt i  
needed to get these ideas out for commentary.  A lot of this would not be  
easy to realize in the current american bridge atmosphere, but i would  
appreciate any comments.....
                                                 curt