is this a trap?

[rhm]

Rainer, there had been times that i strongly disagreed with your views especially in bidding, but in general to me you are a very decent player and even when i disagreed you had some points to think about. Other than those I found myself in the same camp with you more frequently than not. I know you may not care less what I think, however on this particular topic you are a bit (actually much more than just a bit) resulting IMHO. Also as pointed before in this topic you seem to have made odd claims(to put it politely) regarding "true experts", I don't know what that means but obviously it excludes players like Justin from being one of them. That did not slow you down, you started shooting even longer range bullets such as the quote above. First name comes to my mind is Bob Hamman but I can probably make a long list of "established players" who fits into your claim.

 

And I always thought only "whereagles" in these forums makes such (cheesy) generalisations.

MrAce I respect you and of course I respect Justin and many others. I know Justin is a great player and I never doubted that, but from time to time I disagree with him and sometimes I disagree with you.

Maybe I am wrong. So what?

I know few posting on this forum dare to disagree with Justin. I am not one of those. But this does not mean I do not respect him.

Why would I not care what you have to say and what you think. When did I ever imply that?

If I did I am sorry.

When I said I believe a majority of true experts would not double, I meant for example if that bidding problem would be used in the Bridge World I doubt a majority would double.

I may be wrong, but nothing brought forward so far convinces me I am.

I have never claimed those who would double in the Bridge World are not true experts, nor did I imply that Justin is not a true expert.

Why these wrong allegations?

 

Come on, the answers here were pretty unanimous: Double is obvious.

Rik

This statement is blatantly false.

But my statement came in response to that.

I am not so convinced by the judgement of some others posting here and that's why I made the statement in the first place.

That is, why there was this reaction and I accused of allegations I had never made.

 

Back to the bidding problem:

 

Maybe I do not get it.

I made my point several times.

I can understand when you double you did not see the trap.

But if you think of it, it is blatantly obvious that with a normal hand an experienced player would never bid like RHO did. RHO is trapping.

 

 

Is it possible that they make 3♠X when RHO got clever with an eight card spade suit and partner passed with a minimum 2353? I guess it is possible. If so, congratulate he opponents. But I don't think it is a very likely scenario.

 

Rik

This is not only possible, it is the only scenario which makes sense here.

What I do not understand is the suicidal conclusion. You do not play this game to be able to congratulate your opponents, even though it is a polite gesture when it happens.

Bridge is a logical game and what remains must be the truth.

In Bridge you should follow your conviction to the logical conclusion.

 

That's where I differ from Rik.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

To whom it may concern,

 

When you end up having three separate flame wars in the same thread, it is entirely possible you have lost perspective.

[cherdano]

Of course, for almost any halfway decent player 3NT in this position would be artificial, offering a choice between the two red suits at the 4-level.

That was actually meant as a caricature of rhm style - I guess when a snark like this gets taken serious, the thread has really gone off-thread.

 

While rhm is obnoxious in this thread even by his own standard, I don't think his opinion is way out there. We all know opponents against whom we would not double 3S - he thinks RHO is one of them based on Csaba's initial post, most do not think so. Reading opponents based on a half sentence in a quickly written post is a skill on which I am happy to defer to others.

[the hog]

To defend rhm. I don't think he was obnoxious. MrAce, have you never disagreed with the bid or play of an expert? I mean a real expert. I think that was what was intended by Rainer's comment. Anyway as you said, even if you disagree with Rainer, and I do so frequently, his ideas are always worthy of consideration. No?

 

Btw Rik, x is definitely not unanimous.

[MrAce]

I think Rainer and Hog are confusing "disagreement" and making generalizations like "people who do this or do that are bad/untrue experts/rookie....This is not disagreement, this is at best ranking other people who does not share the same view with you.

Both Ron and Rainer does that on and off. And when you choose your words detailed(those who plays 3 NT always a suggestion to play or those who double this are...)and then assign rank/knowledge level to those who disagrees, then you are the last person to call others that they can not take a disagreement .

Oh, we all are fine with disagreements. Are you? If your answer is yes why do you feel the need to call ranks for those who disagrees with you ?

[gwnn]

While rhm is obnoxious in this thread even by his own standard, I don't think his opinion is way out there. We all know opponents against whom we would not double 3S - he thinks RHO is one of them based on Csaba's initial post, most do not think so. Reading opponents based on a half sentence in a quickly written post is a skill on which I am happy to defer to others.

I definitely thought quite a bit before doubling 3♠. My thoughts were something like this.

 

For doubling:

1. we have the balance of power
   
2. we get a bad board anyway if they make 3♠ undoubled
   
3. I have an extra ace for the bidding, neither partner nor RHO knows this
   
4. while RHO is assumed to be reasonable, there might not be anyone who can double him
   

Against doubling:

1. A6 is not a great holding
   
2. KQTx looks nice but it is worthless in defence
   
3. RHO can see the vulnerability too and I assumed he was reasonable
   
4. RHO is possibly playing us
   

I would venture to guess that for most people the factors are likely quite similar and they may gauge their relative weights differently. Hence the creation of the thread. I think both X and pass are reasonable and 3NT (albeit not considered at the table) interesting. I don't like 4♦ but at least it is not -730 so why not. Which brings me to the hog's point:

To defend rhm. I don't think he was obnoxious. MrAce, have you never disagreed with the bid or play of an expert? I mean a real expert. I think that was what was intended by Rainer's comment. Anyway as you said, even if you disagree with Rainer, and I do so frequently, his ideas are always worthy of consideration. No?

 

Btw Rik, x is definitely not unanimous.

Hog, the problematic part was not disagreeing with Justin or Fantoni or Belladonna. For example a few months ago rhm posted something like "the 4-card raise requirement for Jacoby is one of the biggest myths of American bridge theory" and that was definitely an eye-opening post for me and partly due to thinking about that post I now prefer to have (optional) 3+ raises in 2NT. Let me make one more attempt at explaining what made me snap.

 

I created* the whole thread with a leading-ish context mentioning already the possibility of a trap (which, as stated above, I considered at the table) and putting my on-the-fly judgement of RHO being reasonable. I did this to see whether people still double. Now comes rhm and states the following things:

 

Obviously there is no such thing than RHOs bidding from reasonable opponents.

i.e., RHO is obviously not reasonable -- but he goes on and assumes that my description is correct because it suits his position better.

But how can you claim RHO bidding is a joke, when you fell into the trap intended, even though you knew opponents were "reasonable" ?

This even though I said that the "bid like a joke" remark was simply a whine in the heat of the moment. From the following post:

 

I doubt that many true experts would double.

I.e., even though there is a near-consensus in this thread, it is probably because we (as a community) are not of truly expert standard. If we did have a true expert community here, they would agree with him. Justin and Phil King and Rik and Arend etc. simply made a stupid mistake here:

I am not saying I could not fall into this trap. (snip - shows a hand from a BBO indy)

 

My DBL was not as stupid as here(snip)

I.e., the plurality of the thread simply made a stupid double.

 

Although you can technically say that his posts are logically consistent with all doublers here being world champions (but they are in a minority) and on the other end of the spectrum also consistent with all doublers here being stupid, he still says his judgement in this case is aligned with the true expert consensus and the judgement of most repliers is just stupid in this case. I guess what bothers me a lot is that in all this time, with 9 posts, he never even admits that there could conceivably be any hand that would double or that RHO could go down even when I hold this hand. If you move the cards around a bit, surely double will become better and better and pass and 3NT worse and worse? All I hear is "double is stupid because RHO wants us to double." There was no hint of nuance here. He treats the doublers here with disdain -- although I started the whole thread asking whether this is a a trap and showing uncertainty re the best call here, he treats my question and the doubles here like we never even thought of the possibility that X can turn out badly. Even though he makes the case well against double (minus the throwing labels around of course), he doesn't even mention any of the reasons I made above for double and simply assumes that people who double just missed his reasons and with a bit more thought we will all be converted.

 

*-or, I created the thread period - so probably I myself was thinking there were legitimate alternatives to X

[the hog]

MrAce, "I think Rainer and Hog are confusing "disagreement" and making generalizations like "people who do this or do that are bad/untrue experts/rookie."

 

I never said this in this thread at all, so please do not attribute statements to me that I did not make. In fact I said I agree with Cherdano's assessment of the bidding.

 

Quote Jogs: "Actually RHO played you like a fiddle."

 

Quote me: "I doubt it. I am more inclined to agree with Cherdano that the player did not want to open the hand because of of the 4H"

 

What I DID say was that I think you are misinterpreting Rainer's comments or perhaps better his intention.

It was in fact Rik's provocative post #25 that started the flame war. Look at Rainer's totally reasonable response to this post

 

Gwnn, I certainly don't think the x is stupid. I think it is a mistake and I would not x. I like to have trump tricks in principle for a x. I DO strongly disagree with your partner's opening bid unless you are playing wnt. Even then I would think twice about it. However THAT is a different argument to the x. If pd xed we would have a discussion about the hand afterwards.

[mike777]

sitting 3rd seat, favourable@MP's, you pick up:

 

A6

K864

KQT5

952

 

against reasonable oops at a late-night MP tournament, you see the bidding go like this:

 

1D-p-1H-2C

x-2S-3D-p

p-3S-??

 

3D was not really the value bid, but what do you do now? Partner is a sound opener.

 

edit: now there are 13 cards

 

pard opens sound

the opp are bidding like crazy

the opp are vul vs not

I assume the opp are true world class

so the opp bid on 14 hcp or less when they are vul.

 

first of all I hate really hate my 3d bid across from sound opener. geez I have huge hand.

 

If othoh I am allowed to bid my hand in full then I pass.

 

sound opener =sound not crap.

 

If as usual my pard opened on pure crap then easy pass, easy.

[MrAce]

MrAce, "I think Rainer and Hog are confusing "disagreement" and making generalizations like "people who do this or do that are bad/untrue experts/rookie."

 

I never said this in this thread at all, so please do not attribute statements to me that I did not make. In fact I said I agree with Cherdano's assessment of the bidding.

 

You did not snark on this particular topic, I agree. However while defending Rainer you seemed confused what was being complained. It definitely was not the disagreement part. Or I would probably complain about you in each and every single reply you make since I disagree with your views % 99 of the time.

 

Let me try to express myself differently. Assume I said " X is the best table cover color for card games" If you say "No, X is actually the worst color for this purpose, we should choose Y color for this or that reason" You are disagreeing. However if you say "No, X is the worst color for this and whoever thinks X colors is suitable is a colorblind" then you are doing something more than just disagreeing in a very negative way. Don't get me wrong, myself is guilty as charged from time to time, but at least I don't make mass generalizations and I don't do it as often as some others do.

 

 

 

[Trinidad]

It was in fact Rik's provocative post #25 that started the flame war. Look at Rainer's totally reasonable response to this post

I think you overlooked the fact that my post #25 was a response to Rainer's absolutely unreasonable post #24.

 

I will sum it up once more:

Before gwnn gave the full deal:

• Whereagles was the only one who would not double. His reasoning was that they would run to 4♣, which he presumably thought was making whereas the result in 3♠ presumable would be better (i.e. not making).
  
• All others would double (with the reservation that they needed 13 cards).
  
• Justin mentioned that a fifth diamond (at the time potentially the 13th card) would stop him from doubling.
  
• Nobody suggested that they thought it reasonable that 3♠ would make. In fact, I was the only one who specifically mentioned the possibility of 3♠ making and I told Gwnn to congratulate his opponent in that case.
  

After Gwnn has shown the full deal:

• 
   
  
• Rainer said that it was obvious that it was a trap and that Gwnn was not unfortunate (post #24).
  
• I responded by saying that this was resulting (in my "provocative post #25"):

  
  Come on, the answers here were pretty unanimous: Double is obvious. When the full deal is shown, you come and say that Gwnn had it coming. A typical case of ROTI (Resulting on the Internet). [And I gave my opinion on Gwnn's partner's behavior and its effects.]
  

To be more correct, I should not have written: "... pretty unanimous. Double is obvious." Instead, I should have written: "... 100% unanimous. 3♠ won't make." to account for whereagles' opinion.

 

After this, Rainer made remarks such as "most true experts would not double".

 

To sum it up: Before Gwnn posted the entire deal, everybody (world class and amateurs) wenwrong. After the full deal was posted and Rainer had 20/20 hindsight, he told everybody in clear terms how silly they had been. I called that resulting. What would you call it?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Gwnn, I certainly don't think the x is stupid. I think it is a mistake and I would not x. I like to have trump tricks in principle for a x. I DO strongly disagree with your partner's opening bid unless you are playing wnt. Even then I would think twice about it. However THAT is a different argument to the x. If pd xed we would have a discussion about the hand afterwards.

Now these are opinions I can agree with:

• 
   
  
• I think X is not stupid. I can certainly sympathize with those who would not double but would pass (exactly for the lack of trump tricks), even if it wouldn't be my choice.
  
• If partner claims to be a sound opener, he shouldn't have opened that hand. I would have opened that hand, but I don't claim to be a sound opener.
  

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Some players never play 3NT as anything but as a suggestion as a final contract.

But it has to be said this is an accident prone attitude only used by indecent players, who do not know how to bid.

I do not think that word (indecent) means what you think it means. Hint: one synonym for "indecent" is "obscene".

[rhm]

I do not think that word (indecent) means what you think it means. Hint: one synonym for "indecent" is "obscene".

I choose my words here carefully.

But you have to read it in context

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I choose my words here carefully.

But you have to read it in context

Here is the full context:

 

Of course, for almost any halfway decent player 3NT in this position would be artificial, offering a choice between the two red suits at the 4-level.

 

Some players never play 3NT as anything but as a suggestion as a final contract.

But it has to be said this is an accident prone attitude only used by indecent players, who do not know how to bid.

 

And by the way, what 4♣ in this context would mean for so called decent players escapes me, probably an invitation to 6♦

It still does not make sense taken at face value. I think you mean indecent as "not of a decent standard", as in "poor", but indecent does not have this meaning here. I do not think it really matters - this is an international forum and not everyone has English as a first language - it is only to point out what Ed is referring to.

[cherdano]

It still does not make sense taken at face value. I think you mean indecent as "not of a decent standard", as in "poor", but indecent does not have this meaning here. I do not think it really matters - this is an international forum and not everyone has English as a first language - it is only to point out what Ed is referring to.

It doesn't really matter, except that rhm's reaction is quite clarifying. Rhm makes a typical English language mistake, i.e. one that many non-native speakers would make. A native speaker is kind enough to point out that he has make this mistake. But rhm is too arrogant to realize this, and instead thinks this native speaker has misunderstood what he was trying to say.

I'd say that's rhm-ism in its purest form, and many of his other posts are more easily explained if we start with the assumption that it contains at least a mild imprint of rhm-ism.

[PhantomSac]

German on German violence

[barmar]

I'm putting a stop to this, there's more heat than light being generated at this point.

[barmar]

I received one PM agreeing with my decision, one that seemed agnostic, and a few PMs and public posts disagreeing. So I'm restoring this thread. Sorry for the overreaction.