Your call/bid

[mfa1010]

I would roll back to 1NT undoubled.

 

Likely a penalty to west. It is very unacceptable to bully an opponent not to act. It is crucial that west keeps his mouth shut until south has made his call. (With the usual reservation that we only have one side's version of the story).

[JLOGIC]

This was actually an UI case. My partner hesitated on the 1♥ call and passed (he can bid 2♥ natural with his 12HCP but his suit was only KJxxxx). When RHO bid 1NT, my LHO asked me to confirm that there was a clear hesitation, which I did. I doubled 1NT because it means takeout for ♥ which is what I have (with a strong hand with ♦ I can bid 1♦-2♦ immediately).

My LHO, probably annoyed by the fact that his response with xxx-Txxx-Qxx-Kxx didn't work well, called the TD immediately after my partner passed the Dbl. TD said to continue the auction and play, and call him back afterwards if they feel damaged. How would you rule when you're called back at the table?

 

Lol or he was annoyed that you likely violated the rules (which, in fact, you did!). But sure, it must just be a case of sour grapes on his part.

[Free]

Lol or he was annoyed that you likely violated the rules (which, in fact, you did!). But sure, it must just be a case of sour grapes on his part.

Please explain which rules I violated. Before I explained this was an UI case, most people playing Dbl as takeout of ♥ considered this an obvious Dbl. Pretty much the only passers were people with a different agreement. Considering this, it seems to me that I didn't make any abuse of UI.

[JLOGIC]

You had Unauthorized Info (which you admitted at the time, your partner broke tempo). Do you debate this?

 

This unauthorized info demonstrably suggested doubling (partner is marked with values). Do you debate this?

 

Passing was a logical alternative to bidding, as evidenced by this thread (some people viewed passing to be correct). Do you debate this?

 

Since you must choose between logical alternatives not demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized info gained from partner's break in tempo, you must PASS. Do you debate this?

 

But of course, when your opp has the audacity to call the director on your infraction, you accuse him of doing so because he was sore that his bid had not worked out, even after reading the replies to this thread. LOL. Classic Free. Did you consider that he called the director because you violated the rules and he wanted equity to be restored?

[gnasher]

To say that you broke Law 16 doesn't mean you did anything improper. Deciding what your logical alternatives involves using judgement. If you decide that pass isn't a logical alternative, and the director decides that it is, all it means is that your judgement is different from his.

 

If a poll reveals that a significant proportion of your peers would have passed without any UI, that means that pass was a logical alternative, and therefore that you broke the rules. But so what? You didn't so so intentionally; the only thing you did wrong was to misjudge what other people would do with your hand.

[dburn]

Curious position, this. That slow pass over 1♥ usually shows a hand just short of the values for a natural 2♥ overcall. If I knew partner had that, I would pass - defending 1NT doubled is top-or-bottom stuff, and without the ten in any of my three suits I consider a bottom more likely than a top.

 

So, the UI suggests to me that I pass, so I should double if takeout of hearts. If the partnership agreement is that double shows a diamond trap, then of course I pass now, but I will be changing either my agreement or my partner in short order (in truth, if I played this way I would overcall 1♠ in order either to get a good result or to persuade my partner to give up on me before I gave up on him - I hate being the bad guy in partnership break-ups).

 

Still, at the table I am sure I would pass - if I double, everyone passes, and we beat the hand I don't think I could live with it. Without any UI this is an obvious double; with the UI it is not at all obvious how I should try to comply with the Laws. Interesting question, though: if I passed, and they made it and asked me why I didn't double, what should I say?

[JLOGIC]

lol, your partner wanted to come in freely over 1m p 1H with 2H, you have this much defense, and you don't think you rate to set 1N X? Alright then...

[mfa1010]

Curious position, this. That slow pass over 1♥ usually shows a hand just short of the values for a natural 2♥ overcall. If I knew partner had that, I would pass - defending 1NT doubled is top-or-bottom stuff, and without the ten in any of my three suits I consider a bottom more likely than a top.

 

So, the UI suggests to me that I pass, so I should double if takeout of hearts.

That is too convoluted. If partner huddles he has a hand where he might have had a foot. Or not even a foot.

[dburn]

lol, your partner wanted to come in freely over 1m p 1H with 2H, you have this much defense, and you don't think you rate to set 1N X? Alright then...

Well, to some extent that depends on how strong partner should be to overcall 2♥. For me, especially favorable at MP, he doesn't need much more than a decent weak jump overcall - he can do it with, say, ♥KJ1098x and a king (significantly stronger hands will pass and perhaps later bid hearts, particularly if the opponents are using a strong club). Your mileage may vary, and probably does, but it isn't quite the laughing matter you may think.

[dburn]

That is too convoluted. If partner huddles he has a hand where he might have had a foot. Or not even a foot.

The business of deciding what you are required to do, bearing in mind Laws 16 and 73, is necessarily convoluted. As gnasher rightly says, it often comes down to the judgements of the player on the one hand and the umpires on the other hand, and the player should not object if overruled by the umpires.

 

But the question is not simply one of "I have an obvious call, so I should make it"; instead, the question is one of "what does the UI suggest I should do?" Here, the UI suggests that partner has a lot of hearts, but not quite enough to bid 2♥. If that is the actual case, then to me the UI suggests that I pass, so I should not pass if without the UI I would have doubled. But your partner might need rather more to bid 2♥ on this auction than mine would need, so to you the UI might suggest rather more in partner's hand than it would suggest to me.

 

It is a curious fact that although there now seems to be a consensus among expert players that a 2♥ overcall on this auction should be natural, there is no consensus as to how strong it should be. The only high-level pronouncement on the matter I have ever seen came from either Berkowitz or Cohen (I cannot remember which, but I'm sure it was one of them), who suggested that it ought to be about a good WJO. Maybe that has not found a wider audience. Maybe it's a silly idea anyway. But it makes sense, and it's what I play in my partnerships. Tell me - how strong is the bid in yours?

[JLOGIC]

How do you get from this fact:

 

A 2H bid may be based on a lightish hand with a very strong suit

 

To:

 

Partner thinking about overcalling 2H suggests that we will not beat 1N, since he might have been thinking with a lightish hand and a strong suit

 

When partner thinks, we know he rates to be stronger than had he not thought. This is a certainty. Even if he would think about overcalling light, he also might think about overcalling with 11 points and 6 hearts, whatever. It is certainly true that the range of hands on which he thinks over 1H with is stronger than the range of hands he does not think over 1H with.

 

On top of this, we know he has good hearts behind LHO which can only be good for defense. All of this means that doubling will work out in our favor quite often when partner has thought over 1H. Not just that, but partner might well have been thinking with a 6-4 hand type (with 6322 it is much less attractive to bid), and this would give us a fit, regardless of what his other suit is.

 

The fact that we learned partner had heart length based on UI was not news, we have a heart void and the auction went 1m-1H-1N. If LHO happens to be very long in hearts he's going to bid 4H anyways most likely and it won't matter (or 2H which we will reopen with a double and it won't matter much). The news we gained from the break in tempo was that partner has MORE average high cards, and BETTER average hearts, all of which make doubling MORE likely to be a success.

 

If you think that 2H is not at minimum a good weak jump overcall, and is ALWAYS that then "LOL" I guess, but that is not a standard meaning and is not relevant unless these players can prove that they have that HIGHLY unusual agreement (otherwise it is simply a self serving statement by the offending side).

[gnasher]

It is a curious fact that although there now seems to be a consensus among expert players that a 2♥ overcall on this auction should be natural, there is no consensus as to how strong it should be. The only high-level pronouncement on the matter I have ever seen came from either Berkowitz or Cohen (I cannot remember which, but I'm sure it was one of them), who suggested that it ought to be about a good WJO. Maybe that has not found a wider audience. Maybe it's a silly idea anyway. But it makes sense, and it's what I play in my partnerships. Tell me - how strong is the bid in yours?

It's a simple overcall at the two level, so I think it shows the same high-card strength as a simple two-level overcall in any other suit, but with a higher minimum suit quality. That might include a few hands that I'd open a weak two, but mostly hands that I'd open at the one-level. KJ109xx and a king sounds a bit weak to me, but AJx KJ109xx xx xx would be enough.

[dburn]

As I said, at the table (where partner twitched over 1♥) I would pass - but I would pass because I think that's what the Laws require even though if partner had not twitched over 1♥ I would have an obvious double. His actual hand - king-jack empty sixth of hearts and a twelve count - is about par for the course in partnerships where twitching is par for the course (maybe with the ten of hearts, he would have bid). That is: in an untainted auction pass is (for me) not a logical alternative to double; but in this tainted auction I would pass anyway.

 

I suspect that (not for the first time) Justin and I may agree with each other despite appearing not to. The difference (not for the first time either) may lie in the fact that he has on his side the certainty of youth, while I have the doddery lack of conviction that accompanies old age. But the old blokes make the rules.

[JLOGIC]

Lol. I tried to bluff some old dude in poker yesterday, he tanked for like 3 mins and then called (story of my life) then called me "young and foolish." I guess I'll take "young and certain." It's better than old and senile!

 

Edit:

 

Sorry I cannot help it, but who do you think, on average acts more confident that they "know" what is right,

 

1) Older people

2) Younger people

 

The older people might cite wisdom, experience, whatever. Even when wrong/proven wrong, the older people are less likely to cede, especially to younger people. But at the end of the day, it comes down more to personality than anything else. I think some people act certain, some people act wishy washy. I'm sure you'd like to believe that all people when they get older realize they are more likely to be wrong in what they think than they did when they were younger, but that is not true. Again it comes down to personality and how people age.

 

And of course when discussing bridge, someone who is an expert (you or me) is more likely to think they're right about something, and are more likely to be right about something, than someone who is not an expert, regardless of age. For instance mtvesuvius rarely speaks with authority...shouldn't he under your theory, since he is only 14 or 15?

 

In my experience older people who are not expert are more likely to overestimate their knowledge/think they're right when they're not, but of course that comes down to personality as well.

 

You will rarely hear young people categorize and lump all elderly people together since it violates "respect your elders." You will often hear old people do that, and not use logic or arguments to back it up. Of course, they will again cite their wisdom.

 

Unfortunately, wisdom is not always a substitute for intelligence. If you did hear young people lump older people together, they might factually say that older people are:

 

1) Less capable of learning

2) Less capable of admitting they were wrong

3) Less likely to accept an argument of someone younger than themselves, even if the younger person is more likely to be right or has a better argument

4) Less capable of adapting

5) More biased/prejudiced against groups of people, for instance younger people

6) MORE arrogant (oh yes!)

 

among other things. It is assumed that all people become wiser as they age. It is assumed that this wisdom translates into some kind of inherent knowledge. In fact you might even argue that older people are, on average, more likely to think they know everything than young people! These assumptions are of course arrogant by themselves. I guess it helps some older people sleep at night, but hey at least I recognize that not all older people are the same and should not be stereotyped as such.

 

Perhaps, if you are capable of it, you might consider that I am confident when discussing certain bridge situations, especially with you, because:

 

1) It is both human nature and in my case my natural disposition to be confident when I am arguing, especially about bridge, especially when discussing bridge with people who I consider to be generally inferior players and thinkers.

 

2) You, as I posted, made a logical thought process error. It was obvious what your error was, hence I pointed it out (that's why it's a discussion forum). Gnasher, who is also good at bridge and no doubt smarter and a better thinker than me, also did not agree with your statement. No one has posted agreement with you. So, I saw where you went wrong, other people I respected did also, and no one agreed with you. That makes me more confident that I am right and you are wrong.

 

3) You frequently make those types of errors on the forums. Your defense is often something about youthful arrogance err CONFIDENCE. This does not make me gain respect for you or your positions, and does not make me think that when you disagree with me that you are more likely to be right.

 

If I was wrong and you proved it, that would be fine, I would acknowledge it (an advantage of being young!). Would it make me less confident? Probably not, I know that I can be wrong, it happens.

[cherdano]

It's a simple overcall at the two level, so I think it shows the same high-card strength as a simple two-level overcall in any other suit, but with a higher minimum suit quality. That might include a few hands that I'd open a weak two, but mostly hands that I'd open at the one-level. KJ109xx and a king sounds a bit weak to me, but AJx KJ109xx xx xx would be enough.

Agree with this. I cannot understand making an overcall in RHO's suit with hand where we wouldn't overcall in an unbid suit - both the risk and the reward are higher.

[Free]

You had Unauthorized Info (which you admitted at the time, your partner broke tempo). Do you debate this?

No, that would be lol.

 

This unauthorized info demonstrably suggested doubling (partner is marked with values). Do you debate this?

At the time I was convinced partner had ♥, and there are 2 reasons for passing: bad suit quality or too weak. "Bad suit quality" clearly suggests doubling, "too weak" makes Dbl risky but all suits behave badly, so ok, we could say the hesitation always suggests doubling.

 

Passing was a logical alternative to bidding, as evidenced by this thread (some people viewed passing to be correct). Do you debate this?

Here's where we disagree. The passers have clearly stated that they have different agreements for Dbl (strong ♦ for example), so their passes are quite irrelevant. The evidence rather proves/suggests that pass is no logical alternative when Dbl means "takeout of ♥".

 

Since you must choose between logical alternatives not demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized info gained from partner's break in tempo, you must PASS. Do you debate this?

Well, if you're convinced pass is a clear LA then pass is indeed obligated. But as I said, the poll rather suggested that pass is no real LA. However, the discussion changed rappidly when I explained there was UI, so I guess the UI does suggest something.

 

But of course, when your opp has the audacity to call the director on your infraction, you accuse him of doing so because he was sore that his bid had not worked out, even after reading the replies to this thread. LOL. Classic Free. Did you consider that he called the director because you violated the rules and he wanted equity to be restored?

As a matter of fact, my LHO didn't call the TD back because my opps were team mates and friends. My RHO thought my hand was a clear Dbl and didn't see any problems with it (and thought LHO should've passed btw), while LHO thought he would win the case. My partner also didn't see a problem with my Dbl as takeout because I have the perfect shape and enough strength.

Since we don't know what would've happened, I asked on the forums. First as a neutral question without the knowledge of UI ofcourse.

[gnasher]

2) Gnasher, who is also good at bridge and no doubt smarter and a better thinker than me, also did not agree with your statement.

When did I say that? All I did was reply to David's question "how strong is the bid in yours?" If David says that in his partnerships it shows a weaker hand than in mine, I'm sure it does.

 

I'm unsure about how his agreement affects one's obligations under the rules. Partner might be a bit too strong for a Burn 2♥, or too weak, or he might be in range for 2♥ but with a suit that's not quite good enough. These seem to point in opposite directions, so maybe nothing is demonstrably suggested by the pause.

 

None of that has anything to do with the position Free found himself in, however. Free probably plays 2♥ as a reasonable hand, so partner's antics suggest that has almost a reasonable hand, or better. For Free, therefore, the UI suggests double over pass, and if pass is a logical alternative that's what he should do.

[gnasher]

Here's where we disagree. The passers have clearly stated that they have different agreements for Dbl (strong ♦ for example), so their passes are quite irrelevant. The evidence rather proves/suggests that pass is no logical alternative when Dbl means "takeout of ♥".

 

Well, if you're convinced pass is a clear LA then pass is indeed obligated. But as I said, the poll rather suggested that pass is no real LA. However, the discussion changed rappidly when I explained there was UI, so I guess the UI does suggest something.

MFA and MikeH both replied before there was any mention of UI. Unless I misunderstood, they both play the double as takeout but think this hand isn't strong enough. You and I might find that surprising, but it does suggest that pass is a logical alternative.

[mfa1010]

My minimum requirements for 2♥ are a little higher that what gnasher describes. I agree with the focus on suit quality.

[mikeh]

You will rarely hear young people categorize and lump all elderly people together since it violates "respect your elders." You will often hear old people do that, and not use logic or arguments to back it up. Of course, they will again cite their wisdom.

 

Unfortunately, wisdom is not always a substitute for intelligence. If you did hear young people lump older people together, they might factually say that older people are:

 

1) Less capable of learning

2) Less capable of admitting they were wrong

3) Less likely to accept an argument of someone younger than themselves, even if the younger person is more likely to be right or has a better argument

4) Less capable of adapting

5) More biased/prejudiced against groups of people, for instance younger people

6) MORE arrogant (oh yes!)

 

among other things. It is assumed that all people become wiser as they age. It is assumed that this wisdom translates into some kind of inherent knowledge. In fact you might even argue that older people are, on average, more likely to think they know everything than young people! These assumptions are of course arrogant by themselves. I guess it helps some older people sleep at night, but hey at least I recognize that not all older people are the same and should not be stereotyped as such.

 

What a wonderful post! While stressing how you don't stereotype older people, you slip in a number of 'factual' assertions about old people, which stereotype them!

 

And while there is some truth to some of the 'assertions', there is also a large amount of utter crap.

 

Your assertions that older people rarely listen to younger people, or that older people are less likely than younger ones to admit error say more about you than they do about older people in general. I hardly think you'd enjoy the exalted status you have on this forum if your assertions were accurate.

 

There are stupid old people, but unless they developed some dementia, they were probably stupid young people once. The same is true of prejudiced old people...most of them were prejudiced young people rather than people who became prejudiced as part of the aging process. The same goes for people who won't admit to mistakes, or who are arrogant...tho arrogance is one area in which some young people seem to improve as they gain more life experience.

 

You had a difference of opinion with dburn...fair enough. Maybe your bridge arguments are better than his. Maybe his argument based on age is crap...I happen to agree with you on that...but where do you get off pretending to be so unbiased while actually using the same type of reasoning yourself? And in such a 'oh, look at me! I'm not biased!' sort of way.

 

You're a heck of a bridge player, but this post reflects more than just bridge knowledge, and it was a disappointment to read.

[ArtK78]

This thread demonstrates the "Catch 22" aspects of current rules dealing with UI.

 

As has been discussed at length above, if this hand doubles after partner's hesitation and the opponents object, the result will be a rollback to 1NT undoubled, as pass is a logical alternative to double and double was clearly suggested by the hesitation.

 

But suppose that you (ethical player that you are) pass because of the hesitation. If the opponents object that your pass was suggested by the hesitation and that double is a logical alternative, can the TD or committee force you to double? In this case, pass would be suggested not because the hesitation demonstrated that partner had some values, making double a safer action, but because of your interpretation of the laws relating to unauthorized information and your opinion of what the hesitation suggests. A kind of ethical double-cross.

 

Is this circular argument realistic, or does the argument really end with the hesitation suggesting that the double is safer than it would be in the absence of a hesitation?

 

[side note - it is unlikely that the fact that you had a problem will ever come to light if you pass. I can't imagine an opponent examining your hand, determining that you would have doubled if it were not for the hesitation and then complaining about it.]

[JLOGIC]

What a wonderful post! While stressing how you don't stereotype older people, you slip in a number of 'factual' assertions about old people, which stereotype them!

 

You have bad reading comprehension. I don't know what else to say. I said I don't stereotype old people? No! Of course I stereotype them before I know them just as much as they would stereotype me. I said:

 

You will rarely hear young people categorize and lump all elderly people together since it violates "respect your elders."

 

In fact, this quote IMPLIES that though young people stereotype them, they don't say these things as they are rude and disresepctful. And it should be obvious that once I know someone it is about what I know about them more than the stereotype. Surely dburn and I have conversed enough via the forums that he could argue with me and not a stereotype of a young person?

 

And in such a 'oh, look at me! I'm not biased!' sort of way.

 

You're a heck of a bridge player, but this post reflects more than just bridge knowledge, and it was a disappointment to read.

 

Are you serious? I BLATANTLY gave my stereotypes of old people, in response to his blatant constant stereotyping of me and young people. That was the whole point. How was it a "oh look at me, I'm not biased" sort of way? Of we all have biases. Sorry you're too old to understand my hip posting style! (or do I need to add a smiley now?!)

 

Mikeh, perhaps that rant was too subtle for you! Personally I think it was not, but perhaps you were angered in seeing my generalizations of older people. Perhaps, since you don't like me, you could not read between the lines. Anyways:

 

If you were angered by my generalizations, GREAT! As I said, you will pretty much never see young people categorize and generalize old people in some way so as to write them off, or write off their arguments. This is because it is disrespectful.

 

However, you may not realize that young people will frequently see this type of behavior by their wise elders. My point is, it is a complete joke. It is fine to have stereotypes of younger people. They might be rooted in fact (as are my stereotypes). But that's all they are, stereotypes. I am consistently annoyed with people like dburn to hear:

 

-You are arrogant because you are young.

-You are cocky because you are young

-You are overconfident because you are young

-You are aggressive because you are young

-You think X because you are young, you will learn.

 

Whatever. Those things have no factual basis (even if they do for other young people in general, surely I am beyond a stereotype on the forums/in the bridge world by now).

 

I will never, in the middle of a bridge discussion on this forum, say, well mikeh, you are too old to learn what I am saying, even though to me it is just factual that the older you get, the less your capacity for learning becomes. This is because it's a stupid point, and is just something to say if I don't know what to say to you.

 

I thought my post was pretty clear, of course these things are always more clear to ourselves than others. That said I got a good laugh out of you saying you were "disappointed" to read what I said. Haha. Come on Mikeh, try to be a little less fake. To be disappointed, you have to have expectations, and for that reason I doubt we can ever disappoint each other (except you seem to respect my bridge, so perhaps I could disappoint you there).

 

If you were angry, now you know how I feel every time anything I say comes down to age, most often when some moron cannot make a valid response to an argument that I have put forth. You at least argue with me and not my age!

 

If you actually think that I think all old people are stupid/arrogant/whatever, then I don't know what to say. You really missed the point. I think you're smarter than that (but then again...how old are you?).

[JLOGIC]

When did I say that? All I did was reply to David's question "how strong is the bid in yours?" If David says that in his partnerships it shows a weaker hand than in mine, I'm sure it does.

 

I mean, I don't think that you disagreed with dburn about what a bid shows in his partnership, obviously. How is that even reasonable? As far as I know we were not discussing what 2H shows in dburns partnership, even he could win that argument.

[JLOGIC]

Free:

 

"Here's where we disagree. The passers have clearly stated that they have different agreements for Dbl (strong ♦ for example), so their passes are quite irrelevant. The evidence rather proves/suggests that pass is no logical alternative when Dbl means "takeout of ♥"."

 

I agree that you should disregard these people (and in fact, my own vote is cancelled for this reason). However, mikeh and mfa both passed playing a takeout X AFAIK. This means pass is a logical alternative. Tehnically it might not be since they are much better players than you (not meant as an insult both play internationally for their countries etc) and we should poll your peers. Since we don't really have enough of a sample on this forum that are both your level and play double the same way, I just include everyone in the thread as a "peer" else it would be pointless.

[mikeh]

You have bad reading comprehension. I don't know what else to say. I said I don't stereotype old people? No! Of course I stereotype them before I know them just as much as they would stereotype me. I said:

 

 

 

In fact, this quote IMPLIES that though young people stereotype them, they don't say these things as they are rude and disresepctful. And it should be obvious that once I know someone it is about what I know about them more than the stereotype. Surely dburn and I have conversed enough via the forums that he could argue with me and not a stereotype of a young person?

 

 

 

Are you serious? I BLATANTLY gave my stereotypes of old people, in response to his blatant constant stereotyping of me and young people. That was the whole point. How was it a "oh look at me, I'm not biased" sort of way? Of we all have biases. Sorry you're too old to understand my hip posting style! (or do I need to add a smiley now?!)

 

Mikeh, perhaps that rant was too subtle for you! Personally I think it was not, but perhaps you were angered in seeing my generalizations of older people. Perhaps, since you don't like me, you could not read between the lines. Anyways:

 

If you were angered by my generalizations, GREAT! As I said, you will pretty much never see young people categorize and generalize old people in some way so as to write them off, or write off their arguments. This is because it is disrespectful.

 

However, you may not realize that young people will frequently see this type of behavior by their wise elders. My point is, it is a complete joke. It is fine to have stereotypes of younger people. They might be rooted in fact (as are my stereotypes). But that's all they are, stereotypes. I am consistently annoyed with people like dburn to hear:

 

-You are arrogant because you are young.

-You are cocky because you are young

-You are overconfident because you are young

-You are aggressive because you are young

-You think X because you are young, you will learn.

 

Whatever. Those things have no factual basis (even if they do for other young people in general, surely I am beyond a stereotype on the forums/in the bridge world by now).

 

I will never, in the middle of a bridge discussion on this forum, say, well mikeh, you are too old to learn what I am saying, even though to me it is just factual that the older you get, the less your capacity for learning becomes. This is because it's a stupid point, and is just something to say if I don't know what to say to you.

 

I thought my post was pretty clear, of course these things are always more clear to ourselves than others. That said I got a good laugh out of you saying you were "disappointed" to read what I said. Haha. Come on Mikeh, try to be a little less fake. To be disappointed, you have to have expectations, and for that reason I doubt we can ever disappoint each other (except you seem to respect my bridge, so perhaps I could disappoint you there).

 

If you were angry, now you know how I feel every time anything I say comes down to age, most often when some moron cannot make a valid response to an argument that I have put forth. You at least argue with me and not my age!

 

If you actually think that I think all old people are stupid/arrogant/whatever, then I don't know what to say. You really missed the point. I think you're smarter than that (but then again...how old are you?).

I don't know you well enough to dislike you. I do dislike some of the behaviours or attitudes you have displayed....that stunt with the big blue capital letters about me was not amusing...but I at least think I understand a little about what led to it, and one thing that I have learned with my (advanced) age and, especially, with the reactions to some of my less than well-considered posts is that it is misleading to assume that a poster is in reality the person we tend to imagine from the words they use. At least, I hope that I am not quite the asshole that I probably appear to be, based on my sillier posts.

 

Others whose opinions I respect are favourably disposed towards you.....Fred, for example, thinks highly of you as a person as well as a bridge player, and I have a lot of respect for his views, since I know him at least casually. So I try to moderate my visceral reaction to some of your behaviours by realizing that I am seeing only an aspect of who you are, accentuated by some positive (in engineering, not favourable terms) feedback at play. You annoy me, I write an angry response, that annoys you, and so on (I don't mean to suggest that you 'started it'). I suspect that if the occasion ever arose where we were part of a group discussing bridge over a beer or two, we might actually get along...tho I also suspect that such a situation won't ever arise....you move in higher/different bridge circles than I do. I don't think it would be an age thing...you play bridge...ergo you associate with a lot of old people :P

 

I was disappointed...I don't frankly care much if you choose not to believe that. I thought you made some valid bridge arguments, and then you appeared to descend to the very level of which you were critical. As you noted, I have never argued bridge with you, or anyone else, on any basis other than bridge logic, as I understand it. You were correct to call out dburn for what seemed to you, and to me, to be a bridge error, and to then call him out further for references to age. A bridge argument, as you clearly understand, stands or falls on its intrinsic merit. I read your posts, especially those where we disagree, with a view to improving my understanding of the game. You are one of a handful of posters to whom I look with that intent.....not to say that I don't learn from a lot of the other posts, but yours and those of a few others are almost always cogent and useful. So reading a long post that takes a different, and imo irrelevant, approach does disappoint me. I'm not saying that you always persuade me, but you sometimes do and even when you don't, you often add a perspective to my view of the situation. That wasn't true of the post to which I replied above.

 

When you've come after me, it's usually been either on the basis of a bridge argument or as a result of one or the other of us using hyperbole or sarcasm when commenting on each other or on people with whom we disagreed. When it's the former....that's what the forum is for. When it's the latter, at least when you've come after me, I often find myself, on reflection, wishing I hadn't written some of the things I've said, and I sometimes (tho not always) post to that effect. I had come to assume that even when we disagreed, your reasoning was either bridge based or arose out of an individual circumstance. So I was disappointed to see you fall into the behaviour that you were criticizing as inappropriate.

 

Maybe you were trying to be more subtle than an old fart like me can grasp. Maybe I do need more smilies than you do to recognize humour, altho I know, from reactions to some of my more feeble efforts to use satire or sarcasm that the need for smilies seems to be independent of age.