Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 1992 11:04:23 -0400 
From: Brian Bankler <bb2u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Restricting conventions

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.bridge: 3-Oct-92 Re: Restricting
Conventions Alan Jaffray@oreo.berkel (1436)

> In article <1992Oct2.193944.10380@linus.mitre.org> bs@mendel.mitre.org
> (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct2.173132.18978@head-cfa.harvard.edu>
> willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
> >:In article <17675@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu
> >:(Chip Martel) writes: 
> >:> it is wrong for a pair to gain a substantial advantage by playing a
> >:> convention due to its SURPRISE EFFECT.  The surprise effect is the
> >:> gain which comes purely because the opponents have not had a
> >:> reasonable chance to prepare to play against the convention.
>  
> >Please tell me why Roman, which has been around for at least 30 years,
> >published in books, and used extensively in international competition
> >has been banned by the ACBL.  One cannot claim 'surprise'. This is an
> >old and well published system.

> Well... No-Name, a bizarre forcing pass system that I've played against
> a couple of times, has been around for at least ten years, has been 
> published, and has been used in international competition multiple times.
> Clearly one cannot claim surprise, since it's an old and published system.
> Right?

> No.  The surprise effect is caused not by the unfamiliarity on a world level,
> but by personal unfamiliarity, by never having played against the system
> before.  And this is what's wrong with barring conventions just because 
> the opponents haven't seen it before.  There always has to be a first time.

> -- Alan

	Wait.  I think that there is some backwards logic here.
I've heard of Roman, I've seen Multi discussed etc etc etc.  I've
never heard of No-name.  No-name gets personal suprise because
nobody knows about it (Well, almost nobody.  Or am I the only
one?)  But I've heard of the others.  Probably the only reason
I haven't played against the others is that they are banned.
Using the logic that people haven't seen something before to
keep them from seeing something the first time seems more
reasonable when something important is it stake.  For example,
I certainly wouldn't want to be the first patient to undergo
surgery on a radical technique if my life isn't in danger without
it.  But I'm willing to chuck a few master points to learn to
defend against Multi.

	Alan, the problem is, that with the ACBL rules, there
isn't a first time.  Perhaps the ACBL should attempt to help
people ease into the idea for a few years (matter of personal
choice on implementation.  I don't really care as long as something
is done...) by making Open convention games worth more points
(to attract people) or maybe worth less points (to keep the
conservatives appeased).  But they should definetly start 
having them.

	I agree that not every convention should be allowed.  
At least not in typical pairs games.  At knockouts, I'm willing
to give it a go (with the caveat that I get a few hours to look at
your card, or pamphlet or book or encyclopedia).  At swiss I'm
unsure.  
	But just the fact that the system can be abused doesn't
mean it shouldn't be used.  The current convention system can
be abused.

				Brian