[awm]

There are hands where I'll bid 4♠ on a doubleton on this sort of auction. However, they need to be pretty extreme.

The one that seems to come up most often is when I'm 2-2 in the majors. Partner transfers to one major, then bids 3NT. I hold two small in the other major. In this particular sequence, in my experience best is to bid four of partner's major. Partner's failure to stayman marks him with at most three cards in my small doubleton, which is a pretty strong danger sign against 3NT.

However, on this hand the club suit is three to the ten-nine and not two small. There has also been no indication that partner cannot have four clubs. Combining these, it will often be the case that we have six-plus clubs between us, in which case the club suit is not really a threat against 3NT.

As has been pointed out by several people, if partner has ♣xxx then 4♠ has trouble also and 3NT is probably better. If partner has ♣Hxx then 3NT is fine and probably best. It's true that occasionally partner has ♣xx, but this is odds-against and even then clubs may be 4-4 or opponents may not find a club lead against 3NT.

[MFA]

I have a clear preference for 3NT. Just think it works more often. If partner's spades are not very strong, there could be 9 tricks outside the long spades but lots of trump losers in 4♠.

[gwnn]

As bad as your spelling of the simple English word "trump"

[Rex Little]

In the course of the auction, have you showed a balanced hand--i.e., can your partner count on you for at least two spades? If so, I'd bid 3NT. Partner can correct to 4S if he has six of them.

[Pict]

Where did the OP element 6232 from contention? When did the OP guarantee two spades.

[OleBerg]

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

[OleBerg]

gwnn, on Aug 21 2010, 09:08 PM, said:

As bad as your spelling of the simple English word "trump"

It's my trademark. And artistic freedom. Just like calling a movie "Kalifornia".

[rogerclee]

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

[OleBerg]

rogerclee, on Aug 22 2010, 02:27 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

[rogerclee]

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Aug 22 2010, 02:27 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

How could you possibly think deleting your post was silly? You made a post that contained nothing in it except an expletive directed at another forum member. I mean, if you are really as smart as you think you are (apparently you are much smarter than me and gnasher!), then this shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

[cherdanno]

If you post a bad decision that you made, and don't appear to listen to the opinions of stronger players on this forum, then you shouldn't be surprised about about a patronizing comment.

FWIW, I thought this thread was a lot more tolerant to your 4♠ than I expected, and compared to what I think it deserved.

[OleBerg]

rogerclee, on Aug 22 2010, 02:33 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Aug 22 2010, 02:27 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

How could you possibly think deleting your post was silly? You made a post that contained nothing in it except an expletive directed at another forum member. I mean, if you are really as smart as you think you are (apparently you are much smarter than me and gnasher!), then this shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

You're completely of the mark.

The reason I read this forum and post here, is to try and learn something.

The reason I engage in a debate with you, Gnasher and others, is because I value your opinion. If I didn't value it, discussing with you would be a waste of time.

I don't post hands to promote a smart bid I made, or to get the upper hand in a discussion with partner. I post hands where I am genuinely in doubt as to what is right. And I go into the depht of the argument to learn something.

In this actual thread, I early admitted, that my viewpoint might very well be wrong, but I still wanted to discuss it. To learn.

Peachy on the other hand, did nothing but call me stupid in a patronizing fashion. So I returned in kind, only in a straightforward way.

[cherdanno]

Back to the bridge issue - as I said I am with Roger and Andy. Some of the arguments in favor of 4♠ seem to assume that opponents will always find a club lead when that is right (including of course Phil's simulation). Basically I think that when partner has 3 clubs, we will hardly ever be better off in 4S than in 3N, and when he has a doubleton they still have to find the club lead. (Even when he has ♣xx the odds of defenders taking the first 5 club tricks is less than 50%.)

[OleBerg]

cherdanno, on Aug 22 2010, 02:38 AM, said:

If you post a bad decision that you made, and don't appear to listen to the opinions of stronger players on this forum, then you shouldn't be surprised about about a patronizing comment.

FWIW, I thought this thread was a lot more tolerant to your 4♠ than I expected, and compared to what I think it deserved.

I do indeed listen, but I do not consider this forum a competition, where the object is to post hands the good players will agree with me on.

And I believe you learn more from discussing, and using arguments, instead of establishing a hieracy, where the strongest players simply tells the others what is right.

(The strong players might learn something too, as they have to formulate their reasons, which will give them more insight. And newcomers might learn not to bid like me.)

And I value when Gnasher and others take their time to argue with me. And having made this effort, their patience with me will eventually earn them the right to make a patronizing comment, when they finally tire of me.

But Peachy, whose posts are worthless, shouldn't really make that kind of comments.

[Fluffy]

worthless to you doesn't mean worthless to everyone. IMO for someone who just wants to learn etc, you got very hearted on a simple remark.

for example, peachy thinks my posts are worthless, but that doesn't stop me from posting them

[cherdanno]

Your comments aren't any less patronizing. They are saying "peachy cannot judge whether gnasher is right or I am right". The difference (aside from not having any bridge-related content, which peachy's post has, and the fact that peachy wsa right) is that you add some insults along the way.

[inquiry]

rogerclee, on Aug 21 2010, 07:33 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Aug 22 2010, 02:27 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

How could you possibly think deleting your post was silly? You made a post that contained nothing in it except an expletive directed at another forum member. I mean, if you are really as smart as you think you are (apparently you are much smarter than me and gnasher!), then this shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

First, it should not be a surprise which moderator deleted your post, since I posted in the moderation thread that I did it, and stated why.

Second, you can not be serious when comparing peachy's offer that you should listen to the comment of two other players. In effect, she was saying she agreed with their view, and suggesting you might reflect on that. We frequently post that we agree with an earlier post without restating the points. The fact that you find her comments patronizing boggles my mind.

Third, rather hers was patronizing or not, it did not VIOLATE the rules of this site. Yours, on the other hand VIOLATED the rules, and your, er, unique spelling of the "f-word" showed you knew it was against the Rules and you simply didn't care that you violated the site rules. In fact, you took great care to do just that.

The fact that you call me "silly" is, I guess yet another violation of the rules, the smarter people on the forum would have said "which moderator made the silly decision to delete my post"... because they realize that stating the decison was silly not the person. Phrased that way, they would not VIOLATE the rules of this site and still express their view on the issue.

So I will say that your comments to peachy and your calling the moderator (in this case, me) silly were both stupid, idiotic things to state on a moderated public forum (note: stupid idiotic action, not person). Of course, my correction and why it was made it here for others to read, when I overstep the bounds of moderating, I hear about it from a lot of members. So far, only your post complains, and I think your complaint is way off base.

BTW, you should listen to rogerclee and gnasher, since their views make so much sense.

[peachy]

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

Peachy on the other hand, did nothing but call me stupid in a patronizing fashion. So I returned in kind, only in a straightforward way.

For the record, I did no such thing nor meant what I said in that way at all.
I was not aware that you knew that gnasher and rogerclee (among a few others) are experts who know what they are saying; I got that impression from the posts I read.

You are free to say my posts worthless if that is your opinion but saying that is no way to conduct a reasoned discussion. Nor is using the foul insult (now deleted).

[OleBerg]

cherdanno, on Aug 22 2010, 03:32 AM, said:

Your comments aren't any less patronizing.

Indeed. They are probably more patronizing, on purpose. She made the patronizing comment for no other appearent reason. I made a rougher comment. Just because she makes the first insult, doesn't give her the right to say, that her level of insult is the limit.

Quote

They are saying "peachy cannot judge whether gnasher is right or I am right".

To bad. It was meant as a general insult.

Quote

The difference (aside from not having any bridge-related content, which peachy's post has, and the fact that peachy wsa right) is that you add some insults along the way.

It may have had some bridgerelated content, but it was still patronizing. If she wanted to say she agreed with Clee and Gnasher, she could simply have done that. The fact that she appearently doesn't even see her own comment as patronizing, is just another sign of arrogance.

And again, my aim is not to be right, my aim is to learn. And being "right" should not give the right to insult people who are of another opinion, as long as they debate in a sober way. When I am wrong, I do not deliberately make mistakes to bother other people, I do it because of lack of insight.

[OleBerg]

inquiry, on Aug 22 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

First, it should not be a surprise which moderator deleted your post, since I posted in the moderation thread that I did it, and stated why.

Second, you can not be serious when comparing peachy's offer that you should listen to the comment of two other players. In effect, she was saying she agreed with their view, and suggesting you might reflect on that. We frequently post that we agree with an earlier post without restating the points. The fact that you find her comments patronizing boggles my mind.

Since I have a great deal of respect for people who make the effort to run places like this, I'll try to explain:

If you agree with someone, it is simply enough to say that you agree. The phrase "They offer you common sense" clearly suggests, that it is a thing I do not have. (Not that it bothers me a lot, "common sense" is overrated.) But it is still an insult.

Now, if like Gnasher, Clee and others, you have made an effort to explain it to me, it is ok if you tire of me and my questions and comments.

Peachy's last comment, on the other hand, apart from being insulting, also support the paradigm: "The good players are right, and the less good players should listen and learn". And it didn't add an ounce of insight to the thread. That is not my idée of what a forum is best for; forums such as this is an excellent tool for mutual learning. And the very good players will automaticly learn something from the less good players too. Many reasons for that. Some are:

- As already stated, it forces them to formulate their arguments. This may lead to new insight
- Even if only 1 in 20 of a weaker players idées is even worth considering, it will still sharpen the experts game.
- The training in using argument will be handy, when the expert is going to discuss with his equals or peers.
- It encourages young talented people to speak their mind. (Which I consider a good thing.)
- Less good players may have knowledge of what other good players have written earlier.
- Once in a blue moon, the less good player has actually figured something out, the good players have overlooked.

Now, finally getting to the point:

Peachy insulted me, maybe without knowing. I insulted back thinking it was an easy way to illustrate that. I was wrong; it seems quite a few of you didn't get the message.

Quote

Third, rather hers was patronizing or not, it did not VIOLATE the rules of this site. Yours, on the other hand VIOLATED the rules, and your, er, unique spelling of the "f-word" showed you knew it was against the Rules and you simply didn't care that you violated the site rules. In fact, you took great care to do just that.

Not really, I was just out to insult Peachy. (I havent read the rules.) The misspelling was simply an attempt to "lessen" the insult, also hinting that there was something else to the post.

Quote

The fact that you call me "silly" is, I guess yet another violation of the rules, the smarter people on the forum would have said "which moderator made the silly decision to delete my post"... because they realize that stating the decison was silly not the person. Phrased that way, they would not VIOLATE the rules of this site and still express their view on the issue.

You're right of course. A semantic hick-up, and a rather embarrasing one. I should have noticed. Sorry.