I don't think Nick showed hostility by summarizing your opening bid
structure. Your do***ent includes many promotional comments and
non-specific recommendations rather than specific information about
what to bid with which hands.
Your system has merits and problems. There are many lite-opening
systems out there. Meckstroth-Rodwell open and respond lite also and
have achieved great success with it. There is no doubt it is a "bidders
game."
Please be aware that success at the club level does not mean that you
will achieve success with the system at higher level competition. There
is always the possibility that much of your success is due to the opps
unfamiliarity with your system. One of the requirements in the USA when
playing a new system or convention is a reasonable defense to the
system/convention must be provided and approved before you can play it.
When arriving at the table, you must provide the written defense to the
opponents prior to the round. Also, the opponents may refer to the
notes before making their bids.
Another popular open-everything system is EHAA and EHAA+ which I find
very compelling. EHAA = Every Hand An Adventure. There is a net
do***ent somewhere for EHAA+ that is very thorough.
Good luck with your system. I hope you get a book out of it.
--PK
eleaticus wrote:
> "Nick Hughes" <nhughes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:8MuLg.24191$rP1.17649@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > eleaticus wrote:
> > > This do***ent introduces and details a radically 'new', all-natural
> bidding
> > > system, Webster's Extra-Light Opener System. WELOS. WEE-lohss.
> > >
> >
> > Summary to save everyone's time:
> >
> > Openings (count 3-2-1 for shape)
> > 1x 4+ cards, 8-11 or 16+
> > standard responses boldtered but change of suit non-f, jumps
strong
> > 1NT 12-15 balanced-ish
> > 2x 4+ cards (usually 5), 11-15
> > step relays
>
> lol.
>
> You got the ranges for openers fairly well (but not nearly right
overall),
> and nothing of the essence(s)/ramifications.
>
> And you didn't show evidence of any thought, as suggested, about 3rd and
4th
> seat.
>
> Your brevity and error both made me think you were showing (undue)
> hostility.
>
> Am I wrong about that? Apologies, if so!
>
> Well, <g>, I may be wrong since I don't know what 'boldtered' means.
>
> Altered? Bolstered.
>
> Definitely NOT standard responses. Well, depending on how they are
> boldtered.
> --
> eleaticus
> ee-lee-AT-i-cus
> eleaticus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >
> > Nick Hughes, Sydney
|
