ACBL restriction on opening 1nt

[mike777]

I just sent an email to Mr. Bergen asking him about this issue. Hopefully he will respond or at the very least discuss the issue in his monthly ACBL article or in a new book.

[helene_t]

Marty lives in FL in the USA. I happened to be there a few years ago and noticed he wasn't playing "his" raises in some game or another we ran into each other in.

When I teased him about it (=Privately=. One does not make fun of a working professional "on the job".), he grimaced and told me he wasn't playing Bergen Raises much anymore. I did not feel it "politic" to ask him details as that could easily be construed as "twisting the knife".

Thanx for sharing, foo. It's nice when first-hand sources reach this forum (no sarkasm).

 

But just to play the advocat of the devil: he said he wasn't playing them "much" anymore. Could it be that his partners (clients) didn't want to play them? Or maybe he was playing 4-card majors in some partnerships, or some system that needed jump shifts for other kind of hands. Or maybe he just modified BR, for example allocating different JS to different hands, or applying other criteria for raises to the 3-level than merely trump count.

 

What you write is surely interesting, but I don't think it necesarily follows that Marty had become convinced that BR is not the technically best use of JS in an SA-like system.

[mike777]

I have never met Mr. Bergen in person. I only copy this as of 7-01-2007.

 

Michael,

 

I stopped playing 15 years ago.

 

I still totally believe in Bergen Raises, as written,

and teach them to experienced students who want to learn them.

 

Regards,

Marty Bergen

[hrothgar]

I'd be curious to hear more about why you believe "Destructive" and "Random" as used in an official Bridge Laws and Regulations sense are ill-defined or too loosely defined.  Again, I'd consider that to be an independent issue vs. those terms being misused or abused (or ignored).

 

Please show me the where the expression "destructive" is defined in the Laws of Contract Bridge or even in official regulatory codes. For that matter, you might want to try to do the same for "random". (Regretfully, saying that the primary purpose of "destructive" bids is to destroy the opponent's bidding doesn't cut it. You don't get to use a word to define itself)

Still waiting...

[pbleighton]

Still waiting...

 

Keep waiting...

 

Peter

[foo]

I'd be curious to hear more about why you believe "Destructive" and "Random" as used in an official Bridge Laws and Regulations sense are ill-defined or too loosely defined.  Again, I'd consider that to be an independent issue vs. those terms being misused or abused (or ignored).

 

Please show me the where the expression "destructive" is defined in the Laws of Contract Bridge or even in official regulatory codes. For that matter, you might want to try to do the same for "random". (Regretfully, saying that the primary purpose of "destructive" bids is to destroy the opponent's bidding doesn't cut it. You don't get to use a word to define itself)

Still waiting...

1= I have an email out to some folks I know on the WBF Board and

 

2= am (painfully slowly) going thru the minutes of the ACBL Board of Directors and Board of Governors meetings from the early thru mid 1990's. I have been told by folks who were sitting members of the ACBL C&C, BoD, and/or BoG during that time that those are the places to find evidence as to the formal/technical definitions of "Destructive" as a Bridge technical term.

 

In all cases, I have been given the following (paraphrased) definition of Destructive:

 

"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."

 

Since prior precedent in this thread has shown that there is little or no respect for verbal anecdote, I'm trying to find the above in writing for you; and find it in such a way that you will have documentation as to the thinking process that lead to said definitions as well.

 

Those of you who have contacts within the WBF or the ACBL or your SO can help by asking them in parallel for confirmatory documentation as regards this.

[Trinidad]

So from:

 

"FTR, Marty Bergen no longer plays any form of Bergen unless forced to; having come to the belief that its negatives outweigh its positives"

 

We have now gone to

 

"he grimaced and told me he wasn't playing Bergen Raises much anymore."

 

That is quite a difference, especially as he did not even give you the reasons why.

...Because the reasons are bloody obvious at the expert (heck even the non-expert) level. And have been known and discussed ad-nausuem for years.

 

Marty's style has changed from his youth when he was an advocate of considerably more "in your face" aggressive bidding.

 

He'll never be Al Roth, but the days of Weak Two's on J9xxx are behind him. And so are the days of him simply assuming that "n trumps means when should play at the n tricks level no matter what."

 

This doesn't seem to be the bloody obvious reason why Mr. Bergen is not playing a lot of Bergen raises lately. :)

 

I have never met Mr. Bergen in person. I only copy this as of 7-01-2007.

 

Michael,

 

I stopped playing 15 years ago.

 

I still totally believe in Bergen Raises, as written,

and teach them to experienced students who want to learn them.

 

Regards,

Marty Bergen

 

The reason is bloody obvious even for a beginner. Mr. Bergen doesn't play any bridge at all. It's hard to play Bergen raises without playing bridge.

 

I would like it if this discussion stopped being about winning or losing a debate. Because the truth is clearly suffering from this "trying to win the debate race". Can we please try to separate the facts from the opinions and present facts and opinions in a more objective matter? This is supposed to be an exchange of facts and opinions to get us all ahead. It is not about winning or losing a silly debate by adding misinformation to the discussion.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

...Because the reasons are bloody obvious at the expert (heck even the non-expert) level.  And have been known and discussed ad-nausuem for years.

 

Marty's style has changed from his youth when he was an advocate of considerably more "in your face" aggressive bidding.

 

He'll never be Al Roth, but the days of Weak Two's on J9xxx are behind him.  And so are the days of him simply assuming that "n trumps means when should play at the n tricks level no matter what."

Bergen raises have very little to do with "in your face" aggressive bidding. It is a method to help in hand evaluation with the (minor) drawback that you have to raise the bidding one level.

 

When it comes to deciding whether you want to make a game try, bid game or stay in a part score there are several factors that play a role. A well known factor is the degree of fit in side suits. This is what long suit, short suit, help suit, fit suit, Romex and whatever trials available are based on. All very well.

 

Another factor is the trump length in responder's hand. Opposite four card support for your five card suit, your shortness is much more valuable than opposite three card support. Therefore, when deciding on the feasibility of a game contract knowledge about responder's trump length is a key factor. Bergen raises give us a tool to get this knowledge. That is all.

 

An advantage of an exchange about dummy's trump length is that it is an important factor for game decisions, but it doesn't help the defense much. It doesn't help in the choice of opening lead and it doesn't give any information about declarer's hand. Declarer may have bid 1♠-3♣ (7-10, 4♠); 4♠ based on an 18-19 balanced hand or on a half decent 5431.

 

So, Bergen raises is a method to split the raises into 3 and 4 card raises, so that opener can evaluate his hand accordingly. Unfortunately, this means that we will need to play at the three level with four card support more often than the non Bergen players do. Do we like that? NO. But it is pretty rare since usually we would have been pushed to 3M anyway. And sometimes we get a preemptive advantage in return. (The opponents can make a contract or have a "down one is good bridge" contract but they had no way to find out.) But this preemptive/prebalancing effect is not what Bergen raises are about. That is only a side effect. The main effect of Bergen raises is the improved evaluation of opener's hand for game, based on the knowledge of dumm's trump length.

 

Rik

 

(So many words about Bergen raises and the Law of Total Tricks wasn't even mentioned. :) )

[hrothgar]

I'd be curious to hear more about why you believe "Destructive" and "Random" as used in an official Bridge Laws and Regulations sense are ill-defined or too loosely defined.  Again, I'd consider that to be an independent issue vs. those terms being misused or abused (or ignored).

 

Please show me the where the expression "destructive" is defined in the Laws of Contract Bridge or even in official regulatory codes. For that matter, you might want to try to do the same for "random". (Regretfully, saying that the primary purpose of "destructive" bids is to destroy the opponent's bidding doesn't cut it. You don't get to use a word to define itself)

Still waiting...

1= I have an email out to some folks I know on the WBF Board and

 

2= am (painfully slowly) going thru the minutes of the ACBL Board of Directors and Board of Governors meetings from the early thru mid 1990's. I have been told by folks who were sitting members of the ACBL C&C, BoD, and/or BoG during that time that those are the places to find evidence as to the formal/technical definitions of "Destructive" as a Bridge technical term.

 

In all cases, I have been given the following (paraphrased) definition of Destructive:

 

"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."

 

Since prior precedent in this thread has shown that there is little or no respect for verbal anecdote, I'm trying to find the above in writing for you; and find it in such a way that you will have documentation as to the thinking process that lead to said definitions as well.

Do you think that we can expect your reply before or after the hand records documenting Reese and Shapiro playing "Little Major" in Buenos Aires?

 

Regardless, I think that its going to be enlightening to finally discover why a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major is inherently destructive and must be banned at all levels of play, while a 2♦ overcall that shows 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major is laudatory and sanctioned at the GCC level.

[hrothgar]

Since prior precedent in this thread has shown that there is little or no respect for verbal anecdote, I'm trying to find the above in writing for you; and find it in such a way that you will have documentation as to the thinking process that lead to said definitions as well.

Given the noteworthy inaccuracy of oh so many of your little tales, I think that asking for some kind of real documentation is prudent:

 

I find it remarkable that you are able to make a snarky comment about people not respecting verbal anecdotes in the same thread that you got called out regarding Bergen Raises.

[foo]

Do you think that we can expect your reply before or after the hand records documenting Reese and Shapiro playing "Little Major" in Buenos Aires?

 

 

Regardless, I think that its going to be enlightening to finally discover why a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major is inherently destructive and must be banned at all levels of play, while a 2♦ overcall that shows 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major is laudatory and sanctioned at the GCC level.

??? I thought you wanted no further conversation regarding Buenos Aires because it was "pointless" and a "waste"?

I ended my participation in that thread at your request, or so I thought.

 

 

As for the other, I have =no= idea why you think getting documentation as to the definition of a general technical term is going to give you any insight as to why any specific treatment is catagorized by that term.

 

There's no logical reason to believe that having the definition of "Destructive" is going to suddenly explain why 2D= 4+M & 4+D (and what HCP range?) is a Destructive =or= Constructive bid.

[foo]

Given the noteworthy inaccuracy of oh so many of your little tales, I think that asking for some kind of real documentation is prudent:

 

I find it remarkable that you are able to make a snarky comment about people not respecting verbal anecdotes  in the same thread that you got called out regarding Bergen Raises.

So look through the minutes and records I referenced FOR YOURSELF; and =find= the d*mn stuff already? It's all in the public domain. No better proof than documents you find yourself, and you have previously shown that you have both connections and that you can use them if you so desire.

 

After all, this is =your= problem, not mine. I am not beholden to you in any way to do =your= work for you. I'm doing what I am doing in an attempt to be helpful.

But please don't abuse my charity or hospitality by assuming priviledges you don't have or by acting like you have the right to make demands of me.

My professional time for Bridge is usually paid for, and you are darn insulting for someone who is getting a lot of another person's time, effort, and expertise for free.

 

 

And In what way was "I called out?" Marty has not played seriously in many years. I never disputed that or claimed otherwise.

 

Marty does still sit at the table with students occasionally.

 

As for the discrepency as to Marty's attitude re: Bergen Raises, that I can't explain.

I'll be talking to Marty and Larry to try and clarify it next time I get the chance.

[hrothgar]

??? I thought you wanted no further conversation regarding Buenos Aires because it was "pointless" and a "waste"?

I ended my participation in that thread at your request, or so I thought.

I agreed with your general claim that Reese and Shapiro played Little Major was accurate. There didn't seem to be much point in discussing it.

 

I'd still be very surprised if you can produce any documentation to your more specific (and more controversial) claim that Reese and Shapiro were playing Little Major when they became embroiled in the cheating scandal at Buenos Aires.

[hrothgar]

As for the other, I have =no= idea why you think getting documentation as to the definition of a general technical term is going to give you any insight as to why any specific treatment is categorized by that term.

 

There's no logical reason to believe that having the definition of "Destructive" is going to suddenly explain why 2D= 4+M & 4+D (and what HCP range?) is a Destructive =or= Constructive bid.

Lets review some earlier comments during this same thread.

 

I made the following statement:

 

As you are no doubt aware, I claim that expressions like "Destructive" and "Random" are useless. They are too imprecise to be used in drafting regulations.

 

They (essentially) mean "Whatever I don't like"

 

You responded as follows

 

Interesting. My POV is that we do need precise language for dealing with legal and regulatory situations. If we do not yet have such "jargon", it should be developed post-haste.

 

OTOH, If we do have precise terms and they are being twisted or misused, that's a different issue.

 

I'd be curious to hear more about why you believe "Destructive" and "Random" as used in an official Bridge Laws and Regulations sense are ill-defined or too loosely defined. Again, I'd consider that to be an independent issue vs. those terms being misused or abused (or ignored).

 

Just so we're perfectly clear:

 

1. I started by saying that "Destructive" was poorly defined and imprecise. The expression can't be used in drafting regulations because it is so subjective.

 

2. You said Prove it

 

3. I said show me an official definition

 

4. "Maybe next week"

 

5. I said if / when you produce said definition, I hope that it can be used to explain the following...

 

6. You said why would I ever expect that a general expression like Destructive could ever be used to evaluate a specific case

 

The short answer is that I DON'T think that the expression "Destructive" can be used to evaluate specific cases. You suggested that they can be, and, now, an entire 48 hours later, can't even remember doing so.

[foo]

I did not say when I would get an answer for you as to the definition of Destructive. In fact, I never promised to get you such an answer at all.

 

I expressed surprise at your POV that Destructive was ill-defined and =asked you= to explain why you felt so. Your "response" was yet another in-your-face challenge rather than doing any work and/or providing any evidence yourself.

 

I then, when I was under =no= obiligation to do so, made some phone calls and wrote some email to get hints as to where said information could be found and posted where I was told to look for anyone's benefit who wanted to look for themselves.

 

Since I'm one of those, I am doing so. But your attititude that I "owe" you something here is simply not supported by the facts of this conversation and pretty d@mned arrogant. I do not work for you; and you are not paying me to do your work for you.

 

FTR, it's probably going to take =considerably= more than a week for me to get answers on this by myself. I'm doing it in my spare time when I feel like it because I have a mild interest in finding the documentation that proves you are confused or mistaken. However, since I'm already sure you are confused or mistaken thanks to the aforementioned conversations I've had, =I= don't need further proof on this issue. =You've= made the surprising statement at odds with multiple members who sat at the pertinent bodies at the time of the events in question. =You= have the burden of proof.

 

Now,

a= provide evidence or proof to back up your POV. or

b= admit you've perhaps taken a more extreme POV than the facts support. or

c= be quiet and wait patiently for others to do your work for you at whatever pace they feel comfortable volunteering.

 

 

...and =regardless= of how or when Destructive is defined, it will not shed any light on why your pet 2♦ opening was deemed unacceptable. That's simply an illogical leap on your part.

(was a decent defense provided? was the HCP range considered Constructive? were the odds of this opening finding a good spot for Us ~ the same as for a single suited 2♦ preempt or were they considerably worse? etc etc)

[hrothgar]

FTR, it's probably going to take =considerably= more than a week for me to get answers on this by myself. I'm doing it in my spare time when I feel like it because I have a mild interest in finding the documentation that proves you are confused or mistaken. However, since I'm already sure you are confused or mistaken thanks to the aforementioned conversations I've had, =I= don't need further proof on this issue. =You've= made the surprising statement at odds with multiple members who sat at the pertinent bodies at the time of the events in question. =You= have the burden of proof.

 

Now,

a= provide evidence or proof to back up your POV. or

b= admit you've perhaps taken a more extreme POV than the facts support. or

c= be quiet and wait patiently for others to do your work for you at whatever pace they feel comfortable volunteering.

 

 

...and =regardless= of how or when Destructive is defined, it will not shed any light on why your pet 2♦ opening was deemed unacceptable. That's simply an illogical leap on your part.

(was a decent defense provided? was the HCP range considered Constructive? were the odds of this opening finding a good spot for Us ~ the same as for a single suited 2♦ preempt or were they considerably worse? etc etc)

Ron

 

You know precisely what I'm going bring forth as proof.

 

Item 1: The email that Meckstroth accidentally mailed to myself and Tim Goodwin stating that MOSCITO is a diabolical system and that he would not permit it to be played in the United States. Furthermore, he absolutely refused to sanction any defenses to MOSCITO transfer opening bids.

 

Item 2: The email from Chip Martel stating that he refused to sanction any defense to a Ekrens type assumed fit preempt that could be based on 4-4 shape. Furthermore, he stated that this was a result of the fact that direct seat penalty doubles are optimal against this opening.

 

Furthermore, both "worthies" refused to provide any kind of objective criteria that could be used to evaluate bids.

 

Both these incidents are well documented on both rec.games.bridge and these forums.

[foo]

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.

[hrothgar]

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.

As a starting point, you probably want to work your way through the following thread on the BBO forums.

 

You should be more than familiar with the following thread from rec.games.bridge

 

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...3bffce187c57714

[foo]

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

[hrothgar]

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

Sorry about that

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=13220

[foo]

Item 1:  The email that Meckstroth accidentally mailed to myself and Tim Goodwin stating that MOSCITO is a diabolical system and that he would not permit it to be played in the United States.  Furthermore, he absolutely refused to sanction any defenses to MOSCITO transfer opening bids.

 

Item 2:  The email from Chip Martel stating that he refused to sanction any defense to a Ekrens type assumed fit preempt that could be based on 4-4 shape.  Furthermore, he stated that this was a result of the fact that direct seat penalty doubles are optimal against this opening.

 

Both these incidents are well documented on both rec.games.bridge and these forums.

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.

[foo]

...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)

[hrothgar]

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.

Here's the original email from Meckstroth where he uses the expression "Diabolical". I haven't made any edits aside from blacking out non public email addresses.

 

As a bit of background information, Tim Goodwin who occasional posts on these forums gave me some help on the whole submission process. Tim decided to see whether or not he would be able to get the ACBL to approve a suggested defense for a 1♥ opening that

 

1. Was forcing

2. Promises 5+ Spades

 

As I recall, he initially received a response from Steve Beatty stating that this was simple stuff and that he saw no trouble getting a defense approved. Meckstroth then weighed and noted that if the ACBL were to approve this, they would be opening the door for similar but more "diabolical" methods. This is an obvious MOSCITO reference.

 

>From: "Jeff Meckstroth" <j.meckles@XXXXX>

>To: "Chip Martel" <martel@cs.ucdavis.edu>, <Gary.Blaiss@acbl.org>,

> "Tim Goodwin" <tim@XXXXXXX>

>Cc: <Rick.Beye@acbl.org>, <lizsteve@XXXXXXX>,

> <martel@XXXXXXXX>, <sbeatty@XXXXXXXXXX>

>Subject: Re: Your Submission

>Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:59:31 -0400

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

>X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out012.verizon.net

>from [4.4.219.65] at Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:59:30 -0500

>

>Tim,

>

>There are other problems with approving this type of method, mainly other

>similiar but more diabolical methods. It's difficult to say yes to this and

>not allow these other transfer opening systems.

>

>I feel it unlikely to be approved for anything other than knockouts.

>

>Jeff

>----- Original Message -----

>From: "Tim Goodwin" <tim@XXXXXXXXX>

>To: "Chip Martel" <martel@XXXXXXXXXXXXX>; <Gary.Blaiss@acbl.org>

>Cc: <Rick.Beye@acbl.org>; <j.meckles@XXXXXXXX>; <lizsteve@XXXXXXXXX>;

><martel@XXXXXXXX>; <sbeatty@XXXXXXXXX>

>Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:38 PM

>Subject: Re: Your Submission

>

>

> > At 04:28 PM 8/27/2004 -0700, Chip Martel wrote:

> > >How long in

> > >total this takes will depend on what other things are being discussed.

> > >

> > >In fact you could make a case that we should restrict multi

> > >more (e.g. you can't play it with another weak ART opening in a pair

> > >game), and perhaps we will do so in the future.

> >

> > Thanks. This seems a reasonable explanation. Though, as you point out,

>it

> > seems I am being treated differently than someone who wants to play a

> > variety of mid-chart preemptive methods.

> >

> > >Also note that we did give some feedback on the 1H=S opening by

> > >itself. The defense is reasonable, if not ideal.

> > >(Gary, or Rick, I think I had some comments on the defense, but

> > >can't find them now, do you have them by chance)?

> >

> > I was copied on a few messages, but none contained any specifics. They

> > were all general "Looks OK", "might be a slippery slope", "not sure we

> > should allow this" type messages. And, none seemed to have been an

> > official answer.

> >

> > The answer seems to be: we need to know about the rest of the system

>before

> > we'll give an answer.

> >

> > I had hoped to get approval piece by piece, but I will put together a

> > system outline to complete the process.

> >

> > Tim

> >

> >

[foo]

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.

[hrothgar]

...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.

I am still waiting for you to provide some kind of "official" definition for the expression destructive. You claimed that your estorica knowledge of the personalities involved in with the Conventions committee gave you special powers that enabled you to find such a beast...

 

I have pointed to a VERY long thread on rec.games.bridge that where a number of folks, yourself included, debated whether there was any definition of the term. You claimed that this could be characterized using a mathematical ratio that described the constructive versus the destructive aspect of the bid. No one agreed with you.

 

I can point to multiple other threads on rec.games.bridge where this same topic has been debated. No one has ever offered any kind of real definition. LOTS of people have asked for one.

 

Here's a thread from 1997 that the late Bobby Goldman kicked off

 

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...7cde8cb1eee0596

 

Here's one that I launched back at Christmas time

 

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...69459a8bb1cd266

 

Here's a lengthy one from back in 1994 about 10-12 HCP 1NTS openings

 

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...28590696a4af900