From: danny@cs.su.oz (Danny Yee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Not another Jihad (some EVIDENCE)
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:33:18 GMT
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia

In article <1992Apr4.223911.28545@mcs.drexel.edu> gnstragu@mcs.drexel.edu (Nicholas Straguzzi) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.025527.23523@galois.mit.edu> boyiny@kovalevskaya.mit.edu (Bo-Yin Yang) writes:

[ lots of stuff deleted ]

>Disagreed.  The amount of work you need to compete against such systems is
>prohibitive.  It would drive people away in droves, and who could blame them?
>As I said, it's just a game.

How about we look at some *evidence* as to what happens when you relax system
restrictions?  Where I play there are almost no system restrictions - you can't 
play FP in your normal duplicate session, otherwise it's pretty much open 
slather.  There has *not* been a massive exodus of people from the game (and 
while bridge in Australia is not as geriatric as it is in the States, the 
average age is still high).  We have *not* had people complaining about playing
against my forcing pass system (some mutters, but then those are the people
who mutter at our playing a weak NT when we play acol :-)

>Bo-Yin, I understand that *you'd* be very interested in an unrestricted,
>wide-open, highly experimental game.  I imagine many of the people on this
>forum share that view, which is why posts deriding the GCC are as common
>on this forum as grass seed.  But this is a very, very narrow group comprising
>a much more parochial group of bridge players than I think many of you want
>to admit.  In real life, IMHO, the overwhelming majority of players in
>America want nothing to do with defending against two-way transfer preempts.
>You've got to look at the bigger picture.

The number of people playing really weird systems is not enourmous.  4 or 5
HUM systems (and one with everything depending on vulnerability and position!)
out of maybe 40 pairs in the last state teams selection event.  BUT the 
number playing conventions that would be banned under ACBL rules is enourmous
(probably over half the field).  The average pair of "little old ladies"
here may not play relay systems, but they happily wield CRO twos or myxo twos
or suchlike.  Given the chance a LOT of people will experiment with their
bidding system, if only a little.

>If any of you are thinking, "aw, all those LOL's and LOM's who think Alerts
>are cheating, who needs them anyway?", and I imagine some are, you'd better
>remember that they have a right to enjoy themselves too.  You can flame that
>sentence all you want, but it's the truth.  They're the lifeblood of the ACBL.
>Many are already fleeing to Seniors events to escape the very small amount
>of innovation permitted by the League.  Imagine what would happen if the
>GCC was loosened significantly or abolished.

We have lots of clubs where noone would think about playing anything unusual.
Directors are able to put any restrictions they like on local duplicate
sessions, normally they have no call to.   Allowing open slather in state
events, congresses, etc.  does NOT need to affect *all* events.

>"A house divided among itself cannot stand."  The link is being lost between
>the average player and the "pro", the young and the old.  Please, read "The
>Other Side Of Bridge" by Victor Mollo.  He says this a lot more eloquently
>than I can.

>That's fine -- as long as I know what's coming so I can prepare a defense!
>See, that's the problem.  I honestly don't care what my opponents play as
>long as I have a fighting chance to come up with a defense.  "Suggested
>defenses" provided by the opponents are, IMHO, a silly idea.  There's no
>guarantee that they'll give you the best defensive methods, nor that they'll
>fit into your system.  But if I know everything that might come at me ahead
>of time, and I don't prepare for it, then I have no one to blame but myself.

Well if you have a defense prepared to a fert, transfer openings, two-suited
openings and a few other things you aren't in too much trouble.  Most people
manage to cobble together a simple defense to FP in a few minutes discussion -
admittedly usually not a very good defense.  But people are beginning to 
combine their efforts and I imagine decent "standard" defenses will be codified 
very shortly.  There are more conventions for bidding over an enemy 1NT 
opening than I can fit on a page, the number of defenses to ferts is growing. 

>Aw, Bo-Yin, I'm sorry, I'm getting a little carried away.  You can have
>the last word and I won't post anything else.  I just feel that everyone
>is accusing me of being narrow minded, yet they're the ones who really
>should look in the mirror.  For the thrill of brewing your own gadgets
>and achieving some mystical, mythical "perfection" in the auctions, you're
>disenfranchising the vast majority of players who find bridge hard,
>challenging, and enjoyable enough as it is.  That's just my opinion.

Perhaps we should simplify go and chess and all those other games... after
all, the simpler they are the more people will play them :-)  Perhaps you
shouldn't be allowed to play compound squeezes, after all the average club
player wouldn't know how to recognise such a thing :-) 

>The overriding question is not "what will make the game better", it's "what
>will allow bridge to survive", something it's not doing all that well these
>days.  Widening the GCC just isn't my idea of a good answer.

Bridge in Australia is in NO danger of dying... it is at least possible that
there is some correlation with our more open system regulations, no?

Danny Yee.