[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Adam Beneschan]

Ron Johnson wrote:
 
> My problem with Adam's argument is that you can find the exact same
> arguments being raised for all aspects of Roth/Stone (including
> 2/1, forcing NT) and ... well I've never encountered any article
> complaining about takeout doubles (though there are huge numbers of 
> articles against negative doubles, five card majors. You name it and
> somebody railed against it)

I'm not so sure, partly because I'm not even sure what my argument is.
Mostly, I jumped into this thread because somebody seemed to think the
only reason for banning encrypted signals (and a lot of other unusual
conventions, it seemed to me) was a Totalitarian Mindset or something
like that.  To me, that's a very serious charge that seemed to be made
unjustly.  I don't know what restrictions on agreements may or may not
be good for the game.  Hopefully, I haven't claimed to know.  But I
think my main argument is that (1) it's perfectly legitimate for those
in charge to make such decisions based on what they think their
customers at large want; (2) there's nothing *inherently* wrong or
contrary to the nature of "Bridge" for them to do so; (3) there's no
_a priori_ reason to believe, based on logic alone, that removing all
restrictions on agreements will lead to "good".

Apparently those in charge have, for whatever reasons, ultimately felt
that allowing Roth/Stone would not be harmful to their purposes
(despite what those who railed about it said), while allowing certain
other conventions (like forcing-pass systems) would.  The fact that
the decision went one way in one case and another way in another case
doesn't hurt my position at all.

I hope this clarifies things, but I doubt it.

                                -- Adam