[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Adam Beneschan]

Konrad wrote:
 
> 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.

This doesn't sound like fun at all to me.  My strength is in
problem-solving, and that's what I find fun; I think a game where
there's a lot of random and wild bidding leading to ridiculous
contracts would take away a lot of the aspect of the game that I find
fun.  Or so it sounds like.  Maybe that's not the case in practice.
But the difference between the game I'm used to and the game you
describe sounds a little like the difference between playing a game of
chess, and putting the chesspieces on the board and having fun with
the pieces.


> 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.

I tend to take a middle approach when it comes to convention
restrictions.  There seem to be some restrictions that make no sense
and don't seem to accomplish anything.

But I am really bothered by this sort of attitude.  It seems like you
think that bridge organizations should tell people like your opponent,
"We know you don't think it's fun to play against new and unusual
systems (and things like encrypted signals), but we're going to force
you to anyway because we think you'll have more fun in the long run".
Sorry, but that is very patronizing, and I find it rather disgusting. 

Bridge organizations are in the business of serving their customers by
providing something that they find entertaining.  They should not be
in the business of treating their customers as children who need to be
trained.  As a parent, I might insist that my children eat some food
that they don't think they'll like, on the theory that eventually
they'll learn to like it and it will be healthier for them.  But the
relationship between a bridge organization and its customers should
not be like the relationship between me and my kids.  

So bridge organizations need to provide something that's fun for their
customers.  Unfortunately, what's fun for some is not what's fun for
others, as I tried to explain in my first paragraph.  There are plenty
of people who don't find it fun to have to deal with defending against
a bunch of artificial conventions.  So what do you do?  Try to find a
balance---what else can you do?  That's what I think bridge
organizations are trying to do with convention restrictions, and it's
a difficult job.  They certainly don't get it right all the time.

My main complaint is that bridge organizations have tended to settle
for a "one-size-fits-all" approach to allowed conventions, rather than
trying to provide separate types of events so that those who like the
kind of wildness you described at the beginning of your post, and
those who don't, can each have the kind of fun they prefer.  This is
probably easier now that we have the Internet; an organization like
the ACBL could stage an all-conventions-allowed tournament online and
probably get a fair number of people to participate, since the players
could come from anywhere in North America and wouldn't have to travel.
I don't think the ACBL has done enough to take advantage of this
possibility (I just don't know about other SO's).  Maybe doing so
*would* generate more interest among young people.

But in any case, I really believe that any discussion about the
"right" amount of convention restrictions should center around how
we're going to best serve the most people's desire for a fun game, and
should show respect for those whose idea of fun differs from our own.

                                -- Adam