From: chen@wintermute.wustl.edu (The Chenster)
Subject: Jihad and other things
Organization: Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri USA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:46:22 GMT

   I recieved a ton of mail about my last post.  Thanks to all of of you 
who wrote in support.  To all who disagreed we with, and especially to N. S.
I realize I was purposefully taking some of N. S.'s  arguments out of 
context and using them for my own (humorous) ends.  

  Of course the analogy between bridge and chess is flawed because
the point of a bidding system is communication with your partner.
However the purpose of my satirical argument was to say that the 
argument of restricting conventions because it was difficult to play 
against them is detrimental to the development of the game.  If a system
is sound, it should eventually be allowed to exist and flourish. 
If a system is unsound, one should be able to develop defenses against it.
In fact I don't think many "illegal" systems are more artificial than
Drury, Astro, Michaels, Unusual, or Lebensohl.  All of these seem to 
very popular gadgets nowadays, but they had to be developed sometime. 
What if Easley Blackwood and John Gerber were banned from using their
Ace asking bids? [well, actually this has its good points :-)] 

  What about this suggestion?  First start out with a few local 
"open" tournaments where pairs using non-standard systems have to submit
a FULL description of the system (including all reasonable inferences,
etc.) and make sure all of the pairs are given copies of all of the systems 
in advance of the tournament. 

  On analogies between bridge and other "competitive games" :   
The analogies are not perfect here, but yes, generally I am opposed to 
artificial barriers.  In the NBA for instance, zone defenses are 
not allowed.  I think this is an artificial barrier which takes 
away some of the strategy and excitement associated with college basketball.  
However I should take issue with comparing bidding restrictions 
to the "ko" rule in go.  [Ok--how many people play go here?]  
The rule about not immediately recapturing the ko stone is 
fundamental to game of go, akin to the rule that one has to 
"follow suit" if possible in bridge.  Of course you CAN ask,
why do we have to follow suit?  However if you annul THIS rule 
you would get a  different game.  Annuling the ko
rule in go would make the game entirely different.  For example, this 
group of white stones would be "alive."

                 O . O X     {sorry--I know this is not rec.games.go}
                 . O X X 
                 O X X
                 X X

The concept of "capture" and "territory" would change. 

The concept of "bidding strategy" is a much higher concept than what I
consider the fundamental rules, something closer to joseki (opening 
corner patterns) which take into account things like space, influence
and aji (no translation--literally means "taste" in Japanese.)
A beginner can bid, play, and score a bridge hand without even knowing 
about the standard bidding systems, just as a beginner may play 
at least his first few games without exposure to joseki.  

I do admit that when I was a 1600 chess player, and a 4-5 kyu 
go player, I played unconventional openings partially for the surprise 
effect.  However, unconventional does not mean unsound.  I play the 
5-5 joseki often against other dan-rated players (with good results) 
and I believe that it does have a sound basis (I believe this about the 
spike and the polish openings also. [Here come the email challenges.])
In fact experimenting was "unusual" openings one of the reasons I improved
in both games.  


   In bridge, a sound partnership should be able to develop generic defenses 
against artificial systems.  For example against 1c-forcing sytems one agrement
could be that first round interference over 1c shoes a preemptive hand while
second-round interference shos a good hand.  Note that this could be applied 
to all forcing systems where the defender is garunteed another chance to 
speak.  The point is that general principles of bridge are not abandoned 
if you play against non-conventional system--  (and when you play wiht 
a non-conv system you should not abandon them either)  preempting your 
opponents still works.  




     



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge