From: danny@cs.su.oz (Danny Yee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Not another Jihad (some EVIDENCE)
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:41:39 GMT
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia

In article <1992Apr8.152338.18345@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:
>Danny, the problem here is that Australians have never had to deal with the
>restrictions that are in practice here.  People are always acclimated to the
>status quo.  I don't think either Nick or I is saying that we completely
>stagnate the game of bridge, merely moderate it.

Point taken, but Nick at least seemed to be opposing *any* attempt to
liberalise system conventions.   I suspect that it would only take a couple
of years for the vast majority of ACBL members to acclimatise to relaxed
restrictions.

>My position has always been that we should relax the restrictions, but very
>slowly so that everyone has a chance to cope with everything.  Nick would like
>to enjoy the game as is, but let's face it...people who like the game as is,
>are willing to adjust to small changes.  If we progress slowly towards a more
>open convention chart then we will be able to bring everyone along with the
>changes.  If we make radical changes now, we *ARE* in danger of losing
>thousands of people in the US from the game.

Well maybe you protect those people - it is not necessary to have a monolithic
system, and I believe I pointed out that we do have a fair amount of protection
for beginners, social players, etc and that freedom was only guarrenteed in
"serious" competition.  I very stongly believe that even if most events
are restricted high level events should be "anything goes" 
(state championships, etc.).  

>I understand that in Australia and Europe and many other places that
>convention restrictions are more lax, this means it is possible, not that it
>can be done today.

I particularly object to the ACBL putting pressure on the WBF to ban HUM 
systems in world events.   Perhaps they need to protect the American teams? :-)
It seems to me that they are *not* just trying to protect their members, they
are arguing that HUM systems are bad in themselves.

[[ disclaimer - almost everything I know about bridge in America comes from
reading this newsgroup ]]

(note that this is not personal - if I ever make it into an Australian youth 
team I will be playing acol)

>Right.  And as I mentioned before, they have never experienced a restricted
>game.  They learned the game with all of these elements in it.  It's much
>easier for them to cope with something when it has always been there.
>However, the players in the US have never had to cope with many of these
>things and will have a hard time coping with them.

Most players in Australia did not learn the game when unusual things were
being played.  Forcing pass was first played here within the last 10 years,
for example.

>If we added a few things at a time (like starting with *ALL* transfer bids
>now...since people are familiar with Jacoby Transfers already) then people
>would be able to cope with the changes.

Now that sounds like a good idea.  

Some other posibilities for relatively simple things are:
	canape openings 
	relay systems (*)

(*) it is suprising how rarely full relay auctions occur, and relay
auctions are *always* constructive.

Danny Yee.