[fazzzoola]

Last year, right about this time, I began a discussion about GaLwood.

To those very few who were courteous and thoughtful, I thank you. Perhaps belatedly so, but I still thank you.

To those who were callously arrogant, overly opinionated, and self-absorbed in their inconsiderate and venomous attacks, I hold you in contempt. (You know who you are. There is no need to respond. I will simply ignore you. I've learned a few things since then.)

Now, for the good news: the GaLwood Partnership Agreement has been updated, upgraded and strengthened. A few experts have already looked at it and found it to be stable and viable! Anyone willing to check on this "claim" can visit www.galwood.com and see for him/herself.

What I would like: I sure could use some help from willing and considerate players, NOT "jackasses", in developing FDCCs for SAYC, 2/1, SEF, and Acol continuations. If you are willing, please use the "Contact Us" button on the web site. If you are serious, then please provide first and last name, physical location (city and country) and a valid telephone number. I will contact you personally.


Thanks all. BTW, Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." I say "I learn, therefore I improve."

[glen]

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-02, 11:26, said:

Thanks all

That does not match

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-02, 11:26, said:

To those very few who were courteous and thoughtful, I thank you.

Let's edit out the vinegar:

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-02, 11:26, said:

The GaLwood Partnership Agreement has been updated, upgraded and strengthened. A few experts have already looked at it and found it to be stable and viable! I sure could use some help from willing and considerate players in developing FDCCs for SAYC, 2/1, SEF, and Acol continuations. If you are willing, please use the "Contact Us" button on the web site, and I will contact you personally. Thanks all.

[manudude03]

Well, the system does seem a lot better than the previous attempt. There are still a couple of glaring problems though. First of all, over 1C, you need an opening hand to bid something other than 1D (if not balanced)? Also, your 3C+ responses seem very unnecessary, 21+HCP is effectively a slam force (since this system is a weak nt, then opener either has extras or has shape), and when 2C can have 18-20, opener isn't going to jump the gun on you (and even if he did, you're not much worse off than if you bid 3C, at lease you know partner is not slam suitable!)

The 1D waiting bid also strikes me as being very vulnerable to competition, even something as simple as a 1S overcall is going to wreck havoc in your structure and could easily bury say your heart game completely. Say opener has some 1336 shape with a 14 count and the auction goes 1C-(P)-1D-(1S)-2C-(2S), responder is going to have a hard time getting a 5 card heart suit in (and maybe even 6, having to bid 3H on QJxxxx- eww).

Edit: Just saw the 1NT structure, is there any reason you require 7HCP to transfer O_o? I suspect most people would say that 16HCP isn't enough for a slam invite over a weak NT (traditionally you need 33 combined for slam, but you could get away with a bit less than 19, I'd say it would be at least a good 17 before you start searching)

(first edit removed on further inspection)

[wank]

i eagerly await the publishing of the book and accompanying DVD series.

[HighLow21]

Man. One really has to be careful when one posts here doesn't one?

[manudude03]

No, a bit of modesty goes a long way here.

[mgoetze]

Quote

What you see here is the culmination of six plus years of creativity, testing, modifying, retesting, etc.

OK, so after an opening of 1♥ (which shows exactly 5 hearts) e.g.

Quote

2C = 10-12 HCP, artificial, no fit

From this point on, the partnership may use any system and/or convention they may prefer.

Wow yeah I can see how it would take a long time to come up with that!

From the "Discussion" section:

Quote

There is another significant advantage for GaLwood users. If opener follows his/her 1H opening bid with a next in line (NIL) NT bid, it shows 16-20 HCP with 5 hearts and 5332 type distribution. The GaLwood responder has got to feel much better knowing opener’s HCP count, the fact that opener has a specific 5 card major, and that opener has 5332 type distribution. Opener now needs only to bid the short suit and, voila, a pretty accurate description of opener's hand!

Playing the MGwood 2♥ opening, the 2♥ opening shows exactly 6412 or 6421 distribution with with 17-19 HCP. This is really great because you never miss a 4-4 heart fit while still being able to show that you have 6 spades, and you can still play either major at the 2 level! The MGwood responder has got to feel really great knowing opener's HCP range, the fact that opener has a specific 6 card AND another specific 4 card major, and that opener has 6421 type distribution, which is way better than a 5332 type distribution so he can feel vastly superior to the GaLwood responder cited above! Opener now only needs to bid his singleton after the forcing 2NT inquiry and, voilà, an even more accurate description of opener's hand!

True experts of course play "advanced MGwood" where you can even show 6430 or 6403 distribution. It took me six years to work out the details of the followups in this case but it sure was worth it! I even got a real bona fide expert to play it in a 12-board BBO tournament! He only charged me 20 bucks and he said it worked really well every time it came up.

[glen]

mgoetze, on 2012-February-02, 14:39, said:

... the MGwood 2♥ opening, the 2♥ opening shows exactly 6412 or 6421 distribution with with 17-19 HCP. ...

Congrads, the MGwood 2♥ is ACBL GCC legal, unlike this response: 2♣ = 10-12 HCP, artificial, no fit

[fazzzoola]

wank, on 2012-February-02, 12:37, said:

i eagerly await the publishing of the book and accompanying DVD series.

LOL... not any time soon! Got a long ways to go before any such idea can even be contemplated.

[fazzzoola]

glen, on 2012-February-02, 14:53, said:

Congrads, the MGwood 2♥ is ACBL GCC legal, unlike this response: 2♣ = 10-12 HCP, artificial, no fit

There seems to be some confusion here...

The 1♥ or 1♠ opening bids clearly state that opener has either eactly 5 cards, or, in some rare cases, 8+ cards in the bid major. Over an opening bid of a major, responder either has a fit or not. If responder does not have a fit, I decided to adopt Ron Klinger's suggestion/recommendation to bid an artificial 2♣ with 10-11 HCP, and 2♦ with 12+ HCP. I would respectfully submit that Ron Klinger's recommendation is far better than most other ideas.


As an aside and important point, the web site is not fully up to date with all sequences... for now, I am more concerned with the immediate and directly related responses. In any case, I did say, on the site, that adjustments will be forthcoming, and they will be, as time and focus permit.

[glen]

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-02, 15:22, said:

... If responder does not have a fit, I decided to adopt Ron Klinger's suggestion/recommendation to bid an artificial 2♣ with 10-11 HCP, and 2♦ with 12+ HCP. I would respectfully submit that Ron Klinger's recommendation is far better than most other ideas. ...

It's a good suggestion/recommendation to adopt if you never play in ACBL events. If you are confused about the GCC you can message me about your questions.

[manudude03]

A couple of other things, having your 6 or 7 card majors in 1C just doesn't work. Your rebids will just look like they will merge together making 5C+4H indistinguishable from 1C+7H, if I was responder with a weak hand and 4C+1H, I would sure like to know which it is! And that's when the opponents are silent. If they come in, then you might just have an impossible task. Worrying enough, I can actually imagine you letting the opponents play in undoubled partscores with slam your way, because responder doesn't know what hand type it is.

It reminds me of a sequence Helene and I came up against once:

1C-X-1S-3S (16+ any; both majors; balanced GF; pre-emptive)
what happened after was *long tank* pass-pass*long tank* X, pass, *another long tank* 3NT, pass *about 2 mins later* 5NT, pass 6NT. When questioned about the bidding, it became rather apparent that neither of them really knew what was going on.

[fazzzoola]

manudude03, on 2012-February-02, 11:52, said:

Well, the system does seem a lot better than the previous attempt. There are still a couple of glaring problems though. First of all, over 1C, you need an opening hand to bid something other than 1D (if not balanced)? Also, your 3C+ responses seem very unnecessary, 21+HCP is effectively a slam force (since this system is a weak nt, then opener either has extras or has shape), and when 2C can have 18-20, opener isn't going to jump the gun on you (and even if he did, you're not much worse off than if you bid 3C, at lease you know partner is not slam suitable!)

The 1D waiting bid also strikes me as being very vulnerable to competition, even something as simple as a 1S overcall is going to wreck havoc in your structure and could easily bury say your heart game completely. Say opener has some 1336 shape with a 14 count and the auction goes 1C-(P)-1D-(1S)-2C-(2S), responder is going to have a hard time getting a 5 card heart suit in (and maybe even 6, having to bid 3H on QJxxxx- eww).

Edit: Just saw the 1NT structure, is there any reason you require 7HCP to transfer O_o? I suspect most people would say that 16HCP isn't enough for a slam invite over a weak NT (traditionally you need 33 combined for slam, but you could get away with a bit less than 19, I'd say it would be at least a good 17 before you start searching)

(first edit removed on further inspection)

Yes, there have been significant improvements... Thanks for noticing.


There are a few simple reasons for allowing responder to bid something else other than some kind of waiting bid:

1. Responder should be captaining the auction, not competing in it, until opener has fully described his/her hand, unless, of course, responder has some rather significant hand and/or HCP.

2. With responder getting into the action, the partnership risks having the stronger hand become dummy - something generally not good.

3. With opener having a freer passage has the clear opportunity to describe his/her hand rather fully and accurately, especially when dealing with majors or NT.

4. Even with interference from opponents, responder does have additional tools, like a double, and others. I haven't delved into interference bidding yet, but, I can feel the tools being there.

5. Also, and finally, even with interference bidding, opener can still describe his/her hand with reasonable accuracy. For example, even if opener's RHO bids a major after opener's 1♣ bid, opener can still bid 1N showing 15-18 HCP and a balanced hand, or 2 of the unbid major to show a 6-7 card suit, etc. the options are there, at least IMO.



As to requiring at least 7HCP for Stayman, that is simply an adjustment, upward, from the apparently normal requirement over a standard 1N opening bid.



Again, right now, the focus is on the majors, not so much the longer term sequences. The issues with those have to be recognized and resolved, which is why I was asking for help in this area: developing FDCCs...

[fazzzoola]

glen, on 2012-February-02, 11:46, said:

That does not match


Let's edit out the vinegar:

and where was the "vinegar" police last year, when the acrimony and attacks were blatently insulting and bullying? Oh, wait! No one cared back then, right?

[fazzzoola]

mgoetze, on 2012-February-02, 14:39, said:

OK, so after an opening of 1♥ (which shows exactly 5 hearts) e.g.



Wow yeah I can see how it would take a long time to come up with that!

From the "Discussion" section:



Playing the MGwood 2♥ opening, the 2♥ opening shows exactly 6412 or 6421 distribution with with 17-19 HCP. This is really great because you never miss a 4-4 heart fit while still being able to show that you have 6 spades, and you can still play either major at the 2 level! The MGwood responder has got to feel really great knowing opener's HCP range, the fact that opener has a specific 6 card AND another specific 4 card major, and that opener has 6421 type distribution, which is way better than a 5332 type distribution so he can feel vastly superior to the GaLwood responder cited above! Opener now only needs to bid his singleton after the forcing 2NT inquiry and, voilà, an even more accurate description of opener's hand!

True experts of course play "advanced MGwood" where you can even show 6430 or 6403 distribution. It took me six years to work out the details of the followups in this case but it sure was worth it! I even got a real bona fide expert to play it in a 12-board BBO tournament! He only charged me 20 bucks and he said it worked really well every time it came up.

Thank you! I will take a closer look at that. I've been trying to find better uses for 2 level bids anyway!

[mikeh]

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-02, 11:26, said:

Last year, right about this time, I began a discussion about GaLwood.

To those very few who were courteous and thoughtful, I thank you. Perhaps belatedly so, but I still thank you.

To those who were callously arrogant, overly opinionated, and self-absorbed in their inconsiderate and venomous attacks, I hold you in contempt. (You know who you are. There is no need to respond. I will simply ignore you. I've learned a few things since then.)

Now, for the good news: the GaLwood Partnership Agreement has been updated, upgraded and strengthened. A few experts have already looked at it and found it to be stable and viable! Anyone willing to check on this "claim" can visit www.galwood.com and see for him/herself.

What I would like: I sure could use some help from willing and considerate players, NOT "jackasses", in developing FDCCs for SAYC, 2/1, SEF, and Acol continuations. If you are willing, please use the "Contact Us" button on the web site. If you are serious, then please provide first and last name, physical location (city and country) and a valid telephone number. I will contact you personally.

I generally don't pay much attention to those who think they have discovered a new and better way to bid, so I didn't read the earlier thread. However, this introductory post got me looking back at the old thread, and I really think the OP is off his nut. There were many lengthy, thoughtful posts on the old thread and the OP repeatedly thanked the contributors, and often expressly asked for constructive criticism.

I saw only two dismissive posts....one from han and the other from mvesuvius. Both seemed to me to be appropriate in context, tho I can see how rejection can hurt anyone. Neither was personal. Both were to the effect that from what they could see, trying to build this system was a waste of time. From the reading I have done now, I have to agree.

Anyone who thinks he has invented a better mousetrap has two options to gain respect. One is to play the system (or pay good players to play it) and build upon the successes that should flow if the system is good.

The other is to come to a forum such as this, describe the system and let others rip it to pieces. No-one has the right to ask for criticism and then get all bitter and bent out of shape because he gets criticism when the criticism reflects the view of the poster on the method, rather than on the poster of the method. Ad hominen attacks aren't to be expected, but blunt comments about the system are.

Frankly, the system looks like crap to me. That doesn't mean I don't see the effort that went into it. I have 'designed' systems that I eventually realized were no good. I think my understanding of the game increased as part of that process. More power to you, OP, if this system turns out to be successful....but quit the whining and complaining.

Also, you might want to google 'sarcasm' when it comes to reading about someone wanting to read the book, or buy the dvd....or about MGwood.

[manudude03]

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-02, 15:38, said:

5. Also, and finally, even with interference bidding, opener can still describe his/her hand with reasonable accuracy. For example, even if opener's RHO bids a major after opener's 1♣ bid, opener can still bid 1N showing 15-18 HCP and a balanced hand, or 2 of the unbid major to show a 6-7 card suit, etc. the options are there, at least IMO.

So, after 1C-(P)-1D-(1S), what do you do with a 2245 18 count, or a strong balanced hand with no stop? If you double, it might go (2S)-3H and now you are well and truly stuck in the mud trying to fish for a minor suit fit at the 4 level when you might belong in 4H the whole time. Note that I've been kind enough to only put in a 1 level overcall+compete to 2 level, it's a pretty well known tactic to jump the bidding up on ambiguous hands. If I wanted to be nasty, I could always say 1C-(4S), good luck working that one out responder.

Quote

As to requiring at least 7HCP for Stayman, that is simply an adjustment, upward, from the apparently normal requirement over a standard 1N opening bid.

I said transfers, not stayman, I have no real issue with 7+ for stayman, but if I pick up xx Jxxxxx xx xxx and it goes 1NT-(P), I really have to pass with that?

Quote

Again, right now, the focus is on the majors, not so much the longer term sequences. The issues with those have to be recognized and resolved, which is why I was asking for help in this area: developing FDCCs...

No-one can help you put a FDCC together until you have done all the followups etc to a reasonable standard.

[Zelandakh]

For those interested the original thread is here.

[glen]

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-02, 15:48, said:

and where was the "vinegar" police last year, when the acrimony and attacks were blatently insulting and bullying? Oh, wait! No one cared back then, right?

There were no personal attacks last year, aside from the personal attack on me which I handled. The "vinegar" needs to be taken out when the attacks are about people instead of ideas. Compare "the 1C opening is stupid" to "you're a jackass". You might take the first as a personal attack, as your ego is attached to the idea, but it really is just an attack on the idea. The second has no place here on this forum.

[Vampyr]

Critique deleted.