[junyi_zhu]

arrows, on Jan 15 2005, 06:40 PM, said:

I was beaten, badly, in bbo league team today. But that doesn't stop me sharing
my fun with other people.

**characters:
--arrows: an hardheaded troublemaker
--ruxi: arrows' partner
--uhv2cntHCP: one of the RESPECTFUL opponents

uhv2cntHCP: hi opps what system and leads?
ruxi: we play 2/1
uhv2cntHCP: leads?
arrows: 3/5 suit
arrows: 4 NT
arrows: std carding
arrows: o/e 1st disc
uhv2cntHCP: which card = encouarage?
(obviously, not everyone is well-informed what "standard" means)
ruxi: high
uhv2cntHCP: we play Polish club and udca
(but one is assumed to be well-informed what Polish club and udca means)

(ruxi opened 1♥, arrows raised 2♥, which obviously he shouldn't have done,
because it's about to drag him into soup again. uhv2cntHCP doubled, ruxi
followed with 3♥, pass, pass, ?)

(and here we go again)

uhv2cntHCP: 2h what hcp range?
->uhv2cntHCP: below invitational
uhv2cntHCP: range
->uhv2cntHCP: below invitational
uhv2cntHCP: what is below below 10 bleow 7 below 5?
->uhv2cntHCP: below 10
uhv2cntHCP: and above? 3 /5 /7 I need to know that
->uhv2cntHCP: above 0
uhv2cntHCP: 0-9 ??!!
->uhv2cntHCP: yes
(Bingo!)

(Look, I know you have a decision to make over 3♥, and you are consulting me,
(Have you paid me for this?). asking how many HCP I had, and I would
be hold responsible for whatever you were going to screw up. I am smarter than
that (and giggling) . Finally, uhv2cntHCP doubled again, and his partner bid 4D
and allowed to play there.)

uhv2cntHCP: look opps i have to know same as u
(cannot agree more, we know no more than you, honestly, we don't know what
Polish club is and have little idea about UDCA. But I can see that you are
knowledgeable not only in poslish club but also in 2/1. oh, maybe a little bit
rusty on std carding method.)

uhv2cntHCP: if 2h can be 0 hcp u must alert this
(I don't know, I am not a director and will never be qualified, coz I don't know
how to count HCP very well, I suppose that's the very basic requirement)

uhv2cntHCP: raise with 0hcp it is not standard
uhv2cntHCP: if 2h =0-9 how can the opener knows what to do later on ?? etc
uhv2cntHCP: moment
(kept bugging us when we were defending (and we misdefended), until the
hand is over, and the auction of next hand started)

uhv2cntHCP: can u tell me what is in your syst 1d/h/s - 2d/h.s?
arrows: look, not everybody use HCP evaluate their hand, I could have raise with
xx xxxxx xx xxxx

(Damn, I am giving free lecture again! the good thing is this time, i skipped the
"Jesus sake" part, coz I found it's not appealing, and my pray never got answered)

uhv2cntHCP: u play 2/1 right?
arrows: yes 2/1 GF
uhv2cntHCP: u play 2/1
uhv2cntHCP: so if u bid not standard way u have to alert
arrows: this is standard, 1H-2H below invitation, as I told you
(correct me if I am wrong)
uhv2cntHCP: so if the opener has lets say 17hcp and 2 h= 0-9 how u can find out what to do?
ruxi: pd, i wonder whether the friend is suggesting we should improve our bidding before coming to bbo?
->uhv2cntHCP: he bid on with strength, like everyone else does

(Thanks God, because there's no director to call, we are moving on....)

I somehow think that opps quite deserve such an answer.
If he wants to know whether 2H is a constructive raise or not, the proper question is "Do you play 2H as constructive?" Now, either yes or no would satisfy him.
If he wants to know the HCP range of 2H, for arrows' style, 0-9 is the only answer, not 6-9, because his 2H can be based on distribution.
So before some complain about the ethics, I just want to figure out a way to solve this problem and I believe there is a way if you ask for proper questions. Still, if I were arrows, I may behave more friendly and tell them that 2H isn't based on HCP, it can be rather wide in HCP range and it shows some playing strength that is below invitational. I don't think anybody would be unsatisfied with such an answer. Still, I do hope everybody can behave as nicely as possible here and I don't like some of the posters' attitude here.

[the hog]

Hannie, I too am not enamoured by the way Arrows answered the queries put to him. Having said that, however, I don't think he should have to resort to explaining his bids in terms of Milton Work count if he does not use that system. After all, a good many players do not use MWC. An explanation in the nature of that suggested by junyi zhu, (above), should be satisfactory. I suspect though, that if such an explanation, or perhaps one couched in terms of "losing trick count" were proferred, a good many players would not be satisfied.

[pclayton]

Arrows:

I defended you in another thread, not because that I think what you did was honorable, but because I thought a well known club here did not handle your situation professionally.

Some people seem to be a lightning rods for issues like this.

Frankly, I don't even bother read your threads anymore, but theres not a lot of good stuff on here as of late, so I end up reading this rubbish anyway.

There are some very good players on here, and most of them are telling you the same thing. Disclosure is for the benefit of the opponents. Its not a game you play; if you choose to evaluate your hand and want to evaluate a fitting zero count the same as quacky 5 count (I don't agree by the way) as a simple single raise, then go ahead and do it. Just tell your opponents, "it normally is a raise, but he's been known to do it on a very distributional hand with no points". This IS your agreement, and it should be alerted as a raise of 1♥ to 2♥ on: xxx, xxxx, void, xxxxxx may be good bridge in your mind, but it is definitely not standard.

If you want to make an agreement with your pard that your NT openings are 13-19, because everyone knows only idiots count points, and many 13's are better than 15's and a whole of 19's aren't as good as a lot of 17's, isn't it just better to say: "15 to 17, but he's been known to deviate a little". I'll bet you its more accurate too.

Furthermore, as far as the single raises are concerned, certainly not all zero counts with 3 or 4 trump qualify for single raises. I'm sure these hands (even for you) fall on the fringes of the zero point hands. So, to say 0-10 is in fact very misleading, since there ARE a lot of zeros and I'm guessing some four and five counts that would not qualify for a single raise.

If you sincere about trying to become a good player, I would suggest that you make a conscious effort over the next month to try to disclose way more than you think you need to. Active ethics aren't just an idealized way of playing; its something everyone should aspire to.

[arrows]

It's your choice to read whatever rubbish or not read whatever rubbish, LOL.

Just as funny as those who were imagining that I would want to really
join their table, and they would turn my request down or boot me or whatever
then would make them happy.

Do I really care?

[hrothgar]

arrows, on Jan 18 2005, 05:31 AM, said:

It's your choice to read whatever rubbish or not read whatever rubbish, LOL.

Just as funny as those who were imagining that I would want to really
join their table,  and they would turn my request down or boot me or whatever
then would make them happy.

Do I really care?

Apparently, since you're posing (or do you prefer "posting"?)

[dogsbreath]

whot's this 'Milton' guy got to do with bridge .. i tht he was an arty farty poet ...

rgds Dog