inquiry Posted May 6, 2012 Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 I found this auction interesting enough to take a look at it. in bridgebrowser databases, anytime 3nt was not the final contract (over several thousand auctions that started 1C - 1H 2C - 3NT ? <-- non pass the average result for opener's side was minus 1.86 imps per board. What the 4NT bid was, most of the time, was someone who should have opened 1NT and didn't. Here are a few typical examples (names removed, but their lehman like score shown) NOTES"1. north, south, east, or west might be at the top of the hand diagrams....sorry about that.2. all the 4NT bidders had a standard 1nt opening bid, and they are trying to catch up now3. all the 4NT bidders had lehman scores of less than 50, most much less than 50 (meaning less than average players -- no offense meant for our friend timo). IMP-352 East Dlr: North Board 46856 S AT4 Vul: E-W H T2 North D AJ5 South S 8532 C AJT95 S K96 H Q6 H A984 D K6 West D T9742 C KQ873 S QJ7 C 4 H KJ753 D Q83 C 62 North East South West 47.27 47.29 51.34 49.12 Pass 1C Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 3NT Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass ========================================== IMP-354 East Dlr: East Board 7218 S Q92 Vul: E-W H K4 North D K72 South S KJ7 C AKT83 S T8654 H AT96 H J7 D T984 West D QJ63 C J7 S A3 C 52 H Q8532 D A5 C Q964 North East South West 37.80 41.17 45.41 59.03 1C Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 3NT Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass ========================================== IMP-354 South Dlr: North Board 8195 S AJ Vul: E-W H A2 East D J642 West S 98542 C AJ532 S Q763 H T85 H KJ74 D Q83 North D KT7 C K6 S KT C Q7 H Q963 D A95 C T984 East South West North 50.04 44.21 43.60 48.21 Pass Pass 1C Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 3NT Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass ========================================== IMP-1 West Dlr: South Board 8701 S KT9 Vul: N-S H 53 South D AT8 North S 543 C AKJT5 S AJ82 H J87 H Q96 D K964 East D 75 C 832 S Q76 C Q974 H AKT42 D QJ32 C 6 South West North East 43.08 40.73 49.10 58.33 Pass 1C Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 3NT Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 6, 2012 Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 Both opener and responder deserved each other on all of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 6, 2012 Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 Those hands seem to tell us that anyone who bids 4NT in this sequence is an idiot. Maybe we knew that anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Those hands seem to tell us that anyone who bids 4NT in this sequence is an idiot. Maybe we knew that anyway. Ty for the compliment, Andy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 A973 AKJx K8xx J1♣ - 1♥2♣ - 3N4N - ? I think partner has e.g. ♠ Kx ♥ x ♦ Axx ♣ KQTxxxx and intends 4N as a slam try in ♣. If so, then your tops and ♣J suggest acceptance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Ty for the compliment, Andy.Sorry, I'd forgotten that it was you who bid 4NT on the original hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmnka447 Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Yes the stiff jack was so awful when partner had AQT9xx... lol, wat?The problem is that responder doesn't exactly know opener holds AQ109xx in ♣. You need Kx onside to set up the ♣ suit without the loss of a trick. Give responder ♣ Jx and there is much better hope of setting up ♣ as a source of tricks whenever opener's holding is anything reasonable. Ergo, give opener A109xxx and stiff J pretty much dooms you to 2 ♣ losers most of the time, but Jx gives you a reasonable chance to develop 5 ♣ tricks with 1 loser. I can't disagree with opener's bidding. He held 15 with 2 dangling Qs, so it seems right to make a simple 2 ♣ response with this 7 loser hand. Responder's 3 NT can have a wide range of values from a really good 12 up to a 16-17 pointer that wouldn't invite slam opposite opener's presumed 12-14 pointer. So 4 NT is an aggressive, but reasonable try for slam. Everyone scoped it out as a 15-16 hand with a flaw that precluded rebidding 3 ♣. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 The problem is that responder doesn't exactly know opener holds AQ109xx in ♣. You need Kx onside to set up the ♣ suit without the loss of a trick. Give responder ♣ Jx and there is much better hope of setting up ♣ as a source of tricks whenever opener's holding is anything reasonable. Ergo, give opener A109xxx and stiff J pretty much dooms you to 2 ♣ losers most of the time, but Jx gives you a reasonable chance to develop 5 ♣ tricks with 1 loser. I have never understood why people use "Ergo" when there are so many good English synonyms. However, as far as I know, "Also" is not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 http://thesaurus.com/browse/ergo?s=t. As someone with a maths background I also hate the word in a general context. However, this is an international forum and I prefer to give non-English speakers the benefit of any doubt about language usage in their posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 http://thesaurus.com/browse/ergo?s=t. As someone with a maths background I also hate the word in a general context. However, this is an international forum and I prefer to give non-English speakers the benefit of any doubt about language usage in their posts.Han's main objection wasn't to the use of "ergo" in a general context. He was disputing the implied causal relationship to the preceding sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Perhaps I misread it but han's first sentence seems to me to suggest that he prefers alternative words to "ergo" such as "therefore", which I agreed with in my second sentence. Han's second sentence points out that the word was misused - I agree with this too but noted in my third sentence that it is personally not my way to point out such mistakes on an international forum where there are many non-native speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 You have a good point Zel, but isn't it true that especially in an international context that one should refrain from embellishing English sentences with latin words? By the way, despite rmnka447's incorrect usage of the word ergo, he strikes me as a native. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Well he certainly has Illinois in the profile - whether that makes him a native speaker is another matter. It would be hard for me to agree with you about the latin words without contradicting myself since I have used some myself on BBF. Perhaps I should try and take your point on board though, especially if you think my posts might have been confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 http://thesaurus.com/browse/ergo?s=t. As someone with a maths background I also hate the word in a general context. However, this is an international forum and I prefer to give non-English speakers the benefit of any doubt about language usage in their posts. English is definetely not my native language so hard for me to tell if it is something used correct or wrong, but i don't think usage of this word has anything to do with being a native speaker of the language or not, but rather style or choice. Here is another example i found in forums for this word used by a native speaker. RHO didn't play the SA. Ergo LHO has the SA. Ergo I win the SK! We hope to take 4 club tricks, 2 diamond tricks, 2 heart tricks, and a 9th trick. We can take that 9th trick right now with the SK. Ergo I win the SK! Give the first statement, if we duck trick one we will lose at least 4 spades and 1 diamod. That is 5 tricks for them which is not good. However, if we win trick 1 they might only have 3 spades and 1 diamond (that's right, if spades are 4-3!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Ergo simply means "therefore". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Ergo simply means "therefore". I know, but this doesnt help me to understand the problem of using it in forums. If it simply means "therefore" why is it considered (Han didn't say that but thats what i thought) annoying ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 For many speakers ergo is easier to spell than therefore. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuburules3 Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I know, but this doesnt help me to understand the problem of using it in forums. If it simply means "therefore" why is it considered (Han didn't say that but thats what i thought) annoying ? I think it can be considered pretentious. Using a "fancy" word when a "simple" one would suffice annoys some people. Ergo doesn't really bother me personally. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 There's nothing wrong per se with using Latin words instead of bona fide English words, but gratuitous use of such words can be distracting, so ceteris paribus it's preferable to use vernacular English. This was recommended by, inter alia, Fowler. PS: Personally I prefer "hence". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 This was recommended by, inter alia, Fowler.If nobody else is going to nickpick this, I suppose I'd better do it myself. As I'm talking about people rather than things, it should, of course, be inter alii. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 it should, of course, be inter alii. And I thought I was pedantic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 "Ergo" is prefectly acceptable as a synonym for "therefore". It is certainly not pretentious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatchett Posted May 14, 2012 Report Share Posted May 14, 2012 If nobody else is going to nickpick this, I suppose I'd better do it myself. As I'm talking about people rather than things, it should, of course, be inter alii. Does this count as nitpicking? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted May 14, 2012 Report Share Posted May 14, 2012 I don't think that there is anything wrong with ergo, it can be perfect in the right circumstances. If you are making the case for a new groundbreaking theory that could change the history of mankind, you haven't let the conclusion out of the box yet, you let the pressure and suspense build up and up until suddenly, after your final logical step, you conclude after a moment's pause that...... "ERGO, THE WEAK NOTRUMP PLAYED BY AN EXPERT PARTNERSHIP IS CONSIDERABLY BETTER THAN A STRONG NOTRUMP!", that would be a good occasion for the word. I think that thus or therefore wouldn't quite do it, but hence would work just as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted May 14, 2012 Report Share Posted May 14, 2012 If nobody else is going to nickpick this, I suppose I'd better do it myself. As I'm talking about people rather than things, it should, of course, be inter alios.fyp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.