Balance decision at MPs

[the hog]

Ok since no one else has said anything. Ben and moderators: I think Lall's post is offensive in the extreme. There has been a post already on bad language and here we have a poster acting like an absolute spoiled brat having a tantrum because he doesn't get his own way. Phil's post, under extreme provocation, was a model of self restraint. I am amazed Lall's post has not been expunged and a warning not issued.

[Guest Jlall]

Ok since no one else has said anything. Ben and moderators: I think Lall's post is offensive in the extreme. There has been a post already on bad language and here we have a poster acting like an absolute spoiled brat having a tantrum because he doesn't get his own way. Phil's post, under extreme provocation, was a model of self restraint. I am amazed Lall's post has not been expunged and a warning not issued.

oops I used the "F" word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SORRY!!!!!!!!!! I EDITED IT OUT!!!!!!!! I FORGOT THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU CANNOT HANDLE THE "F" WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH WAIT YOU HAVE USED IT SEVERAL TIMES IN YOUR POSTS AND YOU ARE JUST MAD THAT EVERYONE HATES YOU AND YOUR STUPID POSTS, AND THAT YOU GOT CALLED OUT RECENTLY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK NO MORE "F" WORDS!!!!!!!

[Guest Jlall]

Justin - I don't hate you and I'm sorry that you feel that way about me.

 

I do forget how young you are and how I shouldn't rile you up like that. Sorry about that.

No problem, I forgot youre an insecure moron who cannot handle someone disagreeing with them and calls it "personal" when it happens. I shouldn't have riled you up either. By the way, you still did not show me where I said anything "personal" in my original post so I will continue to operate on the assumption that to you disagreement is "personal" lol.

[pclayton]

By the way, you still did not show me where I said anything "personal" in my original post

if they use reasoning like yours they are getting a bad board

 

This isn't personal to you? It's tantamount to saying "you are a bad bridge player". Maybe because I've been around the block once or twice, I have a heightened sense of when someone is insulting me. There are many more ways to insult someone personally than to call them a "moron".

 

Say I work for a company and we are sitting around a conference table and someone says:

 

"...and if we would have gone ahead and used your plan, the company would have lost millions of dollars".

 

Do you think the person being addressed isn't offended? Insulted? Do you think this is personal?

 

A more tactful way to broach a subject like this is to say, "...the project "ABC" saved money because of 1, 2 and 3...". No one gets called out, but the speaker makes the same point about one project being superior over another.

 

I'm probably wasting my breath here, but you did call me out on this (twice).

[Guest Jlall]

By the way, you still did not show me where I said anything "personal" in my original post

if they use reasoning like yours they are getting a bad board

 

This isn't personal to you?

Are you serious? You lack basic reading comprehension.

 

Your reasoning is "we are getting a bad board if we defend 2H here, so we should bid 3C" ie, normal mp reasoning in some situations.

 

So if they use that same GOOD reasoning, they will understand they are getting a bad board if 3C makes or goes down 1 so they will double you to protect their equity. PLEASE REREAD MY POST IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS lol.

 

Also, do not quote my posts like that. You took half of my sentence and did not even add snip or "..." You clearly took my words out of the context it was intended in since the ending of that sentence is "if you make 3C anyways." and in a paragraph where I said "you are underestimating the chances that they X you."

 

edit: I am seriously LOLing at your last post. I mean...lol... you don't even know how to read leading you to become randomly defensive when I was actually saying that they could apply your the reasoning you used to bid 3C to X you aggressively in 3C... which is a standard MP situation...

[whereagles]

one bad thing about the internet is it doesn't have ashtrays...

[jdonn]

So, by bidding 1NT and passing,  there's a real chance we're losing to those players... lol.

You mean by bidding 1NT on this hand you might lose to players who didn't? Shocking :)

 

Ok since no one else has said anything. Ben and moderators: I think Lall's post is offensive in the extreme. There has been a post already on bad language and here we have a poster acting like an absolute spoiled brat having a tantrum because he doesn't get his own way. Phil's post, under extreme provocation, was a model of self restraint. I am amazed Lall's post has not been expunged and a warning not issued.

Complaining about a post openly to the moderators like this instead of in private is in far worse taste than Justin's post and use of the word....do I dare type it....

[Guest Jlall]

Say I work for a company and we are sitting around a conference table and someone says:

 

"...and if we would have gone ahead and used your plan, the company would have lost millions of dollars".

 

Do you think the person being addressed isn't offended? Insulted? Do you think this is personal?

Oh and not that your analogy is even analagous since you were obviously not able to understand the meaning of my post but, no this situation is NOT a personal attack lol.

 

Your "idea" has nothing to do with you, it is an idea. It is not a part of you, it is not about you. If a company says your idea is bad they are shooting down the IDEA not the PERSON. Obviously you are not able to tell the difference. This is the same as someone saying you made a bad bid. That, also, is not a personal attack. Do you see why?

 

As for "Will they be offended," if they are a rational person then no they will not.

[pclayton]

Say I work for a company and we are sitting around a conference table and someone says:

 

"...and if we would have gone ahead and used your plan, the company would have lost millions of dollars".

 

Do you think the person being addressed isn't offended? Insulted? Do you think this is personal?

Oh and not that your analogy is even analagous since you were obviously not able to understand the meaning of my post but, no this situation is NOT a personal attack lol.

 

Your "idea" has nothing to do with you, it is an idea. It is not a part of you, it is not about you. If a company says your idea is bad they are shooting down the IDEA not the PERSON. Obviously you are not able to tell the difference. This is the same as someone saying you made a bad bid. That, also, is not a personal attack. Do you see why?

 

As for "Will they be offended," if they are a rational person then no they will not.

Justin, you have no background in these matters, but I am finished trying to educate you. You don't have the foggiest notion about the concepts of tact and diplomacy.

 

You have no interest in my opinion and I have lost my desire attempting to show how the real world works. You seem to believe you can get all the answers from places like Wikipedia.

 

Have a nice day. :)

[Guest Jlall]

Say I work for a company and we are sitting around a conference table and someone says:

 

"...and if we would have gone ahead and used your plan, the company would have lost millions of dollars".

 

Do you think the person being addressed isn't offended? Insulted? Do you think this is personal?

Oh and not that your analogy is even analagous since you were obviously not able to understand the meaning of my post but, no this situation is NOT a personal attack lol.

 

Your "idea" has nothing to do with you, it is an idea. It is not a part of you, it is not about you. If a company says your idea is bad they are shooting down the IDEA not the PERSON. Obviously you are not able to tell the difference. This is the same as someone saying you made a bad bid. That, also, is not a personal attack. Do you see why?

 

As for "Will they be offended," if they are a rational person then no they will not.

Justin, you have no background in these matters, but I am finished trying to educate you. You don't have the foggiest notion about the concepts of tact and diplomacy.

 

You have no interest in my opinion and I have lost my desire attempting to show how the real world works. You seem to believe you can get all the answers from places like Wikipedia.

 

Have a nice day. :P

LOL. It is amazing to me that you are still alive, I would have expected darwinism to take effect at some point.

 

Let's recap.

 

1) You post something.

2) I post why I think you are wrong.

3) You go off and say that I always make things personal (lol).

4) I ask you to show me where my original post said anything personal.

5) You take half of a sentence I wrote to try to indicate me saying something personal. You were clearly wrong (which I'm sure you now realize) and did not understand my post at all despite all the context clues being there. OK, you read too fast or whatever, not a big deal. But you can't admit that you were wrong, you do your usual dropping of the issue and hoping no one realizes what an idiot you are.

 

During all of this you try to post a situation that is analagous to what you perceived me to be saying (which I didn't), and it was not in fact analagous. Amusingly enough you were even wrong with what would constitute a personal attack. You think someone saying your idea would not work is a personal attack, amazing!

 

Then, when I point out THAT was wrong, you do your usual "I am done, you have no background in this or education." Then you discuss tact and diplomacy. Huh? Where do tact and diplomacy come into this? I fully acknowledge that telling someone their idea would lose the company millions of dollars is VERY untactful, however that is not the same as a personal attack.

 

Basically you are an idiot, and insecure, and you cannot handle these facts becuase you want so badly NOT to be an idiot, and you want so badly ONE TIME to be right, but you just can't be. It's ok, some people are born with limited resources mentally, they just have to accept their place in life.

[NickRW]

Basically you are an idiot,...

Ouch. FWIW, I don't think you were being personal. But that is!

 

Nick

[Guest Jlall]

Basically you are an idiot,...

Ouch. FWIW, I don't think you were being personal. But that is!

 

Nick

yep obviously it devolved into that.

[ArtK78]

I expect better from the combatants in this thread.

 

*sigh*

[whereagles]

a forum without flames is like the circus without clowns. it's not fun :P

[the hog]

Complaining about a post openly to the moderators like this instead of in private is in far worse taste than Justin's post and use of the word....do I dare type it....

Do you really believe this Josh, or is this a contention born out of loyalty to a friend? If the latter, then it is misguided. For some days now the punk has publicly spewed forth bile, vitriol and personal abuse. [i use the term "punk" because I believe it has lost the right to be referred to by its name or by one of the human personal pronouns]. The comments are open, here, for all to read and it appears that any semblance of controlling it has been abandoned. Not one poster has had the courage to take the punk in hand and suggest it moderate its comments. Whether this is due to misguided loyalty or some other dubious reason is unknown to me. As it has been so public, surely a public recrimination is in order. This has gone far further than the often heated but always at least semi-civil debates of the past

 

A friendly word of advice. Its rantings have become so hysterical in nature that I really think it is capable of doing itself some harm. I believe it seriously needs treatment and medication for its own sake.

[CSGibson]

Complaining about a post openly to the moderators like this instead of in private is in far worse taste than Justin's post and use of the word....do I dare type it....

Do you really believe this Josh, or is this a contention born out of loyalty to a friend? If the latter, then it is misguided. For some days now the punk has publicly spewed forth bile, vitriol and personal abuse. [i use the term "punk" because I believe it has lost the right to be referred to by its name or by one of the human personal pronouns]. The comments are open, here, for all to read and it appears that any semblance of controlling it has been abandoned. Not one poster has had the courage to take the punk in hand and suggest it moderate its comments. Whether this is due to misguided loyalty or some other dubious reason is unknown to me. As it has been so public, surely a public recrimination is in order. This has gone far further than the often heated but always at least semi-civil debates of the past

 

A friendly word of advice. Its rantings have become so hysterical in nature that I really think it is capable of doing itself some harm. I believe it seriously needs treatment and medication for its own sake.

This is a little over the top, don't you think? Medical judgements based on forum scribblings? Really?

 

Take a deep breath. Look at the bridge aspects of the postings, since that's what you're interested in. Ignore the rantings of all involved, since they are no more relevant than you allow them to be.

 

I would have overcalled 2♣, and if I felt like swinging and decided to overcall 1N, I think I have to live with my initial decision and not second-guess myself in the middle of an auction. I think a lot of the people who are advocating bidding over 2 hearts are doing so because they hate having screwed themselves up by bidding 1N.

[matmat]

Complaining about a post openly to the moderators like this instead of in private is in far worse taste than Justin's post and use of the word....do I dare type it....

Do you really believe this Josh, or is this a contention born out of loyalty to a friend? If the latter, then it is misguided. For some days now the punk has publicly spewed forth bile, vitriol and personal abuse. [i use the term "punk" because I believe it has lost the right to be referred to by its name or by one of the human personal pronouns]. The comments are open, here, for all to read and it appears that any semblance of controlling it has been abandoned. Not one poster has had the courage to take the punk in hand and suggest it moderate its comments. Whether this is due to misguided loyalty or some other dubious reason is unknown to me. As it has been so public, surely a public recrimination is in order. This has gone far further than the often heated but always at least semi-civil debates of the past

 

A friendly word of advice. Its rantings have become so hysterical in nature that I really think it is capable of doing itself some harm. I believe it seriously needs treatment and medication for its own sake.

you're funny.

[matmat]

I expect better from the combatants in this thread.

 

*sigh*

me too... the flames are nowhere near amusing enough.

[Guest Jlall]

Complaining about a post openly to the moderators like this instead of in private is in far worse taste than Justin's post and use of the word....do I dare type it....

Do you really believe this Josh, or is this a contention born out of loyalty to a friend? If the latter, then it is misguided. For some days now the punk has publicly spewed forth bile, vitriol and personal abuse. [i use the term "punk" because I believe it has lost the right to be referred to by its name or by one of the human personal pronouns]. The comments are open, here, for all to read and it appears that any semblance of controlling it has been abandoned. Not one poster has had the courage to take the punk in hand and suggest it moderate its comments. Whether this is due to misguided loyalty or some other dubious reason is unknown to me. As it has been so public, surely a public recrimination is in order. This has gone far further than the often heated but always at least semi-civil debates of the past

 

A friendly word of advice. Its rantings have become so hysterical in nature that I really think it is capable of doing itself some harm. I believe it seriously needs treatment and medication for its own sake.

Hi pot my name is kettle!

[kenrexford]

With fear and loathing...

 

The more I look at this, the more I am firmly convinced that the decision as to whether to bid 3♣ or pass requires looking at the opponents and then looking down the row of tables at the field. Neither 3♣ nor pass is clearly right or wrong, IMO. The right decision in this instance seems to depend on very tight factors, namely table and section feel.

 

I don't view this as an issue of correcting a bad initial decision. Overcalling 2♣ instead of 1NT would be a really bad bid, IMO. The club suit sucks, the strength is understated, and the feel of the hand is not 2♣. The problem might be that I will need to "correct" for really bad bids (2♣, for instance) made by the field when later developments suggests a stumble-bunny auction to the right contract.

 

I would not want to use "living with a decision" as a reason to default for any choice in a sequence. Why the default to a pass for that reason? Why not a default to a 3♣ for that reason? "I suppose I must live by my decision to overcall a swingy 1NT the first time and not second-guess myself out of a 3♣ bid here." That sounds reasonable, also.

 

Whereas I agree that partner might not double with all hands, I also feel that the fact that partner will double with some hands means that his club length expectation tends to be higher than it would be if he did not have a negative double availabvle and would therefore have a compulsion to pass many more club-unsuitable hands from the gamut of possible hands.

[CSGibson]

I don't view this as an issue of correcting a bad initial decision. Overcalling 2♣ instead of 1NT would be a really bad bid, IMO. The club suit sucks, the strength is understated, and the feel of the hand is not 2♣. The problem might be that I will need to "correct" for really bad bids (2♣, for instance) made by the field when later developments suggests a stumble-bunny auction to the right contract.

1st: A direct 2 level overcall neither understates nor overstates the strength of the hand in my opinion. I've got a slightly better than opening bid; I would open 1N without interference, but my hand is now inappropriate for 1N because I have no stopper and a reasonable, if not ideal, bid to make instead.

 

2nd: I find the points you are making in this thread to be contradictory. My suit isn't good enough for a 2 level overcall, but now it's good enough for the 3 level? I understand, partner has a crap hand he didn't want to make a negative double on. That doesn't deny 4 spades; that could just deny values and/or be because partner would be unable to deal with a 3 club bid by you next. Give me some 4-2-5-2 3 count and I'm not making any noise as responder either, especially when I'm partnering someone who would make 1N overcalls on hands like this.

 

I do see one point in favor of bidding on: Opps are likely going to be able to play the hand much better because your strength and shape are more tightly defined, so you are probably worse off than people who aren't so...liberal...with their 1N overcalls. Your score will probably suffer for that, so it might be less risky in a matchpoints environment to bid on. I still wouldn't do it.

[jtfanclub]

I don't view this as an issue of correcting a bad initial decision. Overcalling 2♣ instead of 1NT would be a really bad bid, IMO. The club suit sucks, the strength is understated, and the feel of the hand is not 2♣.

The bad club suit and the feel being two very good reasons not to bid 3♣.

 

Whereas I agree that partner might not double with all hands, I also feel that the fact that partner will double with some hands means that his club length expectation tends to be higher than it would be if he did not have a negative double availabvle and would therefore have a compulsion to pass many more club-unsuitable hands from the gamut of possible hands.

 

When I play a 15-18 NT overcall, an X here is takeout, and does imply 4 spades, which is as close to 'negative' as I've seen. Unfortunately, it's also invitational. What are the odds that he has such a strong hand? Or to put it another way, if he had 7 spades he certainly wouldn't pass. So that also increases the odds that he has more clubs. But it doesn't change the odds enough to be a factor.

 

I would not want to use "living with a decision" as a reason to default for any choice in a sequence.

 

The decision you have to live with is not what you chose to bid, per se. It's not like once you've bid NT you can never again bid a suit. What you have to live with is that you have passed information. The opponents know far more about your hand and (especially) your partner's hand than if you'd, say, passed the first time and balanced in with 3♣ the second time (which is the classic stumble-bunny way of bidding this hand). That information isn't going to help your partner be a better dummy, but it is going to help them to decide whether to double, and how to play the hand. I'm not saying that bars you from bidding, but the 1NT was not 'free' by any means.

[kenrexford]

2nd: I find the points you are making in this thread to be contradictory. My suit isn't good enough for a 2 level overcall, but now it's good enough for the 3 level? I understand, partner has a crap hand he didn't want to make a negative double on. That doesn't deny 4 spades; that could just deny values and/or be because partner would be unable to deal with a 3 club bid by you next. Give me some 4-2-5-2 3 count and I'm not making any noise as responder either, especially when I'm partnering someone who would make 1N overcalls on hands like this.

My statement here is not contradictory.

 

2♣ is a descriptive bid. It shows something. The call is not based on an assessment of an auction to date.

 

3♣ is a conclusion bid. I assess the auction in light of my hand and make conclusions about what is probably going on. I bid accordingly. As my conclusion is that partner has a greater length expectation than initially, and as I now expect a 16-17 total trick scenario, and as I expect LHO to have less defense than usual, I bid 3♣.

 

Of couse, the heightened expectation does not translate into a guarantee. Partner might easily have a doubleton club. So? Any time I make any bid I might get hammered, just about. I don't make the majority of my bids on a worst-case-analysis basis. Otherwise, I would pass throughout. I make decisions based upon likely scenarios. It seems that partner will have four clubs more often than two clubs.

 

I don't have any mathematical arguments to provide. It is notable that the layout was as predicted, in practice. "Feel" bids that have a high success ratio probably have a mathematical/psychological explanation.

[kenrexford]

Bidding 3♣ ain't stumble-bunny. That sequence comes up all the time. You open or overcall 1NT and later bid three of a minor. Usually this is right.

 

Thuis time, your three small hearts hit partner's shortness. That's better than usual, where you guess that partner might have shortness. For instance, I feel a lot better about this auction than 1NT-P-P-2♥-3♣ or 1NT-2♥-P-P-3♣.

[CSGibson]

...

My statement here is not contradictory.

 

2♣ is a descriptive bid. It shows something. The call is not based on an assessment of an auction to date.

 

3♣ is a conclusion bid. I assess the auction in light of my hand and make conclusions about what is probably going on. I bid accordingly. As my conclusion is that partner has a greater length expectation than initially, and as I now expect a 16-17 total trick scenario, and as I expect LHO to have less defense than usual, I bid 3♣.

I can accept that, even if I disagree with it. If we all judged situations the same, how would I get random tops defending 3♣ X against people?