[CSGibson]

The_Hog, on May 27 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 27 2008, 11:42 PM, said:

Complaining about a post openly to the moderators like this instead of in private is in far worse taste than Justin's post and use of the word....do I dare type it....

Do you really believe this Josh, or is this a contention born out of loyalty to a friend? If the latter, then it is misguided. For some days now the punk has publicly spewed forth bile, vitriol and personal abuse. [I use the term "punk" because I believe it has lost the right to be referred to by its name or by one of the human personal pronouns]. The comments are open, here, for all to read and it appears that any semblance of controlling it has been abandoned. Not one poster has had the courage to take the punk in hand and suggest it moderate its comments. Whether this is due to misguided loyalty or some other dubious reason is unknown to me. As it has been so public, surely a public recrimination is in order. This has gone far further than the often heated but always at least semi-civil debates of the past

A friendly word of advice. Its rantings have become so hysterical in nature that I really think it is capable of doing itself some harm. I believe it seriously needs treatment and medication for its own sake.

This is a little over the top, don't you think? Medical judgements based on forum scribblings? Really?

Take a deep breath. Look at the bridge aspects of the postings, since that's what you're interested in. Ignore the rantings of all involved, since they are no more relevant than you allow them to be.

I would have overcalled 2♣, and if I felt like swinging and decided to overcall 1N, I think I have to live with my initial decision and not second-guess myself in the middle of an auction. I think a lot of the people who are advocating bidding over 2 hearts are doing so because they hate having screwed themselves up by bidding 1N.

[matmat]

The_Hog, on May 27 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 27 2008, 11:42 PM, said:

Complaining about a post openly to the moderators like this instead of in private is in far worse taste than Justin's post and use of the word....do I dare type it....

Do you really believe this Josh, or is this a contention born out of loyalty to a friend? If the latter, then it is misguided. For some days now the punk has publicly spewed forth bile, vitriol and personal abuse. [I use the term "punk" because I believe it has lost the right to be referred to by its name or by one of the human personal pronouns]. The comments are open, here, for all to read and it appears that any semblance of controlling it has been abandoned. Not one poster has had the courage to take the punk in hand and suggest it moderate its comments. Whether this is due to misguided loyalty or some other dubious reason is unknown to me. As it has been so public, surely a public recrimination is in order. This has gone far further than the often heated but always at least semi-civil debates of the past

A friendly word of advice. Its rantings have become so hysterical in nature that I really think it is capable of doing itself some harm. I believe it seriously needs treatment and medication for its own sake.

you're funny.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on May 27 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

I expect better from the combatants in this thread.

*sigh*

me too... the flames are nowhere near amusing enough.

[kenrexford]

With fear and loathing...

The more I look at this, the more I am firmly convinced that the decision as to whether to bid 3♣ or pass requires looking at the opponents and then looking down the row of tables at the field. Neither 3♣ nor pass is clearly right or wrong, IMO. The right decision in this instance seems to depend on very tight factors, namely table and section feel.

I don't view this as an issue of correcting a bad initial decision. Overcalling 2♣ instead of 1NT would be a really bad bid, IMO. The club suit sucks, the strength is understated, and the feel of the hand is not 2♣. The problem might be that I will need to "correct" for really bad bids (2♣, for instance) made by the field when later developments suggests a stumble-bunny auction to the right contract.

I would not want to use "living with a decision" as a reason to default for any choice in a sequence. Why the default to a pass for that reason? Why not a default to a 3♣ for that reason? "I suppose I must live by my decision to overcall a swingy 1NT the first time and not second-guess myself out of a 3♣ bid here." That sounds reasonable, also.

Whereas I agree that partner might not double with all hands, I also feel that the fact that partner will double with some hands means that his club length expectation tends to be higher than it would be if he did not have a negative double availabvle and would therefore have a compulsion to pass many more club-unsuitable hands from the gamut of possible hands.

[CSGibson]

kenrexford, on May 27 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

I don't view this as an issue of correcting a bad initial decision. Overcalling 2♣ instead of 1NT would be a really bad bid, IMO. The club suit sucks, the strength is understated, and the feel of the hand is not 2♣. The problem might be that I will need to "correct" for really bad bids (2♣, for instance) made by the field when later developments suggests a stumble-bunny auction to the right contract.

1st: A direct 2 level overcall neither understates nor overstates the strength of the hand in my opinion. I've got a slightly better than opening bid; I would open 1N without interference, but my hand is now inappropriate for 1N because I have no stopper and a reasonable, if not ideal, bid to make instead.

2nd: I find the points you are making in this thread to be contradictory. My suit isn't good enough for a 2 level overcall, but now it's good enough for the 3 level? I understand, partner has a crap hand he didn't want to make a negative double on. That doesn't deny 4 spades; that could just deny values and/or be because partner would be unable to deal with a 3 club bid by you next. Give me some 4-2-5-2 3 count and I'm not making any noise as responder either, especially when I'm partnering someone who would make 1N overcalls on hands like this.

I do see one point in favor of bidding on: Opps are likely going to be able to play the hand much better because your strength and shape are more tightly defined, so you are probably worse off than people who aren't so...liberal...with their 1N overcalls. Your score will probably suffer for that, so it might be less risky in a matchpoints environment to bid on. I still wouldn't do it.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on May 27 2008, 10:51 PM, said:

I don't view this as an issue of correcting a bad initial decision. Overcalling 2♣ instead of 1NT would be a really bad bid, IMO. The club suit sucks, the strength is understated, and the feel of the hand is not 2♣.

The bad club suit and the feel being two very good reasons not to bid 3♣.

Quote

Whereas I agree that partner might not double with all hands, I also feel that the fact that partner will double with some hands means that his club length expectation tends to be higher than it would be if he did not have a negative double availabvle and would therefore have a compulsion to pass many more club-unsuitable hands from the gamut of possible hands.

When I play a 15-18 NT overcall, an X here is takeout, and does imply 4 spades, which is as close to 'negative' as I've seen. Unfortunately, it's also invitational. What are the odds that he has such a strong hand? Or to put it another way, if he had 7 spades he certainly wouldn't pass. So that also increases the odds that he has more clubs. But it doesn't change the odds enough to be a factor.

Quote

I would not want to use "living with a decision" as a reason to default for any choice in a sequence.

The decision you have to live with is not what you chose to bid, per se. It's not like once you've bid NT you can never again bid a suit. What you have to live with is that you have passed information. The opponents know far more about your hand and (especially) your partner's hand than if you'd, say, passed the first time and balanced in with 3♣ the second time (which is the classic stumble-bunny way of bidding this hand). That information isn't going to help your partner be a better dummy, but it is going to help them to decide whether to double, and how to play the hand. I'm not saying that bars you from bidding, but the 1NT was not 'free' by any means.

[kenrexford]

CSGibson, on May 27 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

2nd: I find the points you are making in this thread to be contradictory. My suit isn't good enough for a 2 level overcall, but now it's good enough for the 3 level? I understand, partner has a crap hand he didn't want to make a negative double on. That doesn't deny 4 spades; that could just deny values and/or be because partner would be unable to deal with a 3 club bid by you next. Give me some 4-2-5-2 3 count and I'm not making any noise as responder either, especially when I'm partnering someone who would make 1N overcalls on hands like this.

My statement here is not contradictory.

2♣ is a descriptive bid. It shows something. The call is not based on an assessment of an auction to date.

3♣ is a conclusion bid. I assess the auction in light of my hand and make conclusions about what is probably going on. I bid accordingly. As my conclusion is that partner has a greater length expectation than initially, and as I now expect a 16-17 total trick scenario, and as I expect LHO to have less defense than usual, I bid 3♣.

Of couse, the heightened expectation does not translate into a guarantee. Partner might easily have a doubleton club. So? Any time I make any bid I might get hammered, just about. I don't make the majority of my bids on a worst-case-analysis basis. Otherwise, I would pass throughout. I make decisions based upon likely scenarios. It seems that partner will have four clubs more often than two clubs.

I don't have any mathematical arguments to provide. It is notable that the layout was as predicted, in practice. "Feel" bids that have a high success ratio probably have a mathematical/psychological explanation.

[kenrexford]

Bidding 3♣ ain't stumble-bunny. That sequence comes up all the time. You open or overcall 1NT and later bid three of a minor. Usually this is right.

Thuis time, your three small hearts hit partner's shortness. That's better than usual, where you guess that partner might have shortness. For instance, I feel a lot better about this auction than 1NT-P-P-2♥-3♣ or 1NT-2♥-P-P-3♣.

[CSGibson]

kenrexford, on May 27 2008, 09:55 PM, said:

CSGibson, on May 27 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

...

My statement here is not contradictory.

2♣ is a descriptive bid. It shows something. The call is not based on an assessment of an auction to date.

3♣ is a conclusion bid. I assess the auction in light of my hand and make conclusions about what is probably going on. I bid accordingly. As my conclusion is that partner has a greater length expectation than initially, and as I now expect a 16-17 total trick scenario, and as I expect LHO to have less defense than usual, I bid 3♣.

I can accept that, even if I disagree with it. If we all judged situations the same, how would I get random tops defending 3♣ X against people?

[inquiry]

This thread has been reported to me via "report this thread to moderator". I had read it early on before the flame war began, made my vote (pass) and moved on, since han had said what i would have said.

Having been called to "moderate this thread", I will not wade in on the question of whether or not a public call like ron made (the_hog) is a good thing or a bad thing. Just know that I no longer read everything posted here. If i read a thread and have nothing to say (or nothing more to say) i very well may not return to it. So despite the merits or demerits of posting publically, posting something like ron did may not get any response from me simply because i might not see it. However, pressing the report to moderator button will at least make sure the thread gets a look.

As for the flame war/personal remarks made between the various posters (jlall, the_hog, jdonn, pclayton), we all know those should be saved for the water cooler. Apparently there was an F-bomb, that was edited out by the poster (thanks for that). But calling a player a moron or ridiculing any player (for example for so young or lack of worldly experience, or for lack of bridge skills and a lifetime of futility at the game) are all violations of the BBO policy established by fred and uday for this board. So I ask that we all try to hold our "tongue" (typing) on these issues from this time forward.

Now the hard part is what should the moderators (me and others) do with this thread? The options run from deleting the entire thread (but there is some interesting points here being discussed, despite my agreement with the view that this is a pass, wtp?), to deleting some of the insult-only post (making the the thread read ackwardly) to trying to prune various insults from specific post while leaving the majority of each. For the moment, i am taking a fourth, lazy way out, and am going to do nothing. Well, that is not fully true, I will seek the advice of the fellow moderators to see what the group thinks should be done in cases like this.

Suffice it to say, this has gotten out of hand, and all my friends involved in the the flames should realize that such post make it less likely others will "risk" posting views we allow such flames to be fanned. So STOP IT...

Thanks.

[kenrexford]

I would underline this last post. Jlall, jadonn, the Hog, and pclayton had me so worked up and trembling that I almost did not post my comments.

Thankfully, I was so damn brilliant and unimpeachably correct in my analysis that this could not be a problem for me. I feel for others, though, like csgibson and jtfanclub, who may have had to overcome great trepidation in offering their well thought, and noble, attempts to counter my eloquent proof, realizing undoubtedly that they were easily subject to public ridicule for their positions. I, for one, applaud the efforts of our less experienced posters, including the young Justin and Josh. It is so cute how they are learning so much so quickly from the wise amongst us, like me.

rotflol

[han]

I wrote a long post attacking Ken personally as well as disputing about everything he ever wrote about bridge. Then I reread Ben's post and decided to delete it.

Let me just warn Ken and all others that next time I might not be so generous.

[kenrexford]

han, on May 28 2008, 06:53 AM, said:

I wrote a long post attacking Ken personally as well as disputing about everything he ever wrote about bridge. Then I reread Ben's post and decided to delete it.

Let me just warn Ken and all others that next time I might not be so generous.

Han, you are a knee-biter!

LOL

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on May 27 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

Bidding 3♣ ain't stumble-bunny.  That sequence comes up all the time.  You open or overcall 1NT and later bid three of a minor.  Usually this is right.

No, the stumble-bunny method is PASS the first time, then bidding 3♣ the second time.

That's the classic case of finding exactly the right auction by accident, as the opponents won't have enough information to X (even if they can penalty X 3♣, they won't know if your partner can run to a better place).


EDIT: Just read your eloquent post. I have learned from your fine example, and now boldly post where Angels fear to thread.

[CSGibson]

kenrexford, on May 28 2008, 04:44 AM, said:

Thankfully, I was so damn brilliant and unimpeachably correct in my analysis that this could not be a problem for me. I feel for others, though, like csgibson and jtfanclub, who may have had to overcome great trepidation in offering their well thought, and noble, attempts to counter my eloquent proof, realizing undoubtedly that they were easily subject to public ridicule for their positions.

Don't worry, Ken, I put on sunscreen before basking in your brilliance, so I probably won't be burned

[jdonn]

I find the suggestion of a balance on this hand more offensive than anything anyone posted. I would like the hand itself removed please.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on May 28 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

I find the suggestion of a balance on this hand more offensive than anything anyone posted. I would like the hand itself removed please.

I'm going to offend you to the limit by saying this: "I think balancing 3♣ is mandatory at MPs."

Ok.. now, should we step outside and sort this out??