akhare

Well, I am sure that most of us are amateur players who have to hold down a job and all that. However, IMO, the basic problem isn't the unusual methods as lack of exposure to them. Ensconcing players in a protective cocoon of regulations that precludes them from facing anything remotely close to what they might encounter on a world stage can only result in shell shock. Chip away at the shell I say -- a little exposure goes a long way at building immunity... Atul

Perhaps it is the unusual methods, not the attitude, that is the problem. If the unusual methods went away then there would be no attitude. Most bridge players have this attitude because they think bridge is a better and more enjoyable game if there are strict rules in place regarding unusual methods. That does beg the question, does it not, what would the attitudes towards unusual methods be if the unusual methods weren't that unusual after all? Fear of the unknown is one of most elemental parts of the human psyche. The problem has been exacerbated by bureaucracies like the ACBL who insist on banning anything besides brain dead systems (most likely at the behest of certain vested interests, whose clients couldn’t be bothered to play against anything remotely complex).

There is no reason to assume you will bid unobstructed just because I'm no fan of highly unusual methods There is also no need for comments like "I would really love to play against you" You disagree with me,fine,leave it at that :) Sorry if my remark came across as being pejorative -- it certainly wasn't intended to be that. I wanted to underscore the point that it's equally important to try and prevent the opps from reaching their best contract (w/o reducing the bidding to complete anarchy of course). Atul

If you consider that the only objective of bidding is to find your side's best contract, I would really love to play against you. It will be really nice to find all those 26 point grand slams unobstructed and believe me, as far as "tools" go, our system will get us there most of the time. Bidding is as much a part of the game as card play and like it or not, there are systems inherently superior to say SAYC and 2/1. I consider a bidding system as much of an advantage as superior card skills.

Agree too -- however, the process of drawing the line should be based on a transparent process and should not be based on the whims of a forceful lobby. On a slightly unrelated note, the systems regulation process of administrative bodies like the ACBL should have similar levels of transparency too. I would really love to hear why they make it all but impossible to play relay systems and transfer openings.

Richard, Do you reason for behind opting for a known anchor suit? It's my own intuitive guess that it's better to have one than not. I have been resisting some proposed system changes that create more openings w/ no anchor suits on that basis alone and would like to have some concrete backing :). Atul

Hi Ron, Why employ 1N as any 0-10 over the fert? Atul

Hi Fred, In my experience, cramps in a marathon can only be self inflicted:). Besides, causing cramps in the opps. legs is par for the course in bridge -- indeed, there is a reason why a plethora of preempts exist. As Free noted, competition at the highest echelons of any game can hardly be expected to be for pure "fun". Banning conventions that rattle one’s cage is like participating in a marathon where’s there is cap on participants whose VO2 max exceeds one’s own. A win in such an event would only be a pyrrhic one. While I do see the need for some regulation, I don't think that arbitrarily banning conventions that run against the grain of one's aesthitics is healthy for bridge in the long run. Atul