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 summarized your system fairly accurately and you complain. This
is the same summary that is on the internet if you look up WELOS. Over
half your post is the selling of an idea and not the sytem. If Nick
got the summary wrong, then please give us which line in summarized
wrong.
Nick France
|
