[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

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]

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 08:28 PM, said:

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]

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 11:56 PM, said:

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

Sorry about that

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=13220

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

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

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 01:27 AM, said:

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]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 01:33 AM, said:

...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

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 01:50 AM, said:

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

I note that although the word "diabolical" is used, there is no mention of MOSCITO in this missive.

I readily admit, its entirely posisble that someone else was submitting transfer opening based methods to the ACBL at the same time. (I know for a fact that Josh Sher was making submission for TOSR). However, I expect that that the Convention COmmittee (probably) lumped all of the Australian transfer based relay methods in one big bid.

However, I would think that there is a simple way to find out. You always talking about your wonderful contacts with the conventions committee. Why not go and ask Meckstroth what system he was talking about?

I'll even send you his email address if you need it.

[foo]

Quote

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...

No, I never claimed any "estorica knowledge" . I called some people whose numbers are in the public domain. I then told =everyone= in this thread that I was told the minutes of ACBL C&C, BoD, and BoG meetings in the early to mid 1990's would contain this information.

I also told you that officials within the WBF have claimed there are equivalent minutes for that body within the same time period.

These minutes are matters of public record. They are not "special". Simply boring and tedious to work one's way through.

If you want written documentation on the definition of "Destructive", that's where I have been told you have to go at this time (I =have= made the point to those I talked to that it would be nice for such information to be easier to obtain.)

Please stop accusing me of some sort of unwilliness to pursue this. I'm doing far more than you have any right to expect for free out of a volunteer. (Also, these little trips down tangential topics necessarily slow down progress on any other topic.)

...and again, please do not assume I was part of any rec.games.bridge conversation on this or any other topic unless you explicitly see a post there by "Foo of BBO". You really do risk making the wrong assumption(s) otherwise.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 02:00 AM, said:

No, I never claimed any "special powers" or connections. I told =everyone= in this thread that I was told the minutes of ACBL C&C, BoD, and BoG meeting in the early to mid 1990's would contain this information.

Foo, on numerous occasions you allude to having contacts or influence with the Powers that Be. In this very thread, you posted the following:

Quote

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.

If you prefer to go a bit further back, there was you "conversation" with Marty Bergen when he explained that he didn't like to play Bergen raises any more.

Hell, if we go far enough back we have the following classic "fooism"

Quote

Richard's suggested wonder weapon vs a strong club is causing a bit of consternation.

The first question being raised is whether it is destructive or not. If so, it is not legal.
To be =not= destructive, it needs to
a= have continuations to find the correct strain and level when 3S rates to not be a place to play. {what are the continuations after 1C!-(3S)-pa or 1C!-(3S)-X or etc. What does Advancer do w/ a S void, etc, etc}
b= show a known suit, in this case S's, a high enough percentage of the time.
{The problem here is that the notion of "a high enough percentage of the time" is not well formalized. Is it 51%? Less? More? Where's the cutoff where a method becomes destructive?}

Curiously enough, "destructive" has some definition, even if loose. OTOH, it seems that "constructive" does not have a definition beyond "it just =is=".

The 2nd issue is a bit more interesting. Traditionally, one can play =anything= non destructive vs a strong artificial and forcing opening.
IOW, my read of the GCC was wrong on this point.
However, if this method is deemed GCC, then this and other methods inspired by it could pretty much destroy Forcing 1C openings so thoroughly that it becomes questionable whether playing a FCS is worth it.
...and that in turn brings up the question of whether the traditional "anything goes" approach to defenses to a Forcing Club should be re-examined.

At this point, some folks I consider far more expert in this area than myself are examining the issue.

(BTW, still waiting to see what these "experts" had to say on this one)

Now I readily admit, you never got an outright state that any of these folks know you or care about you. You simply insinuate that you have connections. I can only assume that you've learned not to get caught in this blatant a lie...

[awm]

I agree that Destructive or Random probably aren't well-defined with regard to bridge agreements. However, I believe I have seen people use these as reasons to regulate, despite their lack of definition.

If someone asked me to define those terms, my best guess would be something like:

A convention is Destructive or Randomizing if, assuming best-possible decisions in bidding and play by both sides after the convention is used, the expected score for people using the convention is substantially worse than break even. In this case, we can suppose that either:

(1) The convention is just poor. It will rarely obtain a good result. An example is an opening 3NT to show 8-10 points, balanced. Of course we can ask: if the convention is so bad, who cares if people play it? However, people using these sorts of methods tend to hurt the integrity of the field, especially in a pairs or swiss teams event. The people who happen to come up against this pair when the convention happened to come up will be getting random tops (or huge IMP/VP wins) whereas the people who never played this pair or against whom the convention didn't come up get no such reward. And occasionally the convention will "work out" by sheer random luck and fix somebody. People using such a method are not really trying to do well in the event, they're just screwing around, and the league reserves the right to disallow this sort of attitude.

(2) The convention can work out in practice, but only because the opponents will often guess what to do incorrectly. An example might be a 2♥ opening showing a weak two bid in any suit. Such methods basically turn bridge into a guessing game, greatly increasing the randomness of results. The main advantage to the side employing these methods is that they have more experience with them and therefore are more likely to get their guesses right. Nonetheless, they are choosing methods not for technical merit, but either to randomize or to take advantage of opponents' lack of familiarity. Neither is really in the spirit of the game (which is supposed to emphasize skill and full disclosure of methods), and the effect on the field is potentially similar to (1).

Of course actually measuring on these criteria is hard. Assumed fit preempts, for example, seem like they might be sufficiently technically unsound to fall into category two, but then again they might not if in fact there is usually a reasonably good two-level contract available to the opening side. It's hard to say really.

[foo]

Hrothgar,
I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me. I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time.

As for "connections", you have claimed to at least as many as any other here, myself included. Examples include
a= at least 3-4 members of the C&C
b= various members of the ACBL National Board (there appears to be understandable overlap between this and the previous catagory)
c= Bobby Goldman, Eric Kokish, and other "big name" Theorists.
d= Various officials within what appears to be District 25 of the ACBL (that being the only reference I can find to a "Tim Goodwin" within an ACBL official context).
e= other misc. examples I do not at this time recall.

So please dispense with the attitude and dispense with the attempts to shift the focus from yourself and your usually vehement "take" on certain matters of Bridge regulation and law.
You are obviously just as "well heeled" as almost any. If you =really= wanted to have dug out all existing documentation on any particular issue, the evidence is that you are more than capable of doing so on your own.

Yet you haven't. That argues that for some reason you don't really want to.
Evidently, you are more vested in your being angry about some topics than you are in finding the whole truth about them or in changing your approach until you are successful.


Case in point: I made what I thought was a reasonable suggestion for a two suited 2♦ opening for you to submit. No response regarding it by you.
Why? Is it not aggressive enough for you? Is it not IYHO a useful convention?
At least this inquiring mind would like to know.
No response tends to imply that you don't care about finding ways to mutate unacceptable methods until they are acceptable. No response implies that you are not interested in finding a middle ground. It implies that you are interested in fighting and winning a war, not negotiating a peace.
That is unlikely to be a successful attitude or strategy.

[foo]

awm, on Jul 2 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

I agree that Destructive or Random probably aren't well-defined with regard to bridge agreements.

As I have previously posted, I have been given the following (paraphrased) definition of Destructive verbally from multiple sources who really should know what they are taking about:

"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."

The only thing missing is to find the equivalent of the above in writing within official ACBL (since that's hrothgar's home SO) or WBF records.

The records in question I have been told are official minutes of various meetings in the early to late 1990's.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 02:51 AM, said:

Hrothgar,
I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me. I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time.

http://forums.bridge...pic=14326&st=60

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 02:51 AM, said:

Case in point: I made what I thought was a reasonable suggestion for a two suited 2♦ opening for you to submit. No response regarding it by you.
Why? Is it not aggressive enough for you? Is it not IYHO a useful convention?
At least this inquiring mind would like to know.
No response tends to imply that you don't care about finding ways to mutate unacceptable methods until they are acceptable. No response implies that you are not interested in finding a middle ground. It implies that you are interested in fighting and winning a war, not negotiating a peace.
That is unlikely to be a successful attitude or strategy.

I don't play in ACBL events any more. Its not worth investing the time/energy trying to "work" with the Convention's Committee. (For what its worth, the straw that broke the camel's back was MOSCITO style transfer openings and not assumed fit preempts)

As to your specific question: I think that restricting an assumed fit 2♦ opening to promise 5+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major cripples its utility. Its frequency plummets. Worse yet, I expect that the opening wouldn't score nearly as well.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 02:51 AM, said:

Hrothgar,
I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me.  I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time.

http://forums.bridge...pic=14326&st=60

Thank you for the reminder. No, I never did hear back from any of the members of the ACBL C&C I knew at that time or from Rick Beye or Grant Blaiss. Those were the people I asked.

I will admit to getting distracted by other matters and forgetting all about it until you brought this reminder up.

You should submit it to the ACBL C&C and force the issue.
It would be interesting to see the reaction.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 02:51 AM, said:

Hrothgar,
I can't vouch for the 2nd quote you claim to be from me. I do not recognize it nor have any recollection of anything like it at this time.

As for "connections", you have claimed to at least as many as any other here, myself included. Examples include
a= at least 3-4 members of the C&C
b= various members of the ACBL National Board (there appears to be undestandable overlap between this and the previous catagory)
c= Bobby Goldman, Eric Kokish, and other "big name" Theorists.
d= Various officials within what appears to be District 25 of the ACBL (that being the only reference I can find to a "Tim Godwin" within an ACBL official context).
e= other misc. examples I do not at this time recall.

So please dispense with the attitude and dispense with the attempts to shift the focus from yourself and your usually vehement "take" on certain matters of Bridge regulation and law.
You are obviously just as "well heeled" as almost any.

Yes and no...

I've exchanged a fair amount correspondence with various bridge players. In terms of "theorists", I've exchanged a fair number of ideas with Paul Marston. I was luckily enough to have been able to have a number of exchanges with Bobby Goldman years ago when I was doing data entry for his revisions on Aces Scientific. (I don't recall any significant discussions with Kokish)

As for the ACBL Conventions Committee:

I've thrown a lot of emails back and forth over the years, however, I certainly wouldn't claim any connection or influence with any of them. In a similar vein, I've had some discussions with Mike Flader and Gary Blaiss, however, I suspect that all of the folks that I've just mentioned either

(A) Don't give a rat's ass about me or
(B) Would be more than happy to see me drop of the face of the planet.

From my perspective, I think that there is a very significant difference between the occasions that when I reference these exchanges and your own insinuations.

My comments are grounded in reality. If I make a comment that "Meckstroth wrote" or "Marston argues" I can (typically) provide hard written documentation that backs up my claims. Furthermore, I claim that these comments are (typically) well aligned with other - publicly available - statements

I readily admit, in some cases my copies of the various emails have been lost. My exchanges with Bobby Goldman took place 15 years ago. Several hard drives have come and gone since then. In a similar vein, I don't have a direct copy of Chip Martel's comments about direct seat penalty doubles over assumed fit preempts. (If push comes to shove, I suspect that Tim Goodwin remembers this conversation. He might even have a backup copy of the original email. We might even be able to pester Martel see whether he'd be willing to verify this conversation)