foo

The only germane question here is "did you, or did you not, also receive a copy of the quoted email from hrothgar?" If so, then there is proof positive that he did indeed disemminate the quoted post to a public audience in an attempt to organize a personal attack. ...and that's the reason for this thread. My notice that he, coincidently or not, attempted to "make nice" at about the same time with the readership in a manner unlike his previous behavior is simply that, an observation.

Foo has back off on yet another of his bullshit claims. Ummm, No. I have not "backed off" in any sense. I have clearly stated that I have been told that the evolution for the word "Destructive" in the Bridge sense and its final use can be found in minutes of official meetings of the ACBL C&C commitee, BoD and BoG during the early and mid 1990's. I have also clearly stated that I have been told there are similar records for the WBF. I have not inquired into other local SO's records on this matter. I have also relayed that I have been told that all of these, while tedious to go through, are in the public domain and available to anyone who wishes to examine them. I stand by what I have been told and have shared it as it was shared with me. I have also suggested that other players inquire into this issue on their own with their local SO and the WBF. What I have not done, and will not do, is dredge through all of the above at any pace other than whatever I wish to. As I have said, I am comfortable with the information I have recieved from the sources I have. My interest in doing all this digging is mild at best. Therefore I will dig at a mild at best pace. Anyone who wishes to put more intensive effort into the process is free to do so. I have provided the pointers to do so. If you want someone to do research on your behalf at a pace you desire, I suggest you pay them for it.

I recently received the following not-so-thinly-veiled personal threat as a pm: ========== xxxxx [name deleted by administrator] shunning, Jul 7 2007, 09:14 AM Do you think its worth while publicly shunning foo? I am suggesting an organized effort in which the bulk of the forum regulars agree not to respond to any of his posts... ========== (The limitations of "cut and paste" appear to make it impossible to actually quote the original here, but I can forward an actual quote to anyone who asks upon request.) I also note that it may or may not be coincidence that evidently shortly after sending the quoted message out, the quoted poster began this thread: [link deleted by administrator] Given the timing, this could be construed as some kind of "influence peddling" (I explicitly do not claim it to be so. I merely note the =appearance= that it could be so.) Now the question. Are personal attacks, or attempts at manipulating public policy by private menbers against other private members, considered reasonable actions from the POV of whatever community standards exist on BBOF? Since the quoted poster seems to have decided to raise this issue publicly, it seems appropriate that I try to respond to it in the same fashion. While trying to maintain a ,errr, slightly more cvilized tone about the matter.

yes, but I think we all agree it should not be bid with any random hand holding 6+M. My suggestion is that, at the least, it shows a 6- loser hand and a Suit Quality of 9+. It =is= a Captaincy seizing bid and at least a mild slam try after all.

That definitely reduces the frequency of the sequence considerably; and at the cost of increasing the variety of hands shown by the simple 2M rebid. One of the tensions here is between making the jump rebid descriptive enough vs having the simple rebid being too unlimited. It's for this reason that when playing 2/1 GF, I like to have both 2M and 2N available for showing minimums and why I like to allow the jump rebid to show a wider variety of trump suits than simply a solid suit. Let me be clear that I am not criticizing mikeh's choices here. Simply pointing out the logic behind some different choices.

The problem with a Moysian ♠ contract when the short hand is 4333 is that the ruffs are all going to be in the long spade hand. That makes the usual defense of forcing declarer to ruff with the long hand (AKA "Tapping Declarer") even more effective. I haven't explicitly done the calculation as to which is better of the two scenarios you present, but I know that the 43 rates to be poor while 3N has a chance to be good because I don't know about those cards yet.

Hog, The 1♠ Fert came up in a few discussions with folks who had done statisical work suggesting that the most effective Fert would vary according to vulnerability. They certainly did not suggest playing it Red! They gave me some example systems based on this idea, but I do not know of any situations where any of them was used in actual documented play. I do not feel it reasonable to present a system whose existence I can not objectively prove into a discussion that already has too much heat in it. As for why I asked defenses for the SP systems I did, it was for the reverse reason. They were all systems that most in this discussion appear to have heard of, and I could point to an objective authoritative source as a definition for those systems. I am well aware they all use a 1♦ opening as their Fert. I have to log out. I'll come back to this when able.

You evidently are changing the definition of study to suit your own purposes. I never differentiated between DD and SD results, and I disagree with your premise that DD studies are not studies. You may decide that you do not think they are valid, but they still are studies. The only way you are beating DD results is if someone makes a mistake. Yes, defenders blow tricks on opening lead all the time, but Declarers blow tricks also. The better the level of play you are involved in, the more the ATT results are going to mimic DD. However, BridgeBrowser can even handle your objection to DD studies since that is based on real boards from actual play.

The first is a Jump Shift. The 2nd is a Reverse. They are both strong bids and are 100% forcing. Most of the world plays the first as GF.

2D or 3N, take your pick. Either is flawed. Give the 4333 shape, which means there will be no ruffs in the short hand, and the scattered values, I vote for 3N.

Agree with Frances and Ken here.

Wow -- as I see it, the only solution to this conundrum is to invent systems on the fly. Isn't it a pity that the rules of bridge aren't "flexible" enough to allow us to convey our intention to deviate (because the hand warrants it)? What a "high price" we pay for paying this game -- how dare they limit us to playing one system that clouds our judgment? The point was that most systems give you a great deal more flexibility than F-N allows with what hands are allowed to open at the 1level.

I usually agree with Frances and/or mikeh, but this one smells wrong. 1C-(1D) consumes no bidding space. Even slighty crazy or less than expert opponents are going to tend to have their bid here. The (3D) raise is usually preemptive in a Contested auction. Which leaves me with puzzles. Where are the points? In my and LHO hand's I bet. Where are the Majors? Either no one has them or pd has them and is too weak to bid them or make a Negative X. If pd has 6+H and a weak hand, they could Neg X planning to rebid H's. The auction denies that pd has D's. pd would raise me if they have 4+C. => pd has a weak hand with 54, 44, or 55 in the majors. I'm bidding 3S.

This sheep also agrees with the flock and wonders why you are Resulting. Eat 3N grass rather than heading for the thin scrub that is any slam with these hands. :)

Nice bidding problem :) I've seen the Truscott solution as well. I like it... ...if you and pd have made the agreement. With this hand, the least of evils w/o the Truscott agreement seems to be a 2N bid. I do not like hiding invitational values from pd; and I have some positional guards I'd like to protect. On a bad day, We get to 3N w/o stop and down We go On a so-so day, We figure out 5m is better than 3N and play 5m On a good day, pd has Qx or better in ♥'s and 3N is reasonable.

I agree with hrothgar that 6N is "blasting" more than necessary or necessarily smart. I'm not sure how much I like the previous auction, but ATM I'm equally not sure what I like better either. But leaping to 6N with two levels of bidding room left and a void in the only suit Opener has bid naturally doesn't seem right.

It tries to tell the same story twice. What TimG and Frances said. Dead on. Pass. In tempo.

Because a splinter is basically a shape based slam probe that promises a 9+ card trump fit. I don't get your point so you'll have to spell it out for me. Is this hand not good enough? Do we need more trumps? Sorry, other responsibilities kept me from the forums for awhile. ♠ QT2 ♥ KJ93 ♦ 2 ♣ AKT82 Fine splinter opposite an opening bid... ...but pd didn't open, they balanced. pd's balance can effectively be forced on some hands considerably weaker than an opening bid. I want to be stronger, or be more shapely, or to have the shortness in Their Suit opposite a balancing 1♥ by pd for a splinter. So swap the red suits or give me one less loser and I'd Splinter. Since slams are rarer after They have opened the bidding in most "up the middle" systems, and since "hanging pd" is to be avoided, I'm not making any slam probes with this hand, I'm simply bidding game. I think that's the practical percentage action with this hand.

>=What judgement?= How do you compete against an opening that at one >extreme is best defended against using penalty X's and at the other extreme >best defended against using T/O X's? >...and T/O pf what? and what can you use as cue bids? As you note, FERTS don't show any shape. I'm somewhat confused by your assertion that that the strong range of the FERT is best defended using a takeout type double. Perhaps a better formulations would be Doubles that show a balanced hand versus Doubles that show different unbalanced patterns Regardless, I suspect that most competent individuals would note that players get dealt hands with 0 HCP .364% of the time. In contrast, players get deal hands 7 HCP occur 8.028% of the time. LOL. As you well know, I have made no such assertion. Penalty oriented X's are more useful the more flat the preempting hand is. T/O oriented X's are more useful the more shapely a hand is. Your previous posts show that you definitely know it is =shape=, not HCP strength, that is the differentiator here. Evidently you are once again simply trying to stir up flames. 1S= 0 HCP 4333's at one end, 7 HCP 7600's at the other. Let's see how a= We have a constructive auction after this opening b= how They defend w/o adopting a Strong Pass as the basis for the defense vs this opening. Oh, and the statement I made was that a= you base the defense vs a SP on a Fert or Fert like bids (The opening side is trying to save space, therefore the defending side should rob them of it as much as possible. Same strategy as vs a Strong Club only more so.); and b= you base the defense vs a Fert on a Strong Pass (They are trying to rob Us of space w/ hands that have little values and wide ranging shape. Thus we want to conserve space as much as possible for potentially complex constructive auctions and only bid with high ODR hands where it is unlikely We will further preempt Ourselves by bidding.) There is no possibility of "a Fert over a Fert" in the suggestion I made. Chip Martel & Lew Stansby are one of the pairs who I spoken to about this. They've actually had to defend against SP systems at the highest levels of competition. I figure they rate to know what they are talking about. I've spoken to others as well who say similar things. I'll get to the rest of your commentary after I've dealt with some of my other responsibilities.

So for all the heated rhetoric and personal attacks flying around, and despite claims as to how easy it is, I have yet to see anyone actually answer the Bridge charges with a Bridge counter-argument. IOW, let's see these "easy" defenses. To keep the discussion practical, we'll focus defense to a= a 1♠ Fert b= a Fert that changes according to vulnerabilty (1S @ Favorable, 1H @ White all, 1D @ Red) c= Regres d= No Name e= Delta f= Carrotti g= Marmic "c" thru "g" are from p 89-91 of Vol 1 _Bridge Classic and Modern Conventions_ by Lindkvist At "2-3 minutes" apiece, it should take a modest amount of time to come up with defense that the WBF could feel give the defending side a reasonable chance at using Bridge judgement and their own cards to achieve equity. If said defense(s) do not give the opponents a reasonable chance to judge their own cards or to achieve equity, don't bother submitting it since in that case it fails the primary purpose of a "defense".

Because a splinter is basically a shape based slam probe that promises a 9+ card trump fit.

Let us please differentiate between a workable definition of Destructive and one that is acceptable to you. I have at this point provided a workable definition multiple times. It is based as closely as possible to what I'm told regulators use as the definition of the term. I've also provided pointers so that you or anyone else who wants can go find what those regulators have said in their official capacity as to the definition of the term, and the official record of how the term came to be and evolved. (I will freely admit I wish the way to dig out this material was easier and more straightforward. I have expressed that opinion to those who gave me the pointers I later passed on.) What I have not done, and no can ever do for you, is give you a defintion that you will accept. Your vested interest in there not being such a definition paints you into that illogical corner. Side Note: if you are not a paying member of a SO, you literally have no vote on this matter. For you gave up that right by deciding to not be a member.

I thought it was a price paid for the other system choices. Absolutely. But if the other bids are Limited enough as to shape and value range (and I do not mean "either or" Wonder Bid like or Suction like stuff: I mean a limited continuous range in terms of both shape and values), They are far less of a problem to evaluate one's hand against. This is not automatically true of all non Strong Pass openings in a SP system. Many are indeed troublesome because they are not as "limited" as they would look at first glance. The Strong Pass is no more of a problem than a Forcing Club would be (I note that "pass" is a call, not a bid. Thereby keeping my 1st paragraphs from contradicting this one.) The universally problem bid is the Fert. The universal =system= problem with Strong Pass systems is that adequate defenses usually mean doing something equivalent to abandoning your own system notes and adopting the SP pair's system notes. As I've stated before, The best defenses I know of to a SP are based on a Fert; and the best defenses I know of to a Fert are based on a SP. Once you've done that, you've basically abandoned your approach to the game unless you were a SP pair to begin with. Regulators consider that a problem. Many players do as well. I see some justification in their POV.

DrTodd13, Attacking the poster rather than the evidence or logic of the post is the mark of someone who can't back up their POV and is resorting to theatrics to try and change the focus of the case. It's also immmature. You think some of the Destructive methods that regulators are having problem with are so easy to achieve equity against, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. I have listed some of the very real bridge problems. That is far from "dodging the question". I have not seen anything other than a personal attack by you as an attempted counter-arguement. 2D= 0-8 HCP, can show any 2 suiter, each suit can be 4-7 cards long. Let's see your defense. 1S= 0-8 HCP, says nothing about ♠'s or about any other shape. It's a "placeholder" necessitated by the rest of the Strong Pass system. My understanding is the best defense to a Fert is based on a Strong Pass. I look forward to your illuminating missive refuting this POV and showing the actual optimal defense. I await with great anticipation your scintillating and awe inspiring discourse on methods that will restore a chance for equity to the defending side against these treatments that the mainstream has deemed Destructive.

jtfanclub, Sorry, I've been off line for awhile. here is one of the ones I mentioned: http://www.calculator.net/Bridge/TotalTricks.html Took me ~10 secs to find it with Google. Matthew Ginsberg's DD analysis seems unfortunately to no longer be available. BridgeBrowser can easily be set up to answer the question. So can DealMaster Pro or Visual Deal or ... I can't at the moment lay my hands on the notes that Danny wrote that I got my hands on. I could have misremembered some details as to their contents, but he did a lot of work for _The NT Zone_. it took me longer to type this than it would have take you to find the info or set up a tool to duplicate the info. In short, you evidently either didn't look very hard, or didn't try very hard to duplicate the results, or you just want to argue. As these studies show, if you really are making 1N most of the time with 18 HCP between the two hands, you either have easy opponents or you are an wizard of 1N play.