foo

Yours: ♠ J863 ♥ AT5 ♦ 864 ♣ KJ3 (1H)-X-pa-?? Let's say you do bid 2♠ on this 9 count despite it being "a 10 loser piece of crap". Let's give pd the nice hand that Ken posted earlier: KQxx.x.Axxx.Axxx Now what do you think pd is going to do with this or any other Medium strength T/O X if you jump advance the T/O X? I know what I'm doing with Ken's hand. I'm bidding 4♠. ...and I'm bidding 4♠ with lot's of hands that are not as perfect as Ken's as well. Ken's perfect hand gets Us to a ~50% 4♠. Guess what the odds are on 4♠ bid with a less perfect and more realistic Medium strength hand? Now look what happens if we bid 1♠. Ken's hand will obviously raise. our hand now obviously has undisclosed extra's, so we reraise. (you decide just how much extra you have. I'd bid 3♠)

Yee gods man! Where did your pd's testicles get taken to that they could not find a bid with that?! (3C)-pa-(3D)-5H ...and let Them take The Last Guess.

It certainly does not feel fair that Meckwell can keep their 800 page System notes with God only knows how many subtleties more or less undisclosed while any pair playing a WOS or HUM must "bare all". I'd be in favor of making =everyone= disclose =everything=.

OK, 1st the basics of Advancing a T/O X. 1S= minimum, say 9+ losers and 0-9 HCP 2S= Medium, 8 losers and it looks like an Invite. say 9-11 or a soft 12 HCP 3S= MAX, 7 losers and it looks like a GF 4S= GF hand with a self sufficient trump suit 2H!= This is an Invite with D+C or a GF that is not sure as to direction. Now that we have that out of the way, we can look at what makes a logical raise by the T/O X'er X-1S;2S= Advancer can have some miserable hands here, but figure that they have a ordinary 2 cover card minimum and ~6-8 HCP. So a raise here by the X'er has to have the playing strength of ~15-17 HCP and 6- losers or an exceptional 7 loser hand. Your example of KQxx.x.Axxx.Axxx is a control rich 6 loser hand worth 16 Dummy points. An easy raise of whatever Advancer bid below game. With KQxx.x.AQxx.Axxx, X'er is good enough to bid 4S, but not good enough to cue bid opposite a 1S or 2S Advance. OTOH, opposite a 3S or higher Advance... Make X'er's hand a 4 loser T/O double, and they have enough to cue bid opposite =any= spade Advance.

You are asking for a book. Or at least a large chapter. As hrothgar mentions, entire books have been written on this (older would be Ron Anderson's _Perfect Your NT Bidding_, newer would be Danny Kleinman's _The NT Zone_) One thing new I'll add to the other comments is that xfers loose their utility as the range of the NT gets weaker. There is vigorous debate as to whether xfers are worth it playing Weak NTs. (if opening a weak 1N opposite a passed hand they are especially suspect) For the Mini AKA Kamikaze NT, xfers are definitely not good. "Double Barrelled" AKA "2Way" Stayman is preferred by many where xfers are not liked.

To paraphrase Frances in an earlier thread: "Baah" Both as a member of the herd and as an individual sheep, I'm passing this no matter what form of scoring. ...and I agree with Ken, I'd take the bullet and be made mutton before bidding here.

B/I forum, Ken. B/I forum.

lol. I did not notice who had made the comment. I frankly did not and do not care who did. The important thing is that it made sense. You, OTOH, seem to have a serious case of caring more about the source of comments then about their content. Sorry for exciting you by quoting someone you object so to. Other than the fact that this Peacetree person appears to have been a somewhat confused intermediate from his comments, I can't seem to find what horrible crime he committed against you and yours. In fact, in a couple of places in the rgb thread he claims to have played with you and to support some of your methods that the ACBL shot down. Yet you act like he killed your pet dog or something. You seem just as angry at him as you are at Jeff Meckstroth, yet there seems no evidence that Peacetree did anything to you. As the kids say "What's your beef?"

So will you "return" when 1level xfer openings are made legal? Because in the long run, I can not imagine that any regulatory body is going to be able to stop 1level xfer opening of the same strength and shape as their non xfer counterparts from being made legal. IMHO, it will happen sooner or later. As for 2♦= 5+D & 4+M (say 5-10 HCP), a= the only reason the frequency will drop by much is that you loose 4432's. Since flat handed preempts seem to be exactly what causes the most problems with regulatory bodies, getting rid of them would seem to significantly strengthen the case for acceptance of the method. b= A decrease in frequency does not equate to a decrease in utility. c= Two suiters with 4+M and 5+m are a known problem type of hand (see Max Hardy on two suited overcalls. Also writing by Mike Lawrence as well as Marshall Miles.) I am reminded of a nice comment I found while purusing that rgb thread you gave me to read: "Optimal space use for constructive system design would reserve bidding space proportional to a complicated function of frequency, expected worth, and measurability while keeping safety issues in mind. I do not claim to have any idea what that function is, but I know it isn't just based on hand type frequency." Seems to be a good comment with regards to bidding design. ...and of course there is the practical matter that if you get whatever methods you can passed, you will start to find out where the "wall" is and perhaps be able to start to discern what pattern or logic there is for the "wall"'s location.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=14326&st=60 Thank you for the reminder. No, I never did hear back from any of the members of the ACBL C&C I knew at that time or from Rick Beye or Grant Blaiss. Those were the people I asked. I will admit to getting distracted by other matters and forgetting all about it until you brought this reminder up. You should submit it to the ACBL C&C and force the issue. It would be interesting to see the reaction.

As I have previously posted, I have been given the following (paraphrased) definition of Destructive verbally from multiple sources who really should know what they are taking about: "A method whose sole or whose overwhelmingly primary purpose is to try and gain by a= unfamiliarity, or b= making it impossible or nigh unto impossible for the opponents to have methods that allow for them to use judgement as to the value of their own cards, or c= reducing the outcome on a board to essentially completely random rather than being based on Bridge skills. rather than by describing one's own hand to Partner." The only thing missing is to find the equivalent of the above in writing within official ACBL (since that's hrothgar's home SO) or WBF records. The records in question I have been told are official minutes of various meetings in the early to late 1990's.

Hrothgar, I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me. I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time. As for "connections", you have claimed to at least as many as any other here, myself included. Examples include a= at least 3-4 members of the C&C b= various members of the ACBL National Board (there appears to be understandable overlap between this and the previous catagory) c= Bobby Goldman, Eric Kokish, and other "big name" Theorists. d= Various officials within what appears to be District 25 of the ACBL (that being the only reference I can find to a "Tim Goodwin" within an ACBL official context). e= other misc. examples I do not at this time recall. So please dispense with the attitude and dispense with the attempts to shift the focus from yourself and your usually vehement "take" on certain matters of Bridge regulation and law. You are obviously just as "well heeled" as almost any. If you =really= wanted to have dug out all existing documentation on any particular issue, the evidence is that you are more than capable of doing so on your own. Yet you haven't. That argues that for some reason you don't really want to. Evidently, you are more vested in your being angry about some topics than you are in finding the whole truth about them or in changing your approach until you are successful. Case in point: I made what I thought was a reasonable suggestion for a two suited 2♦ opening for you to submit. No response regarding it by you. Why? Is it not aggressive enough for you? Is it not IYHO a useful convention? At least this inquiring mind would like to know. No response tends to imply that you don't care about finding ways to mutate unacceptable methods until they are acceptable. No response implies that you are not interested in finding a middle ground. It implies that you are interested in fighting and winning a war, not negotiating a peace. That is unlikely to be a successful attitude or strategy.

Anyone who is computer literate enough to be a regular reader of this board is going to know how to "un hide" Hidden Text. So I just delay posting in such threads until the target audience has had a decent chance to talk it out. What we really need IMHO if we are going to try and keep secrets for some period of time is some sort of "time delayed text" that doesn't expose itself until the poster says it should.

No, I never claimed any "estorica knowledge" . I called some people whose numbers are in the public domain. I then told =everyone= in this thread that I was told the minutes of ACBL C&C, BoD, and BoG meetings in the early to mid 1990's would contain this information. I also told you that officials within the WBF have claimed there are equivalent minutes for that body within the same time period. These minutes are matters of public record. They are not "special". Simply boring and tedious to work one's way through. If you want written documentation on the definition of "Destructive", that's where I have been told you have to go at this time (I =have= made the point to those I talked to that it would be nice for such information to be easier to obtain.) Please stop accusing me of some sort of unwilliness to pursue this. I'm doing far more than you have any right to expect for free out of a volunteer. (Also, these little trips down tangential topics necessarily slow down progress on any other topic.) ...and again, please do not assume I was part of any rec.games.bridge conversation on this or any other topic unless you explicitly see a post there by "Foo of BBO". You really do risk making the wrong assumption(s) otherwise.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. I note that although the word "diabolical" is used, there is no mention of MOSCITO in this missive. Frankly, I do not see what the problem is with =any= 1level transfer opening that promises 5+ cards in the suit being transferred to and is within the traditional values of an opening bid (eg. if you would open it 1♠ within System and it was legal, then opening it 1♥+ should be just as legal). After all, transfers are inherently constructive bids. Given that Xfer responses to 1m "natural" are now pretty much accepted world-wide, I'd be very surprised to hear any justification that seemd logical for banning "natural" 5+ card transfer openings.

...and NOTHING in the previous post or links you pointed to provides fodder to further the "What is the definition of Destructive" or "Does there exist a definition of Destructive" conversation. That still is the main point being pursued here. As I said, please act on that point rather than muddling the issues together. At least if you want to be successful in pursuing your goals B)

If the following is "Item 1": ">From: "Jeff Meckstroth" <j.meckles@XXXX.net> >To: "steve weinstein" <lizsteve@XXXXXXXX.net>, >"Chip Martel" <martel@XXXXXX>, <Gary.Blaiss@acbl.org> >Cc: <rick.beye@acbl.org>, "Steve Beatty" <sbeatty@XXXXXXXXX.com>, > >Subject: Re: mid-chart submission >Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:26:31 -0400 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 >X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from >[4.4.219.65] at Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:26:32 -0500 > >This one is not difficult and is ok. >However if we allow this it will lead to other requests for >transfer openings such as the mosquito system from down under. >This system we don't want in acbl. > >I would approve this but warn all of the looming danger. > >Jeff" You are at best guilty of a bit of overstatement and hyperbole since I can see no reference by Jeff to the term "diabolical" in the above. Nor did Jeff say here anything like "...he absolutely refused to sanction any defenses to MOSCITO transfer opening bids." What he said is that he thought the C&C should not support MOSCITO being legal in the ACBL. As to Item2, so far I have not seen any evidence of its existance. I will note that IME the average ACBL players (who pay the bills) are not nearly as comfortable with defenses based on penalty X's rather than T/O X's. I also note that both JanM and Fred made some comments that I feel were well worth thinking about; and I'm not sure you ever did. As a side note, is there value in a 2♦ opening that promises 5+♦ and 4+M and is in a HCP range where the odds of Us having a makable 2♦ or 2M contract are ~ the same as for having a makable 2♦ contract when We open a traditional 5-10 HCP single suited Weak 2♦? You seem to be a big proponent of frequency based bidding methods. I'd be interested in seeing how the ACBL C&C would react to a 2♦ opening that shows 5+♦ and promises a side 4+M and is within one of the ranges for traditional Weak Twos.

Ummm, you mention a thread here on BBOF and do not give a pointer to it?

OP by Hannie: Yeah, and all that happens is you swipe the mouse over it...

is there a corollary that says that good players bid more than bad players? :) Perhaps not =more=, but =sooner and more accurately=. Especially with hands whose playing value is not reasonably represented by HCP.

Yeah, I think the location of the Jack and 10 of spades is particularly critical for those folks doubling as penalty, as is vulnerability. As is the location of the club 9. Who doubled for penalty? Lots of people doubled, did any mean it as a penalty double? Maybe I missed that someone did, but definitely not most. I think the point that was being made was that if you X, pd may feel endplayed into converting it to penalty on a wide variety of hands given that taking 11 tricks is considerably more difficult than taking 8. Please note I'm not advocating a penalty pass, I'm just noting the potential problem Opener may have.

Justin, I thought Hannie wanted the more experienced players to hold off a bit to give the B/N's more time to answer this thread.

I hate this auction thus far. I agree with Justin that Game is still very much a possibility, but where? If neither pd nor I has any ♣ stops, 5♦ looks like it could be quite a stretch even opposite my 6 loser =3352 18 count. Advancer needs 4 cover cards for Us to make 5♦. I fnd it ironic that Josh, who criticized a NT call by me in a different competitive auction because my hand did not have a stop of Opener's suit, is now advocating a NT call w/o a stop in Opener's suit... I feel endplayed into either passing or bidding 3♥ or 4♦, and I do not like my choices. This is MPs, not Red @ IMPs. I think I'd end up being a chicken and passing. ...and hating it. My preferred choice would be to start with X.

Exactly 100% correct. Folks, having the 1N bidder take unilateral action is a disaster waiting to happen. In fact it sounds like Rob F plays exactly the way I do in most serious partnerships: 1N-pa-pa-(X);XX shows 4+S and 1N-pa-pa-(X);pa-pa-XX shows 4+H (pa where you could XX here is now alertable as denying the hand that can XX) The 1N bidder's hand is more limited than Responder's and in theory stinks for suit play. Having it act like the partnership Captain or pick a suit doesn't make much sense.

PLEASE stop calling me "Ron"! (that's almost more annoying than the rest of this.) As for this evidence you just alluded to; no I have not seen either of these. You did not post them or a pointer to them in this thread or any recent thread I am aware of. Please do so if you want them considered as evidence of your POV that you were subject to wrongful and prejudicial treatment. Clearly such statements and actions on the part of people who are supposed to be acting objectively for the good of bridge would be 100% wrong. I don't know what can be done about it, but something should be if true. However, while those writings may very well provide evidence of prejudicial attitudes and possible wrong behavior on the part of those who made them... ...they do nothing to prove or disprove that "Destructive" is or is not a well defined term. Nor would they explain why or why not any specific method was or was not considered Destructive. Last I checked, =that's= what the present discussion is about. Address the present discussion please. I get the sense that you are not used to decomposing issues into their components. If you are going to take on Lawyers and Mathematicians, it's a good habit to get into.