[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Adam Beneschan]

Konrad wrote:

> You wouldn't like it - fine, you can
> play in your tournaments, I can play in mine and we can both enjoy it.
> So why is there almost no place in the
> world where you can participate in such an "everything goes" tournament 
> right now?
> Because bridge organisations introduced regulations that
> forbid this type of tourney - and that restriction has a total
> character. There is no single tournament in Poland
> (or France, or USA etc.) where you could play a forcing
> pass system any more (I am talking about tourneys
> where you play no more than 2 or 3 boards against other pairs)
> - such a tournament would be illegal under
> the systems policy that is currently in place here even if
> 100% of participants had no objections. This is what I call
> intoxication with power - why hasn't it even occurred
> to all these legislation committees in various bridge governing
> bodies that there are people who actually might *want* to play
> against pairs using encrypted signals?

A club in the ACBL could hold its own tournament and allow encrypted
signals or any other convention that isn't allowed in any national
ACBL event.

And any organization can set up any tournament it wants with any
convention it wants to allow, if it didn't award ACBL masterpoints.
The ACBL couldn't do anything to stop them---nor, I believe, would
they particularly want to.  If there really were enough people who
would play in such a tournament to make it profitable to hold one, why
hasn't someone?  That's one of the reasons I'm rather cynical about
complaints about what the ACBL allows or doesn't allow.  Lots of
people seem to argue that allowing unlimited conventions would get
young people interested and revitalize the game, but these same people
who are so very imaginative when it comes to dreaming up new and
interesting conventions can't seem to think outside of the box when it
comes to setting up a tournament where they and others like them could
have fun with them.  They just expect the ACBL to provide it for them.
Either that, or there really aren't enough people with that sort of
interest to make a tournament like that feasible for the money.  I
dunno.

 
> Instead of leaving as much freedom as possible to the organisers
> of various tournaments (which is essentially what is being
> done on BBO where "all systems allowed" and "Acol only"
> tourneys coexist - what is wrong with that?) 

Nothing.  So if "all systems allowed" tourneys exist on BBO, why is
anyone who wants to play in that sort of tournament complaining about
the ACBL or any other SO not holding tourneys like that?  


> they prefer
> to impose their idea of fun and enjoyment on everyone.
> Thou shalt not use encrypted signals. Period. Even if your
> opponents would like to play against this method.
> This totalitarian state of mind is what I vehimently
> object to - uniformization sucks. Diversity rulez.

I don't know where this garbage about "totalitarian states of mind"
comes from.  The ACBL is a business.  If they believed it was worth
their while and profitable to provide an anything-goes tournament, I
see no reason to believe they wouldn't.  I haven't seen any evidence
that would suggest that they wouldn't---but they wouldn't go out of
their way to try to set up something like that if there's very little
demand for it.  At the moment, the vast majority of their customers
seem happy with the current situation, and are OK with or even prefer
some of the more unusual conventions being banned.

My suggestion: If you want to see a tournament with unrestricted
conventions, convince your SO it's worth their while.  You'll probably
need to get a fairly large number of people to commit themselves in
advance to playing in a tournament, so that the SO doesn't have to
worry about spending big bucks for a hotel ballroom (plus directorial
staff, whatever other administrative expenses are needed, etc.) and
having six people show up.  But I don't see the ACBL or any other SO
as being so dictatorial-minded that they would turn down that sort of
opportunity, if they could be convinced that it was worthwhile.  On
the other hand, if you prefer to simply expect your SO to provide that
kind of tournament for you because you'd like to play in one, and then
complain that they must be pig-headed totalitarians who hate diversity
when they don't, that option is available too.


> PS I fell in love with strong pass systems not because
> they create chaos at the table but because of something exactly
> opposite - their internal logic, aesthetic and logical construction,
> and a plethora of very interesting, non-trivial tactical problems
> they create at the table. If your idea of the strong pass systems
> is "putting the chesspieces on the board and having fun with
> the pieces" then I am afraid it is a far from the truth as
> it can possibly be.

I wasn't talking about strong pass systems or any other system per se.
I was talking about a tournament where half the players were playing
some artificial system that they didn't know how to use.  At least,
that's the impression I got from how you described it.

                                -- Adam