[PhilG007]

 Tramticket, on 2018-May-21, 05:08, said:

The 4♥ opening bid in 4th is unusual, but suggests that West either has 10 tricks in his own hand, or is very close to it. Either way we are probably not getting rich penalising 4♥ - partner also knows this, which is why the double is take-out. I'm also guessing that West is short in spades, since he seems anxious to keep us out of the bidding.

I would bid 5♦ and wouldn't be surprised if (a) it fails to make, but turns out to be a profitable sacrifice or; (b) the opponents take the push to 5♥.

I was taught when a novice many moons ago that the double of a game call is ALWAYS for blood.regardless of the vulnerability What else can it mean?!
And,with regard to my previous posting on this thread,preempting in 4th seat is just plain daft. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever

[johnu]

 PhilG007, on 2018-May-22, 14:26, said:

I was taught when a novice many moons ago that the double of a game call is ALWAYS for blood.regardless of the vulnerability What else can it mean?!
And,with regard to my previous posting on this thread,preempting in 4th seat is just plain daft. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever

Where else can you find nuggets like this?

[marklaf]

It means whatever you choose to do...it is your fault. These kinds of bids end partnerships.

[ahydra]

 johnu, on 2018-May-22, 15:01, said:

Where else can you find nuggets like this?

In the same place you can find duplicate posts . (But you are right, and PhilG is wrong, sorry PhilG - as per a previous post, there simply aren't enough hearts in the pack nor points in partner's hand for this to possibly be a pure penalty double, unless partner found an Ace hidden behind another card or something.)

ahydra

[Stephen Tu]

PhilG is occasionally right in the sense of how you should play with an average bridge player who was frozen like Captain America around WWII and just thawed out recently. Or maybe the average 80 year old at the local senior center.

Just not right on how to play with bridge players who learned how to play within the last 40-50 years or players currently playing upper levels of tournament bridge.

[PhilG007]

 Stephen Tu, on 2018-May-22, 18:29, said:

PhilG is occasionally right in the sense of how you should play with an average bridge player who was frozen like Captain America around WWII and just thawed out recently. Or maybe the average 80 year old at the local senior center.

Just not right on how to play with bridge players who learned how to play within the last 40-50 years or players currently playing upper levels of tournament bridge.

Stephen Tu I challenge you to a match Head to head I throw down the gauntlet Dare you accept? Let us see if you
are more than just an armchair critic(!) The tongue of the coward is brave(!)

[sfi]

 Stephen Tu, on 2018-May-22, 18:29, said:

PhilG is occasionally right in the sense of how you should play with an average bridge player who was frozen like Captain America around WWII and just thawed out recently. Or maybe the average 80 year old at the local senior center.

Just not right on how to play with bridge players who learned how to play within the last 40-50 years or players currently playing upper levels of tournament bridge.

Give him some credit. Just today he agreed with the world's most obvious 3NT call on another thread, so there is hope yet.

[Stephen Tu]

 PhilG007, on 2018-May-23, 01:47, said:

Stephen Tu I challenge you to a match Head to head I throw down the gauntlet Dare you accept? Let us see if you
are more than just an armchair critic(!) The tongue of the coward is brave(!)

Sure name the format; IMPS, MP, best hand/non-best hand. 64 boards to minimize luck factor as in the forum challenges.

[PhilG007]

 sfi, on 2018-May-23, 02:22, said:

Give him some credit. Just today he agreed with the world's most obvious 3NT call on another thread, so there is hope yet.

Are you speaking about Beethoven?! He's dead(!)

[PhilG007]

 Stephen Tu, on 2018-May-23, 02:39, said:

Sure name the format; IMPS, MP, best hand/non-best hand. 64 boards to minimize luck factor as in the forum challenges.

Stephen Tu, Your challenge awaits 10 boards MPs 64 is way too much I have other things to do This is a challenge not a Marathon (!)If you defeat me,I will make no further comments on these forums This is my solemn promise.
If,however I beat you then you will apologise for your disparaging remarks and recognise me for the advanced player that I amDo you agree to the terms of the challenge or are you just another hot air balloon ?!

[diana_eva]

 PhilG007, on 2018-May-23, 04:31, said:

Stephen Tu, Your challenge awaits 10 boards MPs 64 is way too much I have other things to do This is a challenge not a Marathon (!)If you defeat me,I will make no further comments on these forums This is my solemn promise.
If,however I beat you then you will apologise for your disparaging remarks and recognise me for the advanced player that I amDo you agree to the terms of the challenge or are you just another hot air balloon ?!

QFT

[Stephen Tu]

 PhilG007, on 2018-May-23, 04:31, said:

Stephen Tu, Your challenge awaits 10 boards MPs 64 is way too much I have other things to do This is a challenge not a Marathon (!)If you defeat me,I will make no further comments on these forums This is my solemn promise.
If,however I beat you then you will apologise for your disparaging remarks and recognise me for the advanced player that I amDo you agree to the terms of the challenge or are you just another hot air balloon ?!

I'll play your ten board challenge, but not agree to your stipulation recognizing you as an advanced player if you happen to win. If you were advanced you'd recognize that over ten boards one's opponent might get lucky, and would prefer a longer match. Short matches give the weaker opponent a chance.

[NickRW]

Does anyone else find this 'mine is bigger than yours' discussion objectionable?

[PhilG007]

 Stephen Tu, on 2018-May-23, 05:07, said:

I'll play your ten board challenge, but not agree to your stipulation recognizing you as an advanced player if you happen to win. If you were advanced you'd recognize that over ten boards one's opponent might get lucky, and would prefer a longer match. Short matches give the weaker opponent a chance.

OK what length then? You decide but 64 is too long.. And as for "getting lucky" there's no such thing Bridge is a game of skill. Its all about ability

[Stephen Tu]

 PhilG007, on 2018-May-23, 09:29, said:

OK what length then? You decide but 64 is too long.. And as for "getting lucky" there's no such thing Bridge is a game of skill. Its all about ability

Well you were the one that objected to 64, state the longest you are willing to do. The software allows 16 at a time, in my experience the biggest lag is in just setting up the challenge and the other person playing the boards, not the number of boards each set (not huge difference playing 16 boards vs. 12, as one can play a board quickly against bots). So 48? 32?
I'd also want to use the advanced bots, I can set up the challenges if you wish.

Bridge is a game of skill in the long run, but there is still a significant amount of luck in short matches. For instance, a single board may hinge on a two-way guess for a finesse, where there is no clue from the bidding or the play, and one player may simply guess the board better. Or one player sets up a clever endplay to avoid the 2-way guess altogether, showing superior skill, but the other player ties the board by simply guessing right. There are hands where the superior line unluckily loses to an inferior line to due to the lie of the cards. Or you bid a 75% slam your opponent doesn't, but this happens to be the 25% of the time it goes down. Or bot does something silly in the bidding or play and screws one player or the other. The longer the match, the more instances like these will tend to even out and revert to the mean, leaving skill as the determining factor. But in a short match, a couple of lucky results and a string of flat boards can let a lucky player win.

In a long match I, playing with my peers, have close to zero chance against some subset combo of our local world class players Martel/Woolsey/Stansbys/Rosenbergs. I'm usually going to get clobbered over 60+ boards. But over only 8 boards, I am going to win the match a decent measurable chunk of the time, and have.

[PhilG007]

 Stephen Tu, on 2018-May-23, 10:15, said:

Well you were the one that objected to 64, state the longest you are willing to do. The software allows 16 at a time, in my experience the biggest lag is in just setting up the challenge and the other person playing the boards, not the number of boards each set (not huge difference playing 16 boards vs. 12, as one can play a board quickly against bots). So 48? 32?
I'd also want to use the advanced bots, I can set up the challenges if you wish.

Bridge is a game of skill in the long run, but there is still a significant amount of luck in short matches. For instance, a single board may hinge on a two-way guess for a finesse, where there is no clue from the bidding or the play, and one player may simply guess the board better. Or one player sets up a clever endplay to avoid the 2-way guess altogether, showing superior skill, but the other player ties the board by simply guessing right. There are hands where the superior line unluckily loses to an inferior line to due to the lie of the cards. Or you bid a 75% slam your opponent doesn't, but this happens to be the 25% of the time it goes down. Or bot does something silly in the bidding or play and screws one player or the other. The longer the match, the more instances like these will tend to even out and revert to the mean, leaving skill as the determining factor. But in a short match, a couple of lucky results and a string of flat boards can let a lucky player win.

In a long match I, playing with my peers, have close to zero chance against some subset combo of our local world class players Martel/Woolsey/Stansbys/Rosenbergs. I'm usually going to get clobbered over 60+ boards. But over only 8 boards, I am going to win the match a decent measurable chunk of the time, and have.

OK 48 boards You set it up. Let's just get this thing settled once and for all At least by starting this challenge,I'll have proved one thing,
Whatever else I may be,I'm no coward Bring it on!!! Head to head

[Stephen Tu]

OK I set up first segment under my other alias stephtu. You can ignore the 10 board challenge you set up against my full name, just let it expire.

[MrAce]

 NickRW, on 2018-May-23, 05:47, said:

Does anyone else find this 'mine is bigger than yours' discussion objectionable?

[cherdano]

 NickRW, on 2018-May-23, 05:47, said:

Does anyone else find this 'mine is bigger than yours' discussion objectionable?

Well, surely the chance of PhilG007 shutting up forever is worth it?

[PhilG007]

 cherdano, on 2018-May-24, 14:04, said:

Well, surely the chance of PhilG007 shutting up forever is worth it?

It's been said you should never argue with idiots So I'm not arguing. They're more to be pitied than scolded