HighLow21

Yes, I do want to see North's hand. It's possible that he has his double, so perhaps I should have waited to see North's hand before making the comment. That said, I've just seen far too may of these doubles on BBO and when they work out, they are OK, but they often risk a lot to gain little. I cannot imagine North's double is a good percentage play without all 4 missing spades and a singleton in one of the minors, for example. At least the double is of a game contract. I've seen so many of these doubles at the 2 or 3 level, risking a game bonus and everything else, in the hope of collecting an extra 100.

Points taken.

Fine. As I said earlier, I wouldn't have made the comment if the post were in the A/E forum, but it wasn't.

You're right, clearly I don't have a clue. Nor do any of the people who supported many of the things I had to say. And I didn't say I don't have a clue about squeezes. I said that I explicitly was leaving squeezes out. That isn't what I what I said, Justin. I wasn't referring to your comment about how to play this hand. On this topic, you said nothing dangerous. I was referring to a slew of other half-thoughts you have flippantly posted recently. My comments in this thread were in response to the deference others were paying you when, in my mind, you said absolutely nothing meaningful in your original response to this topic. The thing about RHM was a joke? Fine, maybe it's actually a funny joke. And maybe that joke is worth the rep points. But the original comment you wrote was unhelpful to anyone actually trying to understand the best way to play this hand. [/reading].

I agree with everything you said, though I have no idea what a kneebiter is. I'm off to Urban dictionary to find out. LOL. Agreed with this concept you elucidated: no one has a right to tell someone else what constitutes an opening bid or overcall. "Fert" bids on 0-7 points are standard in a couple of systems, for example. What I'm talking about is standard bidding: that which applies to, say, 90% of the players on this site. BBO Basic or its close cousin, SAYC. And all I was arguing is that the OP blamed partner for putting me in the slam. I EXPECT to put my partner in slam holding 20 HCP most of the time, when he opens. This is assuming BBO Basic/SAYC. And all I was trying to argue was that, as far as balanced 12's (a borderline or minimum opener in BBO Basic/SAYC) go, this hand is about as bad as it gets.

I'm going to keep this response simple by saying: (1) I was attacked today on multiple fronts. (2) I made the mistake of biting on some bait I shouldn't have; in the process, I created my own bait. I am sorry, but I was also provoked. (3) I respect other people's opinions when they are opinions and not personal attacks. Justin, if there's something else you'd like me to respond directly to, let me know.

This is exactly the kind of contextualization I was talking about. Thank you, Justin! -Tate

No, I wasn't upset at you personally at all. I was being attacked for disagreeing with you when I didn't even realize I was disagreeing with you. And then later when I realized I was disagreeing with you, I said that I thought your ideas might be dangerous to anyone below a certain skill level. I then spent what felt like the next month of my life fending off truly obnoxious attacks from all over the place, even though I caveated somewhere that "I know my comment is going to be extremely unpopular, but..." I think your ideas are fine, Justin, I guess I just wish sometimes that you'd give a little more context for some of your comments. I think it's potentially dangerous to plant the idea in someone's mind that this overcall is reasonable, without a full contextualization for them of why it's reasonable. Why overcall here? What are the risks? What are the potential rewards? Etc. Because 90% of the players out there will take this idea and run with it in all kinds of wrong directions because they don't understand exactly why overcalling is right for you in this spot and not in a dozen of other similar spots that could come up. You are a highly regarded expert here, and going against anything you say has dire consequences, as I found out. But I think giving people an idea of why this overcall is ok, or another (similar) one isn't, could be worth its weight in gold. I believe most or all of the reasons, but I believe many who are reading this would not. And keep in mind that many people who read advice from you will overapply and misapply it, simply on the basis of who you are. Personally, I think that's the added responsibility of becoming highly regarded and famous: you need to exercise more caution and precision when you speak, because your words carry a lot of weight. If this were in the A/E forum, it would be a totally different story, IMO.

Thanks Chris, as always a very well reasoned and thought out response by you. Again, I have no issue with people attacking my arguments when they have the facts right. Today, what happened is (1) my arguments were attacked right without the facts, and worse, (2) I was attacked personally for expressing my views. Yes, I sometimes state things strongly, but the behavior of some people today was completely sarcastic, obnoxious, personally offensive, and unacceptable. There have been a few people who have picked up on that fact, which makes me happy. In terms of the issue of not getting respect, I simply wish that people approve/disapprove of my analyses on their own merits, and that's not what happened today.

When I read this originally it registered as "You have PMS" and I was like "WHY YOU LITTLE..." HA! B-)

Ha! I like that. And it makes total sense. :D

Thank you, Justin!

Mike, thank you for your sincere response. Rest assured that I can point you directly to where I was called "stupid", "a jackass", and "a clown"; I was also "lol'ed" at in a derisive way. I will do so if you want me to. It's bad enough to attack and insult me for expressing an opinion. Namecalling is completely uncalled for, and I didn't go overboard today until I was attacked as described earlier. And maybe I should have waited to respond; I'm just a big believer in not giving into this type of behavior.

I'm in a terrible mood, though it's better than yesterday. My beautiful girlfriend is potentially dying of cancer, and I have the stomach flu. Not anyone's fault. What I'm mad about, though, is some of the treatment I've been getting here at the forums. Can anyone relate to these? (1) Ad hominem attacks. This is attacking the person giving the argument, not attacking the argument itself. Something like "you're a jacka**" or "you're a beginner" or "you don't know what you're talking about." (2) Calling people names. This is closely related to (1), but it's actually worse. Saying "you don't know what you're talking about" is an ad hominem attack, while saying "you're a jackass" is an ad hominem attack with namecalling rolled in. (3) Poking holes in arguments. This is something like the following: you type a 500-word, well-reasoned argument, and get no credit for the valuable analysis in any of it, but someone points out that you said something like "partner is sacrificing" instead of "partner might be sacrificing." (4) Incorrect interpretation of facts. For example, someone says "so-and-so believes this hand is worth a takeout double" when, actually, the original post is either ambiguous or clearly NOT saying that. (5) Deifying of specific experts. This one annoys me the most, because it's the most pervasive, in my opinion. Does anyone here feel that, simply by the merit of something OTHER than the content of the posts, certain people are given credit and respect blindly, while others cannot win no matter how sound their arguments are? Personally, I don't care if Charles Goren himself were posting in these forums. If there was (i) a factual error, (ii) an ambiguity, or (iii) a dangerous bit of advice given, I would feel compelled to call him out on it rather than just defer to his reputation. In fact, I would feel more compelled to call Goren out on it, because I know that others know what a highly-touted expert he is. Therefore his words are going to be taken much more seriously than average, and therefore must be held to the highest possible standard. Anyone else share my sentiments on any of these? Or to quote S.J. Simon, "perhaps I'm just suffering from a surfeit" today. <_<

Better to lead low with AKxxx. If partner has a doubleton honor, the low lead works out much better for your side; if a small doubleton, he can lead one back if he gets in first. Your diamond spots and the vulnerability (and your description of the meaning of 3♦ at the current colors) suggest that a diamond lead might work out terribly poorly for your side. If partner craves a diamond lead, he can double 3NT.

Oh and as far as your other question, Kathryn; what bid BESIDES 3♠ could you make? I cannot see what's wrong with it or what other bid would have been right, other than maybe 3NT which doesn't make sense to me either.

Agreed. 5♣ has virtually no chance and there's no reason to think 5♠ will make. In fact, as Phil pointed out, 4♠ wasn't even certain. I'd estimate 5♣ goes down 95% of the time, usually by 2 tricks or more. I'd estimate 80% for 4♠ and maybe 40% for 5♠. Nothing in the auction or my hand tells me to declare here. Defend.

You don't use the word 'stupid' without intending to incite. Period. Unless, of course, you don't know what yuo're doing, but that's a different issue. I only care when (1) others attack me baselessly, or (2) one of the posts is dangerous. Both apply today. Chris, if only you know how bad it got today--> not just here, but in several other forum topics. I was blatantly attacked and called names by a regular poster here. And I will say this, mandude: I am sorry that you bore the brunt of my frustrations. That happens and it's not OK. I was wrong for taking the word 'stupid' personally, even if I find the word 'stupid' offensive in general. The reality is, something else that happened here on the forums today was far, far more offensive, and I felt like I was getting attacked for everything I said. I stand by my comments, except where they were in obvious error or misunderstanding. But that doesn't change the fact that, after reviewing a series of posts by JLOGIC, I find them often unhelpful at best and dangerous as fire at worst to someone who only partially understands where he is coming from.

I'm going to refrain from resorting to your level by calling you any names now. Suffice it to say, I will interpret this as non-sarcastically as possible.

THANK YOU. Finally, someone understands what pissed me off so much in the first place!!!

Just to be clear here, there is no such thing as a stupid question or player here. Bridge is a hard game and we are all bright thoughtful adults. It is a hard game and that is one of the reasons these forums exist. The ONLY exception is the act of calling another person here stupid, or any other name. That's intolerable. Ben, I know you're referring to yourself here, but you're anything but a stupid player. Whether 9♦ was the best decision, is not yet obvious to me or anyone else, I don't think. But it's not a stupid player; it is, at the worst possible, a bad decision. Much, much, much different.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/51561-free-bid-options/page__p__616995__fromsearch__1#entry616995 And get ready for one of the more anrgy/comical misunderstandings in BBO forum history. Just please, for the love of God, if you're going to attack my arguments, do so with correct facts, and whatever you do, don't call me names!! :-)

I disagree with your conclusion but I agree entirely with your reasoning. I chose 2S because I can never otherwise communicate my 5 decent spades to partner, and I have no reason to believe that any other suit will be better than spades even if partner has 2 spades and 3 of one of the minors. Plus, that is one level higher. I agree, you will often get a tough decision when 2SX comes back to you. But I think there's a high probability you will get a tough decision whenever the bidding comes back to you, except that when you get a tough decision back to you after XX, you're nearly always at the 3-level and will have a nagging feeling that spades might have been your best fit.

I read everything you wrote, Wyman, and it's much better than what you've written earlier today. However, I'm not missing the point. You're missing the point. See my post above.

I'm chill. :) As Walter Sobchak says in The Big Lebowski, "I'm calmer than you are, dude." B-) I just explained this in a private message to Phil, but I'll rexplain it here. Point 1: Calling an action ludicrous is not a judgment of the actor. It is a judgment of the action, and I stand by the judgment that an overcall is "nutso to me" or "terrible bridge" or "ludicrous" in this situation. That is an opinion of the action, not the actor. Point 2: For the record, I originally read JLOGIC's post as saying "I would overcall under different circumstances, but here are 3 reasons I wouldn't." I still stand by that interpretation. But I can concede that he might be saying "I would overcall. Here are 3 reasons why others might not." This is vague phrasing and it's characteristic. Point 3: This is exactly what I meant earlier by saying that I find his posts unhelpful. I find them sloppy, disorganized, uninsightful, and not fully (if at all) explained. I guess I just got to the point where I'm tired of it. Point 4: I still think that even in the most favorable interpretation of his posts, they are dangerous. Sure, he is an expert with a whole host of partner agreements, but his statements can be interpreted very dangerously by the other 99% of the bridge-playing population who aren't playing at Expert/World Class levels with a whole host of system gadgets and a profound understand of what makes this hand different from, say, ♠J107xx ♥AKx ♦T98x ♣x. So my point beyond point 3 (unhelpful) is, point 4, they can be dangerously misinterpreted by people who don't fully understand all the considerations, and I can even pinpoint an example of this happening in another forum post about a different hand. I called his advice on a particular situation, or at least the interpretation of his advice as stated by the poster of the hand, terrible advice. Point 5: Calling me a clown or a jackass is a judgment of me that has nothing to do with the soundness of my argument. These are VERY different things. VERY VERY different. And this is EXACTLY what got me angry. I have no beef with JLOGIC, I just don't have any esteem for what he writes. But I take deep, personal exception to namecalling. It was the ad hominem attacks and attacks without the facts that angered me. Not that I hate the overcall and others may love it because JLall seems to love it; not because they disagree with any of my arguments or how I presented them. I'm sorry, guys. I'm not going to play nice with people who call me names, and if you critique my arguments without a solid understanding of the facts, I'm going to nail your argument to the wall and carve my initials into it. Just as I would expect you to do of me. Right, let's get on then. -Tate