> In any event, there is no one, official
> "generic" basic strategy. Anyone
> can come up with one. Indeed, I've seen a
> few decent books, each with a different
> "one BS fits all" generic flavor.
> Exactly why infinite deck basic is useful as
> common ground. It's easy to calculate,
> there's no disagreement on what it is, it
> solves all the ambiguities per pair
> splitting and all the rest, there's only
> one inf deck basic for a given rule set,
> and it's a perfectly adequate, accurate, and
> practical basic for attacking the shoes --
> which you've always said are the games
> professionals are drawn to.

I agree with you about using i-d for devising a "generic" strategy. If someone wanted to learn BJ I would recommend him/her studying this "generic" strategy first. Then he/she should have to learn the exceptions for the particular games.
However, I don't think we can define BS as a "generic" strategy. I think that what we are discussing here is about which definition fits best .

Sincerely,
Cacarulo