From: ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Not another Jihad (some EVIDENCE)
Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Welch Medical Library
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:23:38 GMT

Nick may be willing to let this go uncontested, but I'm not.

danny@cs.su.oz (Danny Yee) writes:
>  gnstragu@mcs.drexel.edu (Nicholas Straguzzi) writes:
> > 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 :-)
> 

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.

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.

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.

> > 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.
> 

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.

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.


	Ted Ying			ted@welch.jhu.edu

#include <std.disclaimer.h>

	Tommy Thrush: "Oh no!  Mudman has been buried alive!"
	Captain Buffalo: "Don't worry, Tommy.  When evil threatens; good
		will always rise up to throw mud in its face.  Besides,
		there's his trusty sidekick, Squirt, arriving with a
		firehose."
	Tommy: "Wow!  Look at him now.  Mudman, he's the TOPS!  Makes
		monkeys out of COPS!  Mud-maaaan! ..."
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge