ATB

[bftboy]

West's dbl is a mistake but no more than that. East's pass is incomprehensible.

[MrAce]

See it this way, there are people here who says they would DBL with West hand and that it could be the right thing to do, and they have a good argument about it. But all of us here agreed that there is no excuse whatsoever for the action by East. We dont even know what he was thinking, we cant even come up with an excuse even if we try to, it simply just doesnt make sense.

[JLOGIC]

Doubling is retarded. Obviously east does not know what a takeout double is and his pass is worse.

[rhm]

Doubling is retarded.

 

Okay, since this is an interesting subject maybe you can enlighten us retarded ones what the correct action by East and West is in the cases under discussion:

In all cases assume West at Imps all red opens 1♣. North will bid 2♦ and South will raise to 3♦ if possible:

 

First case

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk652hq976d6cak82&e=sat83hj83dj5c7543]266|100[/hv]

 

Second case

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk652hq976d6cak82&e=sq3hkj832dj5cjt93]266|100[/hv]

 

Third case

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk652h976da62cak2&e=sq3hkj832dj5cjt93]266|100[/hv]

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

rhm = successful player

JLOGIC, FrancesHinden, han = result merchants (with hindsight)

[phil_20686]

rhm = successful player

JLOGIC, FrancesHinden, han = result merchants (with hindsight)

 

While I appreciate the humour, I do think that there is a case in the forums that a lot of players often take different actions at the table than they would advocate as "right" in the forums. Part of this is that we have much more time to think about hands in the forum, whereas at the table there is a lot of momentum bidding, but also because there are a lot of hands, like this one, where bidding is quite tempting with the west cards, and we all know good things can happen and bad things can happen, and when there is something riding on the result its hard not to be emotionally involved, and easy to let natural optimism or pessimism take over in what are normally instinctive decisions.

 

If forums vs cayne gets up and running I will be looking for similar protections, and am confident that some of these passers will turn out to be bidders at the table.

 

I do not think this is a rare issue. I think most of use will deviate from what I think of as my "considered opinion" at the table. Yesterday I played some boards to help prepare the new scottish U25's for the Junior camrose, in third after P P i opened a strong NT on Kxx xx Ax KT87xx at green vs red. Would I ever advocate that on the forum? Another I bid Micheals with xx T987x AJxxxx - over 1S at all red, which is pretty sick IMO. I doubt I am alone in taking actions at the table that are substantially inferior to the actions I will take when given it as a problem.

 

I also wonder about whether or not these actions improve ones game or not on balance. Often ones instinct is based on past situations where these actions are disproportionately more successful than they should be, partly because on the forums its easy to imagine your opps doubling you when its right, and maybe that happens at WC level, but the reality is that 99% of the players who you play against will not double enough, and that takes away 70% of your downside here IMO.

 

My father is what I think of as a "decent club standard", and i have seem him with KQT9 trump and an outside ace fail to double 4S after partner opened the bidding. This was a flat board as they failed to double at every other table in his teams of 8 league too. While its easy to say "you can go for 500" my experience of the reality is that it almost never happens.

[JLOGIC]

Rainer why are you trolling?

[JLOGIC]

Phil, people do not double here with a 4414 12 count lol. I get your point, but acting like doubling in this auction with a 4414 12 count is normal is crazy. Partner couldn't bid over 2D and you have already opened. I mean, this is a normal situation, it's not some rare forumy type hand.

 

As a side note if you are consistently taking bad actions at the table that you know are wrong then you should figure out why you're doing that. I mean deviating for state of the match/psychological reasons to exploit your opponents weaknesses is one thing, but deviating simply because you are prone to being emotional and making errors is a big flaw in your game.

 

ETA: It sounds like you are just undisciplined at the table if you are bidding on hands where you know it's "inferior" to bid. I really believe a large part of improving at bridge is being disciplined. For instance, bidding michaels vulnerable with that hand is just bad and will cause your partner to not know what to do ever because you are being undisciplined. I understand making errors, but again that's not like some in depth cardplay problem or slam bidding problem where you go a little bit wrong, that's just an every day situation that does not take a bunch of thought to come up with the right solution.

[gwnn]

While I appreciate the humour, I do think that there is a case in the forums that a lot of players often take different actions at the table than they would advocate as "right" in the forums.

Absolutely, and I am the first one who will admit to doing this (later I look at the hand records and say "how did I not double there? it's so wtp now that I look at it on paper.."). To be clear and completely open what my point was supposed to be: rhm sometimes makes very sweeping and not flattering characterisations about people who happen to hold the opposite view on one hand. I don't know a very good word for this, but it is something like "demonisation"? I remember once he called people who overcalled "Those, who over-call here just like to hear themselves and their over-calls do not serve any purpose." and there are some other examples of this. Anyway, I am sure some of these demonisations (let's just stick to this word for this post) are well-deserved, but in this case it was particularly amusing to see who were on the wrong side of the "successful people vs. result merchants" dichotomy.

 

and just to make one thing clear: I don't know how successful rhm is in real life but I am almost 100% sure that he is more successful than I am and a much better player. But this one particular aspect of his posting style is one that I don't particularly like.

[pooltuna]

Phil, people do not double here with a 4414 12 count lol. I get your point, but acting like doubling in this auction with a 4414 12 count is normal is crazy. Partner couldn't bid over 2D and you have already opened. I mean, this is a normal situation, it's not some rare forumy type hand.

 

As a side note if you are consistently taking bad actions at the table that you know are wrong then you should figure out why you're doing that. I mean deviating for state of the match/psychological reasons to exploit your opponents weaknesses is one thing, but deviating simply because you are prone to being emotional and making errors is a big flaw in your game.

 

ETA: It sounds like you are just undisciplined at the table if you are bidding on hands where you know it's "inferior" to bid. I really believe a large part of improving at bridge is being disciplined. For instance, bidding michaels vulnerable with that hand is just bad and will cause your partner to not know what to do ever because you are being undisciplined. I understand making errors, but again that's not like some in depth cardplay problem or slam bidding problem where you go a little bit wrong, that's just an every day situation that does not take a bunch of thought to come up with the right solution.

 

 

Justin Lall opponents ALERT! Here is an auction where you can psyche and steal from Justin

[han]

Phil_20686, of course we all make mistakes at the table, and sometimes we knowingly make calls that we ouselves consider unsound. But there is a huge difference between the two actions you describe and doubling 3D here.

 

Making a dubious opening bid is often much less dubious when you are white against red in third seat, and you know that. In the situation of doubling 3D, you are seriously misdescribing your hand to partner in a situation where it cannot possibly cause any bidding problems to the opponents. Assuming that you realize how much more a double shows in this auction, why would you do such a thing at the table? Trust me, I make plenty of bad bids, but I know I would not double with this hand at the table, not today and not tomorrow.

 

Your second example is also entirely different, there is a lot to be said for straining to enter the auction when you have a 6-5 shape. I am not convinced that playing a style where this is a Michaels call is sick. What does sick even mean, does it mean "very aggressive compared to most of my peers"? Can long term winning calls be described as sick?

[gwnn]

Justin Lall opponents ALERT! Here is an auction where you can psyche and steal from Justin

psyche which call exactly?

 

you know that

1C-2D-p-3D

p-p-x is for penalty right?

[pooltuna]

psyche which call exactly?

 

you know that

1C-2D-p-3D

p-p-x is for penalty right?

 

 

3♦ obv

[phil_20686]

I seemed to have stirred up a hornets nest.

 

Obviously, lots of good players tell me its inferior to dble on the west hand, and I believe you. But if I had this hand and the spade Q as well I would dble 100% and think it wasn't close. Partner can easily have ATxxxx spade and a three diamonds. Given that, being a queen light is never that far away. The big danger here is that they dble you and you go for 500 on a nothing hand. However, this depends a lot on the quality of your opponents. Vs club players this downside virtually does not exist. I would be much less likely to bid if I knew partner could not have a weak two type hand that cannot make a F1 bid over 2d.

 

Its different if you play NF free bids here, and different again if you are hyper aggressive with the negative dble here.

 

 

Phil, people do not double here with a 4414 12 count lol. I get your point, but acting like doubling in this auction with a 4414 12 count is normal is crazy. Partner couldn't bid over 2D and you have already opened. I mean, this is a normal situation, it's not some rare forumy type hand.

 

As a side note if you are consistently taking bad actions at the table that you know are wrong then you should figure out why you're doing that. I mean deviating for state of the match/psychological reasons to exploit your opponents weaknesses is one thing, but deviating simply because you are prone to being emotional and making errors is a big flaw in your game.

 

ETA: It sounds like you are just undisciplined at the table if you are bidding on hands where you know it's "inferior" to bid. I really believe a large part of improving at bridge is being disciplined. For instance, bidding michaels vulnerable with that hand is just bad and will cause your partner to not know what to do ever because you are being undisciplined. I understand making errors, but again that's not like some in depth cardplay problem or slam bidding problem where you go a little bit wrong, that's just an every day situation that does not take a bunch of thought to come up with the right solution.

 

 

I 100% agree with this obviously. By far the biggest problem I have is that if I am stressed/unhappy with my RL for any reason, I will be disproportionately terrible. I have no idea if this is normal, but I no longer allow my self to make any serious RL decisions when I am unhappy, as I learnt at the bridge table quite how bad those decisions normally are. I have generally found that the difference between being happy and being sad when I play is about 2 imps a board in poor decisions.

 

The second problem is that I play way too much bridge where I am not really invested in the outcome. Then I play too quickly especially in the bidding, and often make bad decisions. This comes mostly from generally not having anyone on my team that I want to impress, and quite often no one who will understand that they should be impressed when you give them your line in the PM. Which, I am embarrassed to admit, is normally by biggest motivator in bridge. I am seldom that interested in winning for its own sake.

 

I do honestly believe that the difference between what people say on the forums and what they habitually do at the table is quite large. Sports psychologists call this "errors of execution", and I imagine that for many of us on the forums, they are the biggest obstacle. I certainly feel like they are for me. I think playing with confidence is often synonymous with making few or no errors of execution. I don't really know what one can do about this other than play more at a high level.

[MrAce]

3♦ obv

 

 

Justin never said West should not balance if 2♦ was passed to him and he is on pass out seat. DBL of 3♦ in OP is totally another story though. If thats what you meant, if not please disregard what i said.

[pooltuna]

Justin never said West should not balance if 2♦ was passed to him and he is on pass out seat. DBL of 3♦ in OP is totally another story though. If thats what you meant, if not please disregard what i said.

 

I was talking about an anti LOTTist 2 card raise of the PJS 2♦ call :)

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sk652hq976d6cak82&e=sat83hj83dj5c7543&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1c2dp3ddppp]266|200|

Bbradley62 asks us to assign the blame.

 

 

 

Perhaps North-South for overbidding :) losing a slow ♥ and two black AKs :)[/hv]

[rhm]

Absolutely, and I am the first one who will admit to doing this (later I look at the hand records and say "how did I not double there? it's so wtp now that I look at it on paper.."). To be clear and completely open what my point was supposed to be: rhm sometimes makes very sweeping and not flattering characterisations about people who happen to hold the opposite view on one hand. I don't know a very good word for this, but it is something like "demonisation"? I remember once he called people who overcalled "Those, who over-call here just like to hear themselves and their over-calls do not serve any purpose." and there are some other examples of this. Anyway, I am sure some of these demonisations (let's just stick to this word for this post) are well-deserved, but in this case it was particularly amusing to see who were on the wrong side of the "successful people vs. result merchants" dichotomy.

 

and just to make one thing clear: I don't know how successful rhm is in real life but I am almost 100% sure that he is more successful than I am and a much better player. But this one particular aspect of his posting style is one that I don't particularly like.

With all due respect gwnn, I object to your characterization.

I have demonized nobody and the fact that you put this word in quotes does not make your slur (critic would not be the right word here) any fairer.

I admit I prefer an open provocative style and dislike "political correct" language. In general I am not the oversensitive type you seem to be.

I also object to the demagogic way you quote me out of context.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

With all due respect gwnn, I object to your characterization.

I have demonized nobody and the fact that you put this word in quotes does not make your slur (critic would not be the right word here) any fairer.

I admit I prefer an open provocative style and dislike "political correct" language. In general I am not the oversensitive type you seem to be.

I also object to the demagogic way you quote me out of context.

 

Rainer Herrmann

In which way have I quoted you out of context? I know you did not say that all successful players double and you did not say that all passers are result merchants. However, you created a silly contrast and I still think it is funny that none of the very successful players in this thread double, in fact they all called double absurd. It's ok to be wrong sometimes rhm, it is also ok to admit it.

[rhm]

In which way have I quoted you out of context?

You quoted one sentence out of context from

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46632-overcall/page__st__20__p__557417__hl__purpose__fromsearch__1#entry557417

 

You took that "near personal" (whatever that is) at that time and people disagreed with you there already.

The sentence you quote seems to have been deeply burnt in your mind. Hard to say why.

I have never claimed I am right all the time nor even that I am right more often than others and I freely admit I have changed my mind more than once.

 

But nothing so far has convinced me that the ones, who call West DBL of 3♦ "absurd" are correct here. Borderline I would always accept.

The Passers have refused to answer the arguments raised in this threat and only pointed out that West has opened already with 12 HCP.

I knew that from the outset when I dissented from the Passers. I am so arrogant to claim that there is a bit more to hand evaluation than point count.

Point count does not rule everything in this game, in particular not in competitive fit auctions.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

It was not burnt in my mind, it's just that this post in this thread here reminded me of it. I openly admit that "near personal" is not a very good expression and neither is demonisation (I have openly admitted both even before this post). I don't have a very good word for it. All I am saying is that you are not really attacking the call but at least partly also attack the persons who are making such a call. Note that JLOGIC did not call you retarded, and despite the fact that you are not over-sensitive, you thought he was. He called the action retarded, something he freely does to some of his actions too.

 

In the other thread I still don't see how my quote was out of context. You said you strongly preferred pass and gave some reasons for it, and then went on to say that overcallers only like to hear their own voice. You assigned some (very) negative attributes to the people to make their action look absurd. At least this is my impression. I quoted the part that I thought was of bad taste. I never said that was your whole post.

[rhm]

It was not burnt in my mind, it's just that this post in this thread here reminded me of it. I openly admit that "near personal" is not a very good expression and neither is demonisation (I have openly admitted both even before this post). I don't have a very good word for it. All I am saying is that you are not really attacking the call but at least partly also attack the persons who are making such a call. Note that JLOGIC did not call you retarded, and despite the fact that you are not over-sensitive, you thought he was. He called the action retarded, something he freely does to some of his actions too.

 

In the other thread I still don't see how my quote was out of context. You said you strongly preferred pass and gave some reasons for it, and then went on to say that overcallers only like to hear their own voice. You assigned some (very) negative attributes to the people to make their action look absurd. At least this is my impression. I quoted the part that I thought was of bad taste. I never said that was your whole post.

You have a tendency to interpret comments in a way they were not meant to be and I am getting tired arguing with you what I meant and what not.

 

JLOGIC called DBL of 3♦ retarded and even you will probably agree that a bid can not be retarded only the people making a bid can be considered as such.

There is no principal difference here to calling PASSers result merchants.

Now I do have enough self esteem to know that JLOGIC will often disagree with me (fine!) but I doubt he considers me retarded.

I am not flattered by his adjective, but neither am I offended. I only took up his word in a reply in a self ironic manner, no more.

You apparently did not understand the irony. As I said I do not mind an open provocative language and I take comments with a pinch of salt.

If you could do likewise you would do us a favor.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

JLOGIC called DBL of 3♦ retarded and even you will probably agree that a bid can not be retarded only the people making a bid can be considered as such.

Unfortunately I do not agree with this at all. If you can't see how an action can be called retarded without calling people committing that particular action retarded, it is probably a waste of everyone's time to talk about any of this. I apologise for wasting your time and for filling up cyberspace with these ideas.

[han]

Stop being overly sensitive Csaba, let's talk about bridge. :P

[gnasher]

The word you wanted might have been "disparagement".