[fazzzoola]

mikeh, on 2012-February-02, 16:15, said:

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.

OK. Please reread the original post, of this thread, and then show me, where I was asking for criticism! I am asking for help in developing FDCCs for several different bidding systems.



I AM NOT ASKING FOR CRITICISM, CRITIQUES, OR COMMENTARIES!

THANK YOU.

[glen]

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-03, 10:41, said:

... I am not asking for criticism, critiques, or commentaries! ...

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

... and you asked for it here:

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

... Anyone willing to check on this "claim" can visit www.galwood.com ...

or did you mean anybody can check it but not report back on their findings?

[Vampyr]

fazzzoola, on 2012-February-03, 10:41, said:

OK. Please reread the original post, of this thread, and then show me, where I was asking for criticism! I am asking for help in developing FDCCs for several different bidding systems.

I am sure that BBO has FDCCs for several popular bidding systems already loaded. Perhaps someone who plays on BBO can tell the OP where to find them.

[HighLow21]

"You're a jackass" is terrible; "The 1C opening is stupid" is arrogant and insensitive. "The 1C opening is ill-advised for the following reasons" is much more reasonable and thoughtful. But then again, I would only expect the reasonable and thoughtful response from someone who has truly earned his stripes, not from someone who is trying to demonstrate to everyone how amazing his stripes are.

[glen]

HighLow21, on 2012-February-03, 12:33, said:

"You're a jackass" is terrible; "The 1C opening is stupid" is arrogant and insensitive. "The 1C opening is ill-advised for the following reasons" is much more reasonable and thoughtful. But then again, I would only expect the reasonable and thoughtful response from someone who has truly earned his stripes, not from someone who is trying to demonstrate to everyone how amazing his stripes are.

I agree, I don't know why he called people "jackasses", and a comment about an idea would be best tailored in a nice way, if it was made.

[HighLow21]

glen, on 2012-February-03, 12:35, said:

I agree, I don't know why he called people "jackasses", and a comment about an idea would be best tailored in a nice way, if it was made.

I'm learning the hard way here that (1) one has to be very careful how one phrases things here; (2) any statement that can possibly be construed as arrogance or boasting will be ripped to shreds, especially if the statement is made by a relative unknown; (3) tact is at a premium here. (Interpret (3) both ways.)

[mikeh]

HighLow21, on 2012-February-03, 12:46, said:

I'm learning the hard way here that (1) one has to be very careful how one phrases things here; (2) any statement that can possibly be construed as arrogance or boasting will be ripped to shreds, especially if the statement is made by a relative unknown; (3) tact is at a premium here. (Interpret (3) both ways.)

One of the problems with forum posting is that we are limited to reading the words, aided only by (sometimes) knowledge of the poster's persona derived from other posts and (sometimes) emoticons.

In the real face-to-face world, a very large amount of information is conveyed by body language, facial expression, tone and pitch of voice, pace of speech and so on. That usually allows the recipient of the comment to know the true intention of the speaker. We don't get that here, so it is encumbent on a poster to be careful how the post may be read. I think most of us who on occasion attempt humour end up being perceived as aggressive. Look at the way MrAce and I misunderstood some recent posts by han as an example.

In addition, it is easier to be scathing in one's reaction to someone else's post when you don't know the person and are not dealing with them face to face.

So, yes, tact is 'at a premium'. However, in the case of this OP, I think he'd have got pretty much the same response had he signed in as gnasher or JLOGIC. The contents of his post (referring to critics of his pet ideas as 'jackasses') inevitably triggered more criticism.

You got a fair amount of criticism when you first posted, but it is obvious that you soon recognized that you had evinced, intentionally or inadvertently, a style and attitude that wasn't seen as appropriate by your audience.....and you commendably changed your style....imagine the response had you said that your critics were 'jackasses'!

Instead, I think you are going to be a welcome addition to BBF.

[fromageGB]

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

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.

MGwood sounds like a useful system; I don't have a bid for that hand. Could you please direct me to the web site so I can learn more about it?

[HighLow21]

mikeh, on 2012-February-03, 13:04, said:

...

Instead, I think you are going to be a welcome addition to BBF.

Agreed with everything you posted above that I replaced with a "..." here.

In terms of the last statement.... I'm glad at least one person thinks so! ;-)

[Vampyr]

glen, on 2012-February-03, 12:35, said:

I agree, I don't know why he called people "jackasses", and a comment about an idea would be best tailored in a nice way, if it was made.

Also, if I remember correctly it was not a "very few" who took the time and effort to suggest ways to make the system more playable. Quite a few offered helpful suggestions.