[MrAce]

Mod note: Split off topic stuff from "Responding to Preempt".

 PhilG007, on 2015-June-03, 12:32, said:

Then the next thing you will hear is "DOUBLE" (maybe or maybe not in a voice of thunder,impossible in 'silent bidding') After the dust settles,you had better have a good
excuse for a furious partner.

Do you mean an excuse like this?

http://www.bridgebas...H3%7Cmc%7C10%7C

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2015-June-05, 02:08

[mikeh]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-03, 12:43, said:

Do you mean an excuse like this?

http://www.bridgebas...H3%7Cmc%7C10%7C

Well, that hand at least explains why he is able to distinguish between ordinary doubles and voice of thunder doubles

[PhilG007]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-03, 12:43, said:

Do you mean an excuse like this?

http://www.bridgebas...H3%7Cmc%7C10%7C

As I recall it,that hand came from a goulash tournament. I was -2 which was a very good result as opponents had 5♣ stiff.
Some players with my hand didn't even bid(!) That's the answer,what's the question(?!)

[MrAce]

 PhilG007, on 2015-June-04, 00:27, said:

As I recall it,that hand came from a goulash tournament. I was -2 which was a very good result as opponents had 5♣ stiff.
Some players with my hand didn't even bid(!) That's the answer,what's the question(?!)

• -300 was worth %10.49
• 5♣ is unmakeable

In fact, no one but 2 in 82 tables made 10 tricks in clubs.
It was played in ♣ contracts 20 times. 2 players made 10 tricks. All other made less than 10 tricks.
If this is what you call a "good result" and "good analysis" god knows what qualifies for the bad ones!

The question was obvious, or so I thought. Let me spell it for you then " After the dust settled, did the poor analysis of hand accepted as a good excuse by furious partner?" Did your excuse make pd feel better, after you preempting, and then raising your own preempt again at 5 level, and then re raising your 2nd self-raise of preempt, again at 6 level? Followed by poor analysis of it being a good result or what they are making.

My point is, all of us had similar results or bids at some point due the w/e reason. But I think you should go easy with words like "ludicrous" "palookas" and your lecturing tone. Knowledge is about combination of things that you know - things that you know that you do not know- things that you do not know that you do not know. But yours is totally different. Although you may sell it to BILies, pretending like knowing about things that you do not know, does not work, is not working, will not work well in BBF.

[manudude03]

In fact, club contracts can actually be held to 9 tricks on best defense and play. Perhaps it can even be found at the table.

[MrAce]

 manudude03, on 2015-June-04, 01:26, said:

In fact, club contracts can actually be held to 9 tricks on best defense and play. Perhaps it can even be found at the table.

It was found at the 18 tables out of 20 who defended clubs contracts of various levels. As I said only 2 players achieved 10 tricks (better to say, only 2 defending pairs failed to take 4 tricks)

[manudude03]

I had a look at the traveller and counted 6 who made 10 tricks in clubs (4x 5C-1, 1x 6Cx-2, 1x 7Cx-3) out of the 26 in club contracts, but yeah, point stands.

[MrAce]

 manudude03, on 2015-June-04, 01:43, said:

I had a look at the traveller and counted 6 who made 10 tricks in clubs (4x 5C-1, 1x 6Cx-2, 1x 7Cx-3) out of the 26 in club contracts, but yeah, point stands.

Right, I missed 5♣ -1 ones

[PhilG007]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-04, 01:09, said:

• -300 was worth %10.49
• 5♣ is unmakeable

In fact, no one but 2 in 82 tables made 10 tricks in clubs.
It was played in ♣ contracts 20 times. 2 players made 10 tricks. All other made less than 10 tricks.
If this is what you call a "good result" and "good analysis" god knows what qualifies for the bad ones!

The question was obvious, or so I thought. Let me spell it for you then " After the dust settled, did the poor analysis of hand accepted as a good excuse by furious partner?" Did your excuse make pd feel better, after you preempting, and then raising your own preempt again at 5 level, and then re raising your 2nd self-raise of preempt, again at 6 level? Followed by poor analysis of it being a good result or what they are making.

My point is, all of us had similar results or bids at some point due the w/e reason. But I think you should go easy with words like "ludicrous" "palookas" and your lecturing tone. Knowledge is about combination of things that you know - things that you know that you do not know- things that you do not know that you do not know. But yours is totally different. Although you may sell it to BILies, pretending like knowing about things that you do not know, does not work, is not working, will not work well in BBF.

If you are attempting to sell yourself as the bridge equivilant of Moses.....sorry I ain't buying it,Buddo.
I warn my students that,when they embark on this strange game,they will not always find the path suffused with
sweetness and light. Bridge players,I tell them, are heir to all the faults of the flesh and exhibit them more than most.
They come in every guise...the merry,the sad,the chatty,the taciturn,the ladies and the gentlemen,the bitches and the bastards.
It's hard to believe that they are all playing to enjoy themselves yet,why else are they there? It always amazes me how a pack of 52 bits of cardboard can turn people into Jekyll/Hydes. I've seen stand up rows,broken marriages,people reduced to tears and other shocking scenes all as a
result of what is supposed to be a recreational pastime. I,too,have been the victim of a touch of the Ghenghis Khans across the table,but 30 years of playing has toughened my hide and I can give as good as I get. I've met unlikeable human beings like Mr Deuce in real life.
Sadly,they are that sad part of the human race that will never win it(!) I've learned to live with them being comforted in the knowledge that,in this wonderous game of ours,there are far more angels than demons Oh and btw,if you want a verbal punch up,let's do it in private...I'm more than capable of dealing with your kind,Bud

[MrAce]

 PhilG007, on 2015-June-04, 08:08, said:

If you are attempting to sell yourself as the bridge equivilant of Moses.....sorry I ain't buying it,Buddo.
I warn my students that,when they embark on this strange game,they will not always find the path suffused with
sweetness and light. Bridge players,I tell them, are heir to all the faults of the flesh and exhibit them more than most.
They come in every guise...the merry,the sad,the chatty,the taciturn,the ladies and the gentlemen,the bitches and the bastards.
It's hard to believe that they are all playing to enjoy themselves yet,why else are they there? It always amazes me how a pack of 52 bits of cardboard can turn people into Jekyll/Hydes. I've seen stand up rows,broken marriages,people reduced to tears and other shocking scenes all as a
result of what is supposed to be a recreational pastime. I,too,have been the victim of verbal darts across the table,but 30 years
of playing has toughened my hide and I can give as good as I get. I've met unlikeable human beings like Mr Deuce in real life.
Sadly,they are that part of the human race that will never win it(!) I've learned to live with them comforting in the knowledge that,in this wonderous game of ours,
there are far more angels than demons Oh and btw,if you want a verbal punch up,let's do it in private...I'm more than capable of dealing with your kind,Bud

WoW, we did not know you have 30 years of experience!
If one used the pages of bridge books as toilet papers for 30 years, I'd bet their *** would have better understanding of this game than you ever will.

[mikeh]

I love a good flame-war as much or more than most, but, hey, Timo, this guy isn't worth the aggravation. He reveals his lack of insight, into both the game and his own abilities, with almost every post. Most of us assume that anyone who can write grammatically must have some element of rationality in their makeup, and that accordingly they will recognize problems with their arguments if such are explained to them in language appropriate to their apparent level of language comprehension.

One thing I have learned from BBF is that there are people who simply don't have any such element. Some of these are denizens of the WC, but every now and then one surfaces in the bridge sections of the forum.

Seriously...anyone who is so lacking in basic bridge knowledge that they claim that the hand you posted led to a good score in 6♠ doubled down two......well, I've been told not to make statements as to levels of intelligence of some posters so I will stop there, secure in the knowledge that 99% of the readers know what I mean, and as for the person who doesn't, just block him if his ridiculous posts annoy you. Personally, I don't block him (yet) because his posts tickle my admittedly sick sense of humour...this guy seems genuinely to think that he knows something about the game....it's hilarious on one level, sad on another, and irritating on yet a third. I expect the combination of the latter two will eventually lead me to block him

[MrAce]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-04, 09:02, said:

I love a good flame-war as much or more than most, but, hey, Timo, this guy isn't worth the aggravation.......

You are right. I am done with this guy.

[PhilG007]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-04, 11:25, said:

You are right. I am done with this guy.

See ya.... wouldn't want to be ya...

[PhilG007]

 mikeh, on 2015-June-04, 09:02, said:

I love a good flame-war as much or more than most, but, hey, Timo, this guy isn't worth the aggravation. He reveals his lack of insight, into both the game and his own abilities, with almost every post. Most of us assume that anyone who can write grammatically must have some element of rationality in their makeup, and that accordingly they will recognize problems with their arguments if such are explained to them in language appropriate to their apparent level of language comprehension.

One thing I have learned from BBF is that there are people who simply don't have any such element. Some of these are denizens of the WC, but every now and then one surfaces in the bridge sections of the forum.

Seriously...anyone who is so lacking in basic bridge knowledge that they claim that the hand you posted led to a good score in 6♠ doubled down two......well, I've been told not to make statements as to levels of intelligence of some posters so I will stop there, secure in the knowledge that 99% of the readers know what I mean, and as for the person who doesn't, just block him if his ridiculous posts annoy you. Personally, I don't block him (yet) because his posts tickle my admittedly sick sense of humour...this guy seems genuinely to think that he knows something about the game....it's hilarious on one level, sad on another, and irritating on yet a third. I expect the combination of the latter two will eventually lead me to block him

Soooo....you've just admitted to all and sundry that you have a self confessed "sick sense of humor"(?!) Says it all.really(!)
But why are you baring your soul to me(?) If that IS a confession,I'm not a priest(!) If you want to block me,that's OK if you
want to put me on 'ignore',that's OK and if you want to continue to be likened to a hypodermic(get under the skin)that's SURELY OK.
FYI these forums are democratic...everyone has the right to air their opinion...you can either agree or disagree..
disagreement is good...the world would be a sad place if only one opinion counted(!) But there is a right way and wrong way to criticise without constantly turning it into a diatribe like Mr Deuce does.Politeness costs nothing. The rudeness of this guy is breath taking...all he's done is to reveal his primitive breeding and that's he's a mega bore. All I was doing was expressing a point of view. As these forms are,open,surely I have the right to give my contribution??. I stand by every word of my previous post.. [*** edited] like Mr Deuce give bridge a bad name and compel decent people to abandon the game...it's not right,it's not fair..IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!!!!

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2015-June-05, 01:15
Reason for edit: Removed insult

[MrAce]

Diana I understand you moved our replies here but PhilG00s replies should have been moved to HERE

[diana_eva]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-05, 04:17, said:

Diana I understand you moved our replies here but PhilG00s replies should have been moved to HERE

Yeah I was tempted to open a garbage can thread where all offsides will be dropped, since it's not completely fair to pollute the water cooler with bridge. One can argue this isn't bridge, in which case WC is fine

[MrAce]

 PhilG007, on 2015-June-04, 23:52, said:

See ya.... wouldn't want to be ya...

https://www.youtube....h?v=Y7oYeVn2auQ

[kenberg]

Honestly I am not sure what sort of reply is sought on this thread. I checked to see if I had responded on the parent thread, the one with the 3D pre-empt. I hadn't. But I agree it is a tough call, and part of the discussion should be "If the auction begins 3D-Pass-3H-Pass then what is expected of the pre-empter?". Yes, I and most play this auction as forcing but on what should he raise 3H to 4H? I regard Qx as enough, but probably not a stiff Q . Maybe xx and a side suit stiff. At any rate, we have to face up to the fact that the most likely rebid is 4D. If we are going to bid 4H over 4D we may as well have bid 4H over 3D. If we are going to pass 4D maybe we should pass 3D. It was said that pass at mps and 3H at imps is right, and I probably agree. Bidding 3H and then, if fourth hand comes in with spades, doubling at your next turn sounds good.

Now about the hand where N bids 4S, then 5S, then 6S. The explanation was that it was a goulash tourney. When I first joined bbo I played in a couple of goulash tourneys and decided that it was bad for my mental health. I have little more to say about it.

But these issues seem to belong in the bridge forums (or is that bridge fora?). So am I to comment here on who is or who is not an idiot? I have all the enemies I need, why would I do that? When Sam Irvin chaired the Senate committee investigating Watergate he was asked if the report would call Nixon a crook. He replied something like "Imagine a painter doing a portrait of a horse, perfect in every detail. When he finishes the portrait, he could label it 'horse', of he could just trust that everyone can recognize a horse when they see one [or, for the grammatically and politically correct, make that when she or he sees one] ". That being said, I have, over the years, made various bids and plays that I find absolutely impossible to explain.


Mikeh has me all worried about my grammar, but she died sixty years ago.

[diana_eva]

 kenberg, on 2015-June-05, 06:35, said:

Honestly I am not sure what sort of reply is sought on this thread.
...

No reply sought. I don't like to edit or delete stuff, especially when I'm late to the party so I wanted to dump *somewhere* some replies that were cluttering a fine bridge thread. I personally find it annoying to have to dive through various pissing contests in order to read replies to the OP. Maybe I shd just delete all the off topic replies as soon as they appear and warn the offenders, but that's too police style for my taste.

I guess the best way would be indeed to create a garbage can and let flame wars die there.

[PhilG007]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-05, 05:07, said:

https://www.youtube....h?v=Y7oYeVn2auQ

And the point of this video is.....?! Choose your words carefully,my attorneys are watching(!)