[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Konrad Ciborowski]

Ed wrote:

> We nonetheless have committees who make decisions - although in some  
> cases, at least, the committee is dominated by one man, so in effect  
> it is *his* (or her, for that matter) decision that gets made "by the  
> committee". But I think they should "protect" players as little as  
> possible. It seems to me (never having played against such things as  
> Forcing Pass systems) that an atmosphere of "anything goes, so long  
> as there is full disclosure" is much better for the game than a lot  
> of regulations designed to protect the clueless. 

When I was a student I played regularly in tournaments on my
university. Plus, naturally, I participated in Junior Championship
of Poland. In the university tournaments more than 50% of pairs
played some artificial (not necessarily strong pass) system
of their own. Most of these systems were unplayable from
a professional point of view, very often the pairs in question
had no clue how to use them etc. but it was A LOT of FUN.
Tremendous FUN. In the junior tournaments it was the same -
the kids love to experiment. They love action.
In those days there were quite
a few pairs in Kraków, playing strong pass systems. More
importantly, average players gained experience against
artificial systems and knew how to defend against them
and were confortable playing against them. They knew them.
On the other hand when you ban everything unorthodox
then when exactly can people become familiar with it?
As a result players become even more reluctant to
anything unorthodox - it becomes a vicious circle.
I remember a scene from a Soulet's club in Paris where
I once played. My partner, a French guy, insisted
on playing the Polish Club. This system is legal
under the French regulations. On the very
first deal my partner opened 1C, I alerted and began 
to explain the meaning of the bid and an opponent
immediately interrupted: "what do you mean that
a bid means this or that or that? I am going to call
a director!". Which he did.
This guy had been playing against the French Standard
for all his life - that's why a Polish opening bid of 1C
appeared to him as something incredibly complex. This is also the 
same mechanism that works now against strong
pass systems or encryption signals - people
cannot get used to them so they will become
more and more reluctant to them.

In one of the Rosenkranz's books he gave me a good laugh
arguing along these lines: "nowadays conventions need
to be tested first, and only those that stand the
test of time are approved of and licensed". Where
exactly can you become familiar with artificial systems
now? Where exactly can they be tested so they could
stand the test of time?


About 10 years ago Poland adopted the WBF systems policy
and, as a result the strong pass systems have extincted - 
nobody plays them. Younger players don't even know them.
I stopped playing them because of the system restrictions and I 
know that for instance Balicki - Zmudzinski stopped playing them 
for the very same reason.
So when the WBF claims that their systems policy
is about "affording proper consideration to progress and 
innovation" then it is sheer nonsense - what happened
in Poland demonstrates that WBF Systems Policy
leads not to "progress and innovation" but only uniformization.

One last example. I have a partner who wouldn't like
to play anything unusual but for 7 years a played
the "Bez Nazwy" system (aka No Name aka Suspensor
pass = 13+ any, 1D = 0-7 any, 1H/S - 8-12 0-2 
H/S or 6+H/S) with a guy named Tomasz who is still my teammate.
Last year we were to play a 72-deal playoff match
against Spojnia Warszawa - a team from the First Division
with the Junior Teams World Championship runners-up 
from Sydney Kalita - Kotorowicz on the roster. If we won 
our team would replace them in the First Division.
Kalita - Kotorowicz are helluva bridge players, very good,
with international experience. They were certainly better
than any other pair on our team.
As it was a match of 72 deals all systems were allowed.
We sent them full description of "Bez Nazwy" well
in advance but we began in regular partnerships and 
after just 24 deals were down 50 IMPs. So I decided to sit 
down with Tomasz playing the strong pass system
(we bid 100 deals before the match refreshing 
the system we hadn't used for years - it was our Plan B).
We came back and won the whole thing by 2 IMPs
mainly do to the 4th segment when Kalita - Kotorowicz
probably played their first deals against "Bez Nazwy"
in their lives. The more we played the better they
handled our artificial system and if we played more
then certainly their superior skills would become
decisive but the damage done during the first 12 deals
turned the tide. 
My point is that, say, 10 years ago, people
playing strong pass systems were of course in the minority here
but, for instance, the opening bids from "Bez Nazwy"
was something that *everybody* in Poland knew. 
Right how we have a new generation of
young players who don't even know what a strong pass
system is, have never played against it and read about it.
When they grow old they will of course become vehement opponents
of anything unorthodox. Just like this gentleman from the
French club. Provided that there will be anybody still
playing bridge by that time. Which, looking at the
age average of the members of bridge organisations,
seems quite doubtful. 

__________________
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiszpania za 9 groszy >>> http://link.interia.pl/f197b