[the hog]

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 02:35 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 07:11 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

I think it's a 2♦ opening that shows any 5-5. Its ambiguity makes it hard for both sides, but since it's a weak bid, the opponents will more often be hurt by the ambiguity.

Sounds like a sound method to play then.

Yes Wayne, I noticed that comment by Jan as well. Are you only supposed to play conventions which hurt you and help the opponents?

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Dec 15 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

I played Bridge in Poland - one night only in a club in Warsaw. This was a local club nioght. At least 80% of the players used Wilkosz. Some players were very strong, others pretty weak. No one had any problems with the bid.

How do you know no one had any problems with the bid? For that matter, how do you even know it came up (at least at any table but yours)?

The_Hog, on Dec 15 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 02:35 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 07:11 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

I think it's a 2♦ opening that shows any 5-5. Its ambiguity makes it hard for both sides, but since it's a weak bid, the opponents will more often be hurt by the ambiguity.

Sounds like a sound method to play then.

Yes Wayne, I noticed that comment by Jan as well. Are you only supposed to play conventions which hurt you and help the opponents?

Let's at least be fair. It sure looks to me like she made the comment to help people understand the convention, not as an argument one way or the other about banning it.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 07:56 AM, said:

[How do you know no one had any problems with the bid? For that matter, how do you even know it came up (at least at any table but yours)?


Let's at least be fair. It sure looks to me like she made the comment to help people understand the convention, not as an argument one way or the other about banning it.

Drinks afterwards and discussing the hands. Bridge is very social in Poland. Quite a number including the guy I played with spoke ok English or German.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 15 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

I played Bridge in Poland - one night only in a club in Warsaw. This was a local club nioght. At least 80% of the players used Wilkosz. Some players were very strong, others pretty weak. No one had any problems with the bid.

How do you know no one had any problems with the bid? For that matter, how do you even know it came up (at least at any table but yours)?

The_Hog, on Dec 15 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 02:35 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 07:11 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

I think it's a 2♦ opening that shows any 5-5. Its ambiguity makes it hard for both sides, but since it's a weak bid, the opponents will more often be hurt by the ambiguity.

Sounds like a sound method to play then.

Yes Wayne, I noticed that comment by Jan as well. Are you only supposed to play conventions which hurt you and help the opponents?

Let's at least be fair. It sure looks to me like she made the comment to help people understand the convention, not as an argument one way or the other about banning it.

Well I am even more at a loss as to what the reason is to ban it then.

[JanM]

DrTodd13, on Dec 15 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

If I recall correctly, Helgemo at some point played this method. Are you suggesting he (or any other WC player that we can find who uses it) would play something he believed to be unsound or are suggesting that in his opinion it was sound but you know better and it isn't?

Helgemo played the method in one Bermuda Bowl and then abandoned it. I think that is good evidence for my position that it is an unsound method.

[fred]

DrTodd13, on Dec 16 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

Huh?? Of course it's playable, they don't "have to" do anything except accept that using this method they will sometimes end in a suit they don't have. What in the world makes it not playable? You seem to believe that if they can't figure out a way to play in a suit they actually have most of the time, then the method is not playable. They could easily open every hand that they would open a normal weak 2 bid, always pass if responder has equal length in the suits, and end in the wrong suit half the time in those cases. What is not playable about that?

LOL. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "unplayable." I would be happy to revise my statement to say "unsound" instead of "unplayable"

If I recall correctly, Helgemo at some point played this method. Are you suggesting he (or any other WC player that we can find who uses it) would play something he believed to be unsound or are suggesting that in his opinion it was sound but you know better and it isn't?

I don't think Jan suggested that 2H=Multi in itself is an unsound convention.

If anything I get the impression that Jan thinks it a sound (read "effective") convention whose soundness is optimized when 2H says something different about hearts than it does about spades.

What I think she is saying is unsound (read "not optimal") would be to play this convention and not to differentiate between hearts and spades.

Re Helgemo: sometimes even really good players play unsound methods or use sound methods in an unsound manner (at least until they figure it out). Sometimes there exist lesser players who have already figured this out about said methods. I am sure Jan won't be offended to be considered a lesser player to Helgemo - she has a lot of good company there

Bridge coaches often don't play as well as some/all of the players on their teams, but the players can still learn from the coaches. After all, that is one of the main reasons they hire coaches in the first place

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

Huh?? Of course it's playable, they don't "have to" do anything except accept that using this method they will sometimes end in a suit they don't have. What in the world makes it not playable? You seem to believe that if they can't figure out a way to play in a suit they actually have most of the time, then the method is not playable. They could easily open every hand that they would open a normal weak 2 bid, always pass if responder has equal length in the suits, and end in the wrong suit half the time in those cases. What is not playable about that?

LOL. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "unplayable." I would be happy to revise my statement to say "unsound" instead of "unplayable"

What is your definition of "sound".

Mine would be a method that gives me a relative advantage over the opponents. That advantage would not be measured in isolation but by the system as a whole .

One of the advantages of a multi-style bid like 2♥ weak in either major is that it frees up another bid (in this case 2♠) for some other purpose.

[blackshoe]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

But the US event is open only to US players and therefore is run by the US NBO - the USBF.

Okay, fair enough.

Quote

I would certainly not argue that the way the North American organizations are set up makes a lot of sense, but I also can't see arguing that we should all at once change the method of running lower level events that has worked well for so long. And I'm not sure why you would feel that only an NBO can run local events. NBO's are organizations that interact with the WBF. Running local events has nothing to do with the WBF so why should it matter what organization does it? And surely the fact that an organization is doing a good job at something is, in fact, an excellent reason to have them continue doing it.

I did not say anything about "all at once", and I did not say that only the NBO can run local events.

To me, the purpose of a national bridge organization is to organize and promote bridge in its particular country. It is not the sole purpose of the NBO to "interact" with the WBF. To my mind, the "interact with the WBF" bit is secondary - unless I'm completely wrong and the sole purpose of organizing bridge at all is to support world championships.

I don't suppose anyone in the WBF hierarchy has the cojones to tell Zone 2 we're doing it wrong - and perhaps not the power to make it stick if they did. So I guess, to misquote Humphrey
Bogart, my opinion don't amount to a hill 'o beans in this crazy world. So be it.

[DrTodd13]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Dec 15 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

If I recall correctly, Helgemo at some point played this method.  Are you suggesting he (or any other WC player that we can find who uses it) would play something he believed to be unsound or are suggesting that in his opinion it was sound but you know better and it isn't?

Helgemo played the method in one Bermuda Bowl and then abandoned it. I think that is good evidence for my position that it is an unsound method.

Aha...so anything once played in a world championship and later not played anymore is evidence of unsoundness. Thanks for the tip.

[JanM]

Cascade, on Dec 15 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Well I am even more at a loss as to what the reason is to ban it then.

In the world in which I live (which seems to be a different one from yours), the fact that a method is destructive, unusual and extremely difficult to combat effectively, so that a HUGE majority of players would prefer not to have to play against it, particularly in an event with short rounds, is a good reason for the method not to be allowed.

Most of these methods (forcing pass, multi, Wilkosz, multi 2♥, 2♦ = weak 2♥ or ♠s + minor, I'm sure there are others) are only effective if the opponents don't have a good defense and some experience playing against them. But most people don't want to spend a lot of time and effort developing and practicing a defense to something that will come up only rarely. If a very large majority will be more likely to enjoy bridge (and thus to play it) if those methods aren't allowed, that seems to me to be a good reason not to allow them.

Obviously, I don't know that I'm right that a large majority would prefer not to play against these things, nor do I make the rules, but I think I am right, and if I am, I think that is a good reason to ban things.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Dec 15 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

To me, the purpose of a national bridge organization is to organize and promote bridge in its particular country. It is not the sole purpose of the NBO to "interact" with the WBF. To my mind, the "interact with the WBF" bit is secondary - unless I'm completely wrong and the sole purpose of organizing bridge at all is to support world championships.

I don't suppose anyone in the WBF hierarchy has the cojones to tell Zone 2 we're doing it wrong - and perhaps not the power to make it stick if they did. So I guess, to misquote Humphrey
Bogart, my opinion don't amount to a hill 'o beans in this crazy world. So be it.

But all of that is a matter of semantics. Certainly ACBL is the organization that organizes and promotes bridge in the US, Canada & Mexico. It isn't a National bridge organization because it operates in 3 countries (actually 4, since for this purpose Bermuda is part of ACBL). But why is that wrong? Why should bridge be promoted only in one country at a time?

Meanwhile, we have a tiny group of players who are good enough to represent the US in World Championships. Those players want a say in how our international teams are selected. It is easier for them to have that say if there's a small organization that runs the selection events. So the USBF serves that purpose. What difference does it make whether we call the USBF an NBO or something else? Its purpose isn't to promote bridge in the US, it is to select, train and support our international competitors. If that means, to you, that it shouldn't be called an NBO, that's fine, call it whatever you want.

But if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

[glen]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

... But the US event is open only to US players and therefore is run by the US NBO - the USBF.

Another reason for the USBF instead of the ACBL was that the ABA (American Bridge Association) was not involved in the ACBL.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 15 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Well I am even more at a loss as to what the reason is to ban it then.

In the world in which I live (which seems to be a different one from yours), the fact that a method is destructive, unusual and extremely difficult to combat effectively, so that a HUGE majority of players would prefer not to have to play against it, particularly in an event with short rounds, is a good reason for the method not to be allowed.

Most of these methods (forcing pass, multi, Wilkosz, multi 2♥, 2♦ = weak 2♥ or ♠s + minor, I'm sure there are others) are only effective if the opponents don't have a good defense and some experience playing against them. But most people don't want to spend a lot of time and effort developing and practicing a defense to something that will come up only rarely. If a very large majority will be more likely to enjoy bridge (and thus to play it) if those methods aren't allowed, that seems to me to be a good reason not to allow them.

Obviously, I don't know that I'm right that a large majority would prefer not to play against these things, nor do I make the rules, but I think I am right, and if I am, I think that is a good reason to ban things.

I really don't get this attitude which seems to me to come predominantly from North America that we are supposed to play methods that will not disadvantage our opponents.

In any combatant game that I have ever played (and I have played a few) or watched or read about taking actions that are relatively bad for my opponent are necessarily good for my side.

I don't see your reasoning applied in any other game. Sacking the quarterback is destructive - perhaps I don't know for certain many maybe even a "HUGE majority" quarterbacks would like it if they could make their passes etc without the threat of being sacked. I would be very surprised if indeed this was the case that someone would say lets outlaw the defensive side from manhandling the quarterback behind the scrimmage line. And further I doubt that anyone would say because the "HUGE majority" of quarterbacks don't want to be sacked that this is a good reason to ban defensive contact with the quarterback.

I doubt that you or anyone really knows how effective the methods you name are. So I doubt that there is any credibility to "... are only effective if the opponents don't have a good defense and some experience ...". Experts cannot even agree on the best 1NT range, or the minimum standard for an opening bid (in a standard system), or the minimum requirement for a strong 2♣.

This along with your arguments that the majority will prefer not to play these methods are highly speculative. And further unless there is an environment in which these methods are commonly played and the players surveyed we will never know what is preferred by the masses.

The use of terms and phrases like "destructive" and "extremely difficult to combat" without defining what is meant by those terms makes it very difficult to understand what exactly the opponents of more relaxed system regulations really want. I certainly have absolutely no idea what you mean by "destructive" nor, and more importantly, where you consider the boundary is between "destructive" and not "destructive". That is not to mention that I don't see what is fundamentally wrong with being destructive in a combatant game.

[jdonn]

Wayne, I will do my best to behave, but this is just going in circles...

Cascade, on Dec 15 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

I really don't get this attitude which seems to me to come predominantly from North America that we are supposed to play methods that will not disadvantage our opponents.

I really don't get this strategy of arguing with arguments that no one made. Your clear implication is that people don't want to play against systems that they think are superior to the ones they are happy to play against. Who has made a claim like that?

Quote

In any combatant game that I have ever played (and I have played a few) or watched or read about taking actions that are relatively bad for my opponent are necessarily good for my side.

That is certainly true. I do not see what it has to do with anything.
- Any number of things that would be good for my side are illegal.
- There is no reason bridge has to be like any other game.

Quote

I don't see your reasoning applied in any other game.  Sacking the quarterback is destructive - perhaps I don't know for certain many maybe even a "HUGE majority" quarterbacks would like it if they could make their passes etc without the threat of being sacked.  I would be very surprised if indeed this was the case that someone would say lets outlaw the defensive side from manhandling the quarterback behind the scrimmage line.  And further I doubt that anyone would say because the "HUGE majority" of quarterbacks don't want to be sacked that this is a good reason to ban defensive contact with the quarterback.

Much to say about this.
- To repeat from above since you repeated the point, there is no reason bridge has to be like any other game.
- It would be advantageous for offensive linemen to be able to hold defensive linemen by wrapping their arms around them. There is no reason inherent to how the game is played that this couldn't be allowed (it's even less violent and dangerous than many actions which are allowed) and yet it's illegal. How do you explain that?
- You are trying to make a comparison with the play of football against the bidding of bridge. Why not compare the play to the play? Sacking the quarterback is much more equivalent to something like ruffing declarer's ace. The bidding would be more equivalent to which formations and plays the offense is allowed to run. And low and behold, many variations are illegal even though the game could easily be played if they were legal, such as lining up with just six players on the line of scrimmage. How do you explain that?

Quote

I doubt that you or anyone really knows how effective the methods you name are.  So I doubt that there is any credibility to "... are only effective if the opponents don't have a good defense and some experience ...".  Experts cannot even agree on the best 1NT range, or the minimum standard for an opening bid (in a standard system), or the minimum requirement for a strong 2♣.

Are you trying to argue that since experts don't agree about everything, they know nothing about anything? Fred used to play multi but gave it up because he believed it lost a lot of effectiveness when the opponents became better at playing against it. That seems to give the claim plenty of credibility if you ask me.

Quote

This along with your arguments that the majority will prefer not to play these methods are highly speculative.  And further unless there is an environment in which these methods are commonly played and the players surveyed we will never know what is preferred by the masses.

She made it quite clear that she doesn't know for sure if most people want to play against those methods or not. But, IF you were to accept that the methods should not be allowed if most people don't want to play against them, then you would have to accept that the powers that be are forced to make a judgment on whether or not that is the case. Sorry if you don't agree with them that it is indeed the case.

Quote

The use of terms and phrases like "destructive" and "extremely difficult to combat" without defining what is meant by those terms makes it very difficult to understand what exactly the opponents of more relaxed system regulations really want.  I certainly have absolutely no idea what you mean by "destructive" nor, and more importantly, where you consider the boundary is between "destructive" and not "destructive".  That is not to mention that I don't see what is fundamentally wrong with being destructive in a combatant game.

I think you know exactly how it is meant, this thread is quite long and it has been gone over many times. I defined what I believe it means pages ago. If you don't agree with my definition (constructive being helping our side reach a high scoring contract, destructive being trying to get the opponents to reach a low [hopefully negative] scoring contract) then stop focusing on the exact word, and focus on what it is being used to mean instead.

[the hog]

I am inclined to agree with Wayne's post above. Is a pre empt destructive? Should it therefore be banned? I don't like it, and I suspect most layers don't, that when I hold a good hand, the player in front of me opens 4S. Should this be banned? It is certainly destructive and hard to play against.

[glen]

imo, the regulations need to be more open and more consistent. In particular, for top level bridge:

- Since current regulations allow point showing bids in various forms and spots, make it consistent and allow all point showing calls that either show no particular hand type or a balanced/close-to-balanced hand type;
- Since current regulations allow for transfer bids in many circumstances, allow them for all calls – any call that shows four or longer in a known suit is allowed.

These are simple, consistent, open regulations that top level bridge players can handle, albeit some will be grumpy for a while.

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 15 2008, 03:05 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

1) Most of the players prefer that certain classes of methods are banned (yes it is hard to know where to draw the line)

3) The stranger the bidding, the less accessable the game becomes to the masses

Do you have references to back up these statements? How do we know that most of the players don't want precision to be banned, perhaps in the GNT flight C, for example?

If I did have references to back up my opinion that 1) is true, would you then agree that this would be a valid reason to ban unusual methods?

It turns out I do not have references. I do not know if such references exist or not and I agree with you, in principle, that it would be commendable for any tournament sponsoring organization to try to get such data and to use it to help decide such things.

If such data suggested that a substantial majority of people wanted to playing "anything goes" I would accept that. Can you say the same if it turns out that such data went against what you personally wanted?

But in the case of Canada and the USA at least, I don't think I need data like this in order to be confident about my assertion as to what most players want.

My experience living in Toronto for 37 years taught me that if you took a survey of all people living in Toronto and asked them "do you prefer February or June?", the vast majority would answer "June". I do not have to actually take a survey in order to know this.

Similarly, when you (or whoever else it was) posted that there were legions of club players in Australia or New Zealand who relish the opportunity to play against unusual methods or even play unusual methods themselves, I did not see fit to ask the person who made this point if they had done a scientific survey. I was willing to accept that whoever made this claim had enough knowledge and experience of his/her local customs to be in a position to know this is true. I did not even see fit to comment that perhaps his/her obvious bias toward such methods might be coloring his/her impressions.

So if you don't believe me (or any other North American player you ask) about how things are in Canada or the USA and if you will only accept the results of a scientific survey, then I am afraid I can't help you.

I have nowhere near the same level of experience with players from any other countries, but the experience I do have suggests:

- Most of the players from most countries seem to play relatively simple and natural bidding systems.
- Even at the highest levels you see a relatively small % of pairs pushing the envelope and playing whatever BS and HUM methods happen to be allowed at the time.
- As far as I call tell there are a not a lot of people out there lobbying the WBF to liberalize what is allowed.

About why I think my point 3) is the case, I would not have thought it necessary to answer this question. To me it is obvious that the simpler something is, the easier it will be for the public to access that something. Bridge, by its very nature, is already quite complicated compared to most games and I believe (no I have not taken a survey) that many people are already not inclined to learn to play bridge because of this widely held (and true) perception.

Making bridge more complicated will only make things worse.

If you want to debate whether or not this is a good reason to ban unusual methods that is one thing, but IMO debating whether or not my 3) is true is not a subject that is worthy of debate.

Quote

Unless there are concrete references behind these statements, the regulations seem to be determined  by the arbitrary whims of the regulators.

In the absense of any hard data (and as I said, I agree it would be commendable for sponsoring organizations to try to collect such data) the regulators have only their judgment and experience to go on. At least in the case of the ACBL, the people with the best judgment and the most experience are involved in making these decisions.

If you think that the judgment and experience of these people amount to nothing better than "arbitrary whims" then all I can say is that I disagree with you.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I will accept the majority view. We can do this either democratically or scientifically. Any other way is fair to be called as "arbitrary whims".

My questions were intended to illustrate the process by which the regulations are made. Is it democratic? Not that I know of. For example, has the question been asked of all ACBL players - Do you want the precision club to be banned? Do you want the weak NT to be banned? Do you want transfer advances to be banned? Do you want DONT to be banned?

It seemed to me that you were defending the current regulators by advancing an argument of the majority view. I wanted to point out without proof, your argument loses most of its persuasiveness.

Regarding (3), bridge bidding can be made most simple by allowing only stayman and blackwood. Perhaps we should do this then?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

Wayne, I will do my best to behave, but this is just going in circles...

Cascade, on Dec 15 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

I really don't get this attitude which seems to me to come predominantly from North America that we are supposed to play methods that will not disadvantage our opponents.

I really don't get this strategy of arguing with arguments that no one made. Your clear implication is that people don't want to play against systems that they think are superior to the ones they are happy to play against. Who has made a claim like that?

I was responding to Jan who said:

Quote

In the world in which I live (which seems to be a different one from yours), the fact that a method is destructive, unusual and extremely difficult to combat effectively, so that a HUGE majority of players would prefer not to have to play against it, particularly in an event with short rounds, is a good reason for the method not to be allowed.

To me she seems to be saying that if something is destructive (unusual and extremely difficult...) so that a majority would prefer to play against it then that is a good reason it should be banned.

My example about football was intended to argue specifically against this point. That something being destructive so that players would prefer to not play against it is not really a good reason for it to be banned.

Earlier Jan said about Wilkosz "the opponents will more often be hurt by the ambiguity. " I interpreted this to suggest that this made this method something that regulators might reasonably target.

Maybe something being destructive is not the reason that it is banned although the ACBL Convention Charts specifically mentioning that term suggests otherwise at least in that jurisdiction.

I don't know which methods are superior. Do you? The argument that Jan seems to be making and that the ACBL convention chart seems to state that if something is bad for the opponents (destructive) then it should be banned does not make any sense at all to me. Presummably if you think something is destructive then you are admitting that it is harming the other side.

Its not the superiority of one method over another that is causing a problem - that is not something I have ever said - it is the emotive labelling of some methods as "destructive" and therefore the argument that those methods somehow deserved to be banned that I don't think is reasonable.

Methods are methods. The either have merit or they don't. They have merit if they get me a better (or possibly the same) score than I would get with other methods and they don't if I get a worse score.

They don't have no merit because someone simply labels them as destructive or difficult or unusual.

[jdonn]

I think the problem here is that you are arguing against this point

Destructive ---> Banned

When the point being made is actually this

Destructive ---> Most don't want to play against it ---> Banned

Those two chains of reasoning are simply not the same thing. You can make the following arguments if you want:

1. These methods are not destructive.
2. It is not the case that most people don't want to play against them.
3. These methods being destructive is not the reason most don't want to play against them.
4. Most people not wanting to play against something is not a good reason to ban it.

But if you keep trying to argue:
- A method being destructive is not a reason to ban the method.
Then you are missing the point entirely as far as I'm concerned. That is because it is not inherent that these methods are banned because they are destructive, it is inherent that they are banned because people don't want to play against them, and the reason for that happens to be that they are destructive.

As for the above four arguments, I would counter them as follows:
1. These methods are destructive (as I would define that word), because they contain little in the way of constructive elements (as I would define that word.) To state it differently, no one would play 2♥ as a weak two bid in either major because they think it will help their own side find the best contract. (I would note that preempts and weak notrumps, though obviously aimed at stealing room from the opposition, have great constructive elements as well.)
2. We can never really know, especially since it varies so much geographically. So I feel the best we can do is let the regulators decide. In fact I can't even think of another way to make such a determination that is at all feasible.
3. If the regulators have determined 2 to be false (meaning most do not want to play against these methods), then 3 is essentially irrelevant.
4. I would simply have to agree to disagree with anyone who believes such a thing.

Other than the part where I still feel you are missing the point by arguing against the wrong connection (the first diagram), your main point seems to essentially be 4., that if something has merit toward improving your score in any way then you should be allowed to play it (in other words, people not wanting to play against it would be an inadequate reason for a ban.) As I said above, I simply don't agree, so I suppose I would have to accept this is an impass where there isn't much more for anyone to say.

(Not that I doubt much more will be said, including by me....)

[awm]

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 11:54 PM, said:

These methods are destructive (as I would define that word), because they contain little in the way of constructive elements (as I would define that word.) To state it differently, no one would play 2♥ as a weak two bid in either major because they think it will help their own side find the best contract. (I would note that preempts and weak notrumps, though obviously aimed at stealing room from the opposition, have great constructive elements as well.)

Not sure about this. Suppose we agree that a natural weak two in a major is somehow constructive, because it helps our side reach a good 4M contract (either making or a good sacrifice) fairly frequently.

One could play 2♥ as a weak two in either major because this frees up 2♠ for some constructive use that helps our side reach the best contract (say intermediate two). This leaves us with the choice of passing with a weak two in spades or playing 2♥ as weak two in either major. It seems easy to argue that opening 2♥ as weak two in either major helps us find our 4♠ contracts more than passing with weak two in spades hands.

Similarly, a precision 1♦ is probably worse for constructive purposes than a natural 1♦. But people aren't playing precision 1♦ "purely to destroy opponents methods" -- they're playing it because allowing more shapes in the 1♦ opening helps their constructive methods on other hand types.