[TimG]

semeai, on 2012-September-05, 14:27, said:

Everything at IMPs.

1. 1st seat R/W. Qxxx xx AK8xx Jx. P P P 1S; 2D

2. 1st seat W/R. AJx x Q109xx AKJx. 1D 1S P 2H; X

3. 3rd seat R/W. KJ10x 10xxx KQx Kx. 1S P 2N P; 3H X 4N

4. 3rd seat W/W. Jxx KJ10xx KQJx x. P 1C 1H 3C; 3H 4C 4H

5. 1st seat W/R. Kx AK10xx KQJ xxx. 1N - diamond transfer (no invite possible) - 3N.

1) 4.5, it's hard to come up with a hand that will pass as dealer and make this overcall (if a weak 2D was available);
2) 4, I don't really see the point, the opponents haven't found a fit (partner's failure to make a negative double does not deny 4 hearts -- it could also just show a lack of strength) and I don't need to suggest a sacrifice with the potential I have on defense;
3) 5, just because it takes up space for no apparent reason, it's anti-partnership;
4) 4, at first I thought this was just over-valuing the hand (advancer would stretch to bid game when there is no invite possible over 3C) and gave it a 5, but given that partner is a passed hand, I guess you were sacrificing against their partscore;
5) 5, you're shooting for a very narrow range of hands, even with something like Ace-sixth of diamonds and QJx of clubs, we might not make 3N and responder probably would have shot out 3N with that hand rather than signoff.

[TimG]

Codo, on 2012-September-06, 01:55, said:

You are old enough not to need this advice, but don't take Rons (or anyone elses) wording too hard, sometimes it sounds more rude on the internet as it ws meant to be.

Ron has been around long enough to know [how] he sounds. I think it is intentional, sort of trolling. But, maybe he just doesn't understand (or care). Your advice is, of course, good in general, but there are also times when it's not wrong to put someone in the kill file.

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2012-September-07, 08:41
Reason for edit: slight edit for TOS issues

[han]

TimG, on 2012-September-06, 09:17, said:

2) 4, I don't really see the point, the opponents haven't found a fit (partner's failure to make a negative double does not deny 4 hearts -- it could also just show a lack of strength) and I don't need to suggest a sacrifice with the potential I have on defense;

I don't agree with your last line. If I double 2H here in a live auction, I most of all have a strong hand. My partner won't sacrifice over their game.

[TimG]

han, on 2012-September-06, 10:20, said:

I don't agree with your last line. If I double 2H here in a live auction, I most of all have a strong hand. My partner won't sacrifice over their game.

I would imagine the double as encouraging competition and being more offense oriented, maybe with Jxx x AKTxx AQJx or Jx x AKTxxx AQJx. Something where partner can expect my defensive tricks might not so easily cash because they are in my long suits rather than being the Ace(-Jack) in one of their suits.

But, I probably shouldn't have said "suggest a sacrifice" as much as "encourage competition" because competing over 4M might be a make as well as a sac.

[the hog]

Tim [have you heard] the adage, "It is better to remain silent an be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I must admit i do find your posts useful occasionally; [snip]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2012-September-07, 08:49
Reason for edit: To remove a TOS violation. Perhaps entire post should have been deleted but this was a reply to an earlier shot at him. I do realize the last edit snippet 100% changed the meaning of the final sentence... he really doesn't mean what it now reads

[phil_20686]

han, on 2012-September-05, 23:55, said:

Totally cold for 5S?

To me the question in each of the problems is not "how aggressive is this", but "how good is this". Jumping to keycards on this hand is just bad bridge.

Did not count my keycards.

The use of the words "breezy online session" made me assume partner was an unknown. I have had very bad results attempting to cue bid with unknown partners.....

Anyway, I am quite fond of wheeling out key card at the earliest reasonable juncture.

PS: I am pleased to read my post carefully enough to realise hand three didn't have enough keycards

[the hog]

"This post has been edited by inquiry: 2012-September-07, 21:49
Reason for edit: To remove a TOS violation. Perhaps entire post should have been deleted but this was a reply to an earlier shot at him. I do realize the last edit snippet 100% changed the meaning of the final sentence... he really doesn't mean what it now reads"

You are not just whistling Dixie, Ben. Since when have the forums gotten so polite?

[han]

Insulting without humor is a waste of everyone's time.

[inquiry]

the hog, on 2012-September-10, 18:16, said:

"This post has been edited by inquiry: 2012-September-07, 21:49
Reason for edit: To remove a TOS violation. Perhaps entire post should have been deleted but this was a reply to an earlier shot at him. I do realize the last edit snippet 100% changed the meaning of the final sentence... he really doesn't mean what it now reads"

You are not just whistling Dixie, Ben. Since when have the forums gotten so polite?

Since when has the forum gotten so polite? Have you ever read the TOS that was in place before I became the one of the administrators? The first rule is:


1. You will not engage in conduct or post any material that is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. Doing any of these is a good way to find yourself barred from the forums. The board should never go above PG-rated for any reason.


How many of those prohibit conducts have did you violate in this edited post?


Defamatory -- harmful or hurtful comments (often untrue, but not necessarily) meant to malign or discredit someone. Yep, you hit that one in your post (note, I am not certain if legal context of defamatory comments are exactly the same as non-legal, but the desire to malign was clear.

Abusive? -- I take this as "abusive language" (and that is the only context that can be applied to this constraint in the TOS). So what is abusive language? My definition is harshly insulting language. The end of the deleted sentence dealing with bodily functioning, not to mention parts I didn't delete were you referred to another poster as a fool would surely be insulting, but it did not reach harshly insulting...


Vulgar - is hard to define with respect to what is vulgar and how that applies to post. The definition I many might use is obscene as the definition, but then obscene is also on the list. So the standard I use is would be is what is written is in bad taste? It something I would feel saying to my grandmother or a child in the age range 6 to 13? So the body functioning part probably meets the vulgar standard as well.


Hateful? This one probably didn't rise to the standard of being full of hate. I would attach hateful to a repeat history of going after one person and their responses (see harassing)...


harassing -- This is clearly consistent, repeated going after a poster... responding to all their post in a "hateful" manner... I don't think that one post can be harassing (see below)


obscene, profane, sexually oriented, invasion of privacy -- those are clear when you they happen. You were not there on this post.


But since your post reached my understanding of defamatory, abusive, and vulgar, and the tag-team bashing of the original poster by you and another player taken together could be perhaps be considered harassing, the deleting of a number of post, and the editing of others occurred. It wasn't deleted in total, because as I noted, at least in this case you were responding to a border-line TOS VIOLATION remark aimed at you.


But for the question, how long as the forum been "polite"? It has always suppose to be that way (with some exceptions for water cooler which is more post at your own risk with more tolerance for back-and-forth bickering).