Balance decision at MPs

[inquiry]

This thread has been reported to me via "report this thread to moderator". I had read it early on before the flame war began, made my vote (pass) and moved on, since han had said what i would have said.

 

Having been called to "moderate this thread", I will not wade in on the question of whether or not a public call like ron made (the_hog) is a good thing or a bad thing. Just know that I no longer read everything posted here. If i read a thread and have nothing to say (or nothing more to say) i very well may not return to it. So despite the merits or demerits of posting publically, posting something like ron did may not get any response from me simply because i might not see it. However, pressing the report to moderator button will at least make sure the thread gets a look.

 

As for the flame war/personal remarks made between the various posters (jlall, the_hog, jdonn, pclayton), we all know those should be saved for the water cooler. Apparently there was an F-bomb, that was edited out by the poster (thanks for that). But calling a player a moron or ridiculing any player (for example for so young or lack of worldly experience, or for lack of bridge skills and a lifetime of futility at the game) are all violations of the BBO policy established by fred and uday for this board. So I ask that we all try to hold our "tongue" (typing) on these issues from this time forward.

 

Now the hard part is what should the moderators (me and others) do with this thread? The options run from deleting the entire thread (but there is some interesting points here being discussed, despite my agreement with the view that this is a pass, wtp?), to deleting some of the insult-only post (making the the thread read ackwardly) to trying to prune various insults from specific post while leaving the majority of each. For the moment, i am taking a fourth, lazy way out, and am going to do nothing. Well, that is not fully true, I will seek the advice of the fellow moderators to see what the group thinks should be done in cases like this.

 

Suffice it to say, this has gotten out of hand, and all my friends involved in the the flames should realize that such post make it less likely others will "risk" posting views we allow such flames to be fanned. So STOP IT...

 

Thanks.

[kenrexford]

I would underline this last post. Jlall, jadonn, the Hog, and pclayton had me so worked up and trembling that I almost did not post my comments.

 

Thankfully, I was so damn brilliant and unimpeachably correct in my analysis that this could not be a problem for me. I feel for others, though, like csgibson and jtfanclub, who may have had to overcome great trepidation in offering their well thought, and noble, attempts to counter my eloquent proof, realizing undoubtedly that they were easily subject to public ridicule for their positions. I, for one, applaud the efforts of our less experienced posters, including the young Justin and Josh. It is so cute how they are learning so much so quickly from the wise amongst us, like me.

 

rotflol :P :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :P

[han]

I wrote a long post attacking Ken personally as well as disputing about everything he ever wrote about bridge. Then I reread Ben's post and decided to delete it.

 

Let me just warn Ken and all others that next time I might not be so generous. :rolleyes:

[kenrexford]

I wrote a long post attacking Ken personally as well as disputing about everything he ever wrote about bridge. Then I reread Ben's post and decided to delete it.

 

Let me just warn Ken and all others that next time I might not be so generous. :rolleyes:

Han, you are a knee-biter!

 

LOL

[jtfanclub]

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.

No, the stumble-bunny method is PASS the first time, then bidding 3♣ the second time.

 

That's the classic case of finding exactly the right auction by accident, as the opponents won't have enough information to X (even if they can penalty X 3♣, they won't know if your partner can run to a better place).

 

 

EDIT: Just read your eloquent post. I have learned from your fine example, and now boldly post where Angels fear to thread.

[CSGibson]

Thankfully, I was so damn brilliant and unimpeachably correct in my analysis that this could not be a problem for me. I feel for others, though, like csgibson and jtfanclub, who may have had to overcome great trepidation in offering their well thought, and noble, attempts to counter my eloquent proof, realizing undoubtedly that they were easily subject to public ridicule for their positions.

Don't worry, Ken, I put on sunscreen before basking in your brilliance, so I probably won't be burned :)

[jdonn]

I find the suggestion of a balance on this hand more offensive than anything anyone posted. I would like the hand itself removed please.

[whereagles]

I find the suggestion of a balance on this hand more offensive than anything anyone posted. I would like the hand itself removed please.

I'm going to offend you to the limit by saying this: "I think balancing 3♣ is mandatory at MPs."

 

Ok.. now, should we step outside and sort this out?? :) :P