eleaticus wrote:
> <gandalfnf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1157510345.912118.300760@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > eleaticus wrote:
> > > "Susan" <sdbratt48@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > news:%AhLg.591$vb1.9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > If you fill out a convention card, why is this a problem?
> > >
> > > Couple things.
> > >
> > > You can't fill out the ramifications, which in WELOS are many (and
> obvious
> > > once you 'get' the simple structure).
> > >
> > > But no matter what you see, or hear, during alerts, some people
just
> can't
> > > get it that sequences that sound standard to them aren't:
> > >
> > > Me: 1C (Alert! Promises four clubs but could be as little as 8
TOTAL
> > > points.)
> > > pass.
> > > Ted; 1H (Alert! Denies four card or better sup****t and is
> non-forcing.)
> > > pass.
> > > ME: pass.
> > > HUNH?!
> > >
> > > Ted could have two queens and a singleton diamond, and I could have
a
> king,
> > > a queen, a jack, and a singleton spade (or diamond!)
> > >
> > > Third hand may have passed, with the idea of puni****ng us when we
got
> too
> > > high.
> > >
> > > Second hand/balancer might not be able to connect the 8 total points
to
> the
> > > opener she thinks she heard me bid.
> > >
> > > However, the damn ACBL lawyers decided to protect the little ol'
ladies
> of
> > > Wichita, and elsewhere.
> > >
> > > --
> > It seems you have still left a lot out of your system. Seems the 1H
> > bid doesn't show hearts only tells about clubs.
>
> "All-natural"?
>
> >Second we have no idea
> > of the range for a 1H response to 1C.
>
> That's a point, up to a point.
>
> opener: 8 minimum.
> response: non-forcing.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Does "less than enough to force to game" sound reasonable?
>
>
> > Third we seem not to know if
> > responder was forced to bid over 1C.
>
> Hmm. Well, technically, since I didn't say "alert! natural." I guess
that
> would apply if you assume I would violate a basic requirement of the
alert
> system and leave out what would be perhaps the most im****tant aspect of
the
> opener.
>
> Why would you do that?
>
> > A lot of question and very little
> > information from you although I see Henry has asked you twice to
> > explain this simple sytem.
>
> lol
>
You seem to be leaving out a lot and so far all I have seen is a very
unfamilar system that has taken advantage of the lack of knowledge
about it from the opponents. Let's go back to what we know.
1C You have stated that it is 8 HCP but in another post you just had a
King, a Queen, and a Jack along with a singleton. That seems to be 6
HCP to me.
1H response to 1C. In another post you stated partner had just a pair
of Queens.
In another post you refered to the system as Welos. I looked this up
and the one reference I could find has
1c/1D/1H/1S - 8-1 or 16+
Well is that what you are playing and if so don't you think the comment
that 1C shows 8+ might be a little misleading.
What is so hard about answering the question about 1C (or any one bid
in your system), is it forcing for one round?
What is so hard about defining a point range for the 1H bid? Could you
do it on 0 points? What is the maximum you could do it on? not hard
questions
Why do you seem to object to alerting both your 1C opener and the 1H
response. They both may be natural but they are not what the opponents
are expecting and that is part of the alert procedures.
How can a system be so easy to learn (15 minutes) and yet so hard to
but down on paper in a simple outline?
I am not going to defend the ACBL policy of what it allows in normal
tournament play (I think they are too restricitve) but so far we have
nothing to judge your system by except your own comments that it is so
good.
Nick France
|
