From: jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Restricting Conventions
Date: 2 Oct 1992 03:18:42 GMT
Organization: Not The U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Reply-To: jaffray@math.uchicago.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

In article <lci4s9INNl7j@levelland.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>In article <17675@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel) writes:
>
>[...]  I think you *do* have to give people a chance to prepare against
>primarily destructive methods.

Is the destructiveness really the key aspect?  It seems to me that more
preparation would be necessary against a strange multicolored intermediate
opening (say, Estonian 1C = normal 1H or 1S or strong NT or ...) than a
1H fert showing 0-8, any shape, since it's possible to develop a general
defense to any ferts, and ferts are more common.

Of course, unless you play a fair amount against exotics, you probably want
time to prepare against either.  This is just an example for that one point.

>>Notice that it is not simply that the ACBL is too restrictive, but it is more
>>that they have not always made the right distinctions about what should and
>>should not be allowed.

>Will they listen if *you* speak to them?  Alan Jaffray's letter seems
>not to have had any noticable effect, other than provoking the wrath 
>of the clergy.

Well... they were pushing the Klinger method pretty hard, and were 
hyping the fact that they received so many positive responses.  The main
hope I had for the letter was to make it clear that the pro-restriction
sentiment was by no means universal.  They haven't started Klinger, don't
know if the letter had anything to do with that...

>>Somehow most pairs playing very odd
>>systems are not very forthcoming in their system descriptions.

Just speculation, but in world events, might this be because many
pairs with very odd systems aren't so great with English?  Or are
the British, Aussies, etc. similarly negligent?

It's not universal, though I don't encounter it much living in ACBL-land.
But the other pair on OKBridge using a FP system was very helpful, and
when Bill or Ben and I play, I'll describe every bid as it happens, give
suggested defenses, mail you a full copy of our system if you wish, etc...

>Books on bidding have started including a properly marked convention
>card and noting which calls are alertable.  I think they should go one
>step further and explain how to give a good explanation, and what sort
>of explanation to expect.

Bergen has already started doing this, and it's an excellent trend...

[out of context, clipped from Chip's first post]
>> In the 1990 World Pair Olympiad no conventional openings which could be 
>> weak and did not promise length in a known suit were allowed (except
>> multi which no longer has any surprise effect).

This seems like an excellent idea for, say, a Flight A event in ACBL-land.
Change "weak" to "less than 14", and make exceptions for a nebulous or
balanced-shape intermediate-strength bid (including but not limited to
Precision 1D), and it would work, no?  Leaves room for creativity, but
also ensures that the opponents have an anchor suit to work with.

Is anyone really scared of a 1D opening showing spades, or a nebulous
1S opening, or a 2H opening showing spades and a minor?  A rule such
as this seems to be the best divider between "scary" systems and 
easily defendable systems that I've seen... comments?

-- Alan