[Free]

I haven't answered here, because I found it a really ridiculous thread to start with, but since you still want some extra answers, here's mine:

Imo, everybody is allowed not to learn anything about any other system. However, if you want to be a GOOD player, you'll try to learn at least the basics of your opponent's system! I haven't seen many REAL world class players who don't know which defense they'll use against a certain system. They know what their opps are playing, they know what the tactics are, and the play accordingly. If you don't know how WJ2000 works, just read the intro and you'll know enough. You'll know the openings, which is usually enough, but also the reason why they open in a certain way. And perhaps you'll even find it a better system than you currently play and learn it completely. If you don't know anything about any other system, just play a horse...

If you don't know what bids mean, you can always ask opps about them. This doesn't mean you have to complain (and keep complaining all over the place) when something happens which in your opinion is wrong, but in the entire community's opinion NOT wrong!
You 'bid' based on YOUR assumption that they play sayc, but WHY would they play sayc anyway? They didn't say, you didn't ask. And I'm also quite sure YOU didn't tell them what system YOU are playing!

You had your answers (on several forums btw), if you still hope to find someone to stand by your side you'll need a VERY long time...

[hrothgar]

Dragan, on Oct 18 2004, 10:33 AM, said:

Yes Nikos,

You had absolutely right. Point is : in all natural based systems with 5c-4d you open 1c.

Bullshit...

Some as well versed in the Laws as you claim you are should have a rudementary understanding of the definition of "natural". More specifically, bridge regulations have always defined canape agreements as natural "treatments" rather than conventions. This includes both major-minor canape sequences and Diamond-Club sequencences.

The combination of ignorance and certainty that you exhibit is really starting to get annoying.

[Dragan]

Wrong is assymption that I ask to someone support me. I just set this TOPIC to hear opinions.

But some people ( suppouse from one BBO club) come here to crash this disscusion. Why I conclude that: becouse they use same terminology, same argument and repeat his idea's several times.

This is some kind of market of TOPICS, so if it is bored to someone or not interesting...simply go to the other topics and this will die at the end of stack.

[Free]

Dragan, on Oct 18 2004, 01:51 PM, said:

But some people ( suppouse from one BBO club) come here to crash this disscusion. Why I conclude that: becouse they use same terminology, same argument and repeat his idea's several times.

Nobody is crashing the 'discussion' - if you can call it that. Imo it's just 2 sides talking next to eachother instead of against eachother, and one side is a big giant with many experts in the field, the other side is 1 or 2 people I don't know (sorry for that, can't know everybody ).

Perhaps it's time you see that 'his' (whoever that might be ) argument(s) and idea's are right, especially if lots of people repeat them...

[Dragan]

Free, on Oct 18 2004, 08:12 AM, said:

one side is a big giant with many experts in the field, the other side is 1 or 2 people I don't know (sorry for that, can't know everybody  ).

Perhaps it's time you see that 'his' (whoever that might be  ) argument(s) and idea's are right, especially if lots of people repeat them...

Side which you call giant measure 5-6 people times 5-6 same post's.

Yes they are experts, but self alone "experts". Some of them are greather expert than Cohen or Stevenson. I would add, they are "experts" to use wrong assymtions. As Makiaveli said "Target is..."

There are one flower, we call him narcis. Quote smelt on that flower.

[inquiry]

As a moderator, I think it is about time to halt this bickering and let this issue die a natural death.

But of course, I will have my say... so I suspect others will want to respond. Dragan, imho, I think you are way wrong. I will show you documented "proof" as to why, and this proof will be more than "one flower". To the ones jumping on Dragan, you could be tamer with your responses.

For all interested, in 2001 the Bridge World conducted a poll of a panel of experts (100 I believe) and their readers (on the whole their readers are MUCH better than "average players"). And they asked a series of question on what to do with four card diamond suit, longer club suit and a hand not worthy of a reverse. The purpose was to develop the bidding system "BridgeWorld Standard" which fits Dragan's requirement for a natural system. Here is the questions and the results of the voting...

On a minimum-range hand (one lacking the values for a reverse) calling for an opening one-bid in a minor suit with four diamonds and five clubs, opener should . . .

• 236a. always bid one diamond. ZERO of the experts said you should always bid 1♦ and 12% of the readers said you should
  
• 236b. always bid one club, only 19% of the experts said you should ALWAYS bid 1♣ and only 21% of the readers said the same thing.
  
• 236c. use judgment to decide which minor to open. Here a whooping 81% of the experts and 67 percent of the readers said, yes, opener uses his own judgement to decide which to open

If you add back the 19% of the readers who always open 1♦ to the judgement class, you will see that 81% of experts and 81% of "average+" natural players are willing to open 1♦ with four diamonds and five clubs,

I think it is VERY SAFE then to say, if 81% of pro's and 81% of bridgeworld bidders will open 1♦ with longer clubs, that settles the arguement from the standpoint that this must be standard treatement or at least the most common treatment. As a result of this poll. Bridge World Standard (a system used by people around the world) uses 1♦ bid with longer clubs.

For more on the poll, and the results I quoted above and other interesting questions and treatments...see

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...f=bwspolls.html

Ben

PS.. one final, ultimate proof, experts open 1♦ with longer ♣.. I bid that way very frequenlty.... so experts must do it.

[Dragan]

I wish to thank you inqury.

This is very pleasant way to shed the light into the case. This is way how we should discuss. I suppouse we all learn something.

This is my last message to this TOPIC.