[SteelWheel]

I kibbed a fair amount of the BBO VuGraph for the Reisingers this past weekend. Most of the top American pairs seemed to be using one or the other of these systems (except for Meckwell themselves, of course playing their full system).

Is there any literature out there on the "could be short ♣ with transfer responses" system? I have the pamphlet from Dan Neill's site describing the Welland/Auken system--it's hard to get a handle on it all as there are no explanations provided--just a recap of all(?) possible sequences.

I have sort of the same question about Meck Lite. I've seen three or four different writeups all claiming to be "the one, true, Meck Lite". While each has the same basic idea (1♦ response negative, 1♥ 8-11, all other responses 12+), each also has a greater or lesser amount of artificiality. Is there a definitive version out there someplace?

Thanks.

[Phil]

There's a bunch on Meckwell lite notes on this site.

Its quite good and fun to play.

[PrecisionL]

RM Precision:

http://www.unit524.c...38-rm-precision

Also, The Millennium Club by Lyle Poe, 2002 uses transfer responses to an opening bid of 1 club with 15+ hcp.

http://www.bridgewit...lenium_Club.txt

[fromageGB]

"Could be short 1♣ with transfer responses" : there have been a number of discussions. Try googling
site:bridgebase.com twalsh
or
site:bridgebase.com "transfer walsh"

[wank]

In the final bocchi got a bit pissed off. He couldn't believe our system is as bad as it is and assumed I was being untruthful with my disclosure. You might guess we play neither mecklite nor t-walsh.

[Zelandakh]

wank, on 2016-December-08, 15:24, said:

In the final bocchi got a bit pissed off. He couldn't believe our system is as bad as it is and assumed I was being untruthful with my disclosure. You might guess we play neither mecklite nor t-walsh.

I am confused. According to the ACBL website the winners were Mike Kamil, Walid Elahmady, Richard Coren, Tarek Sadek, Mike Becker and Aubrey Strul. Congratulations on reaching a final against Bocchi nonetheless! Making a late bid for Offline Achievement of the Year?!

[wank]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-13, 07:11, said:

I am confused. According to the ACBL website the winners were Mike Kamil, Walid Elahmady, Richard Coren, Tarek Sadek, Mike Becker and Aubrey Strul. Congratulations on reaching a final against Bocchi nonetheless! Making a late bid for Offline Achievement of the Year?!

it's a 10 team round robin final. we finished 8th - no achievement of the year.

[Zelandakh]

wank, on 2016-December-13, 07:15, said:

it's a 10 team round robin final. we finished 8th - no achievement of the year.

Well reaching the final was an achievement in itself I think, though naturally winning would have been nicer. I do not actually see Bocchi in the final - could it have been Lauria or Versace? The best part is that I now have a better idea of who you are though - presumably Alex Hydes, right? If so, 2016 does indeed look to have been a pretty successful year for you so congratulations on that!

[wank]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-13, 08:13, said:

Well reaching the final was an achievement in itself I think, though naturally winning would have been nicer. I do not actually see Bocchi in the final - could it have been Lauria or Versace? The best part is that I now have a better idea of who you are though - presumably Alex Hydes, right? If so, 2016 does indeed look to have been a pretty successful year for you so congratulations on that!

thanks. it was definitely bocchi. maybe i'm getting the days mixed up. it could have been the semi.

[Zelandakh]

wank, on 2016-December-13, 08:43, said:

thanks. it was definitely bocchi. maybe i'm getting the days mixed up. it could have been the semi.

I think I have sussed it out. When you put in Bocchi to the player filter it points to the sessions from Bramley-Hamman-Weinstein-Grabel so I think he must be on that team but somehow did not make the online graphics. If that is correct then it could well have been during the final. Out of interest, which part of your system was he questioning?

[wank]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-15, 03:33, said:

I think I have sussed it out. When you put in Bocchi to the player filter it points to the sessions from Bramley-Hamman-Weinstein-Grabel so I think he must be on that team but somehow did not make the online graphics. If that is correct then it could well have been during the final. Out of interest, which part of your system was he questioning?

1♣ - (p) - 1♦ - (1♥) - x i described as take-out.

he found it unbelievable that this didn't show 3 diamonds. we don't play support doubles there and 1 ♠ could still be 4423/4333 so double would include hands like 4225.

[Zelandakh]

wank, on 2016-December-15, 06:37, said:

1♣ - (p) - 1♦ - (1♥) - x i described as take-out.

he found it unbelievable that this didn't show 3 diamonds. we don't play support doubles there and 1 ♠ could still be 4423/4333 so double would include hands like 4225.

Hmmm, seems perfectly reasonable to me to differentiate between real and not real clubs rather than 2 and 3 diamonds but he has won a couple tournaments more so perhaps he knows something different from either of us.

[jallerton]

Support doubles in diamonds are of dubious merit. It seems harsh to criticise someone for playing a superior method!

[PhantomSac]

lol, that is just standard Bocchi at the table, just tell him for a small fee you can give him some system coaching

Congrats on making it to the final day, that event is pretty epic when you look at all the great teams who get cut before then. It was pretty close who was a better group, the top 10 on day 2 or the bottom 10, and that is no knock on the top 10, it just goes to show how amazing the field is! And also teams like Fleisher etc that won the spingold last national didn't even make day 2.