I suggest you close down the expert forum

[barmar]

can we just delete this topic its just Mr Ace/MikeH/Whereagles issues can't u lot sort it out by PM

It's very tempting... This is arguably the most flaming thread we've had in a long time.

[fred]

The problem is not his perception, but that it trasnpires that you disagree with his self proclamation. I know Nuno has made an effort to not self proclaim himself as Expert, I know that you have also taken care not to do it, not even Justin has self proclaimed himself an Expert. Nobody really does.

 

Well I Call myself World Master as at least that is something objective. On the other hand Fred used to call me "player with zero bridge credentials" :P

I don't recall ever posting (or thinking) that, but I will take your word for it.

 

It was a rather stupid and rude thing for me to say. I apologize.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Bbradley62]

<<retracted... no reason for me to get involved here any more than I already have...>> Edited February 5, 2015 by Bbradley62

[rhm]

In fact, this is a good example of a post that doesn't belong in the Expert Class Bridge forum. This doesn't have to do anything with whereagles' level, or with the difficulty of the problem. But if a defense problem is posted in the Expert forum, I should be able to assume that we have good signalling agreements, and that partner is an expert and thus making good decisions on how to use them.

I beg to differ.

The criteria is not whether the deal under discussion was played by a well established expert partnership.

A comment like above only shows how little exposure even many experienced players now have to Rubber bridge settings.

An expert problem could arise from a deal where an expert plays with a novice.

The criteria should be whether the Bridge question/issue or solution to a Bridge problem is demanding or contentious even for experts.

The above example fits this criteria.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

Then you should rename the forum. An expert playing rubber bridge with three intermediates is not "Expert-Class Bridge".

[NickRW]

To Mike and Timo: Sometimes you gotta stop proving you are right and think of WHY it is that it matters whether you are right or not. What are you trying to accomplish?

 

I don't have a very good way to word my feelings right now, and they may sound completely illogical. But I strongly feel it is unfair to put a long time member and contributor under trial like that, and point out each and every thing he did wrong.

 

What is it that you are trying to accomplish by proving beyond reasonable doubt that Nuno really thinks he is expert but he won't admit it? We aren't in a court here, you know?

 

You want him to take his toys and leave? Fine, you're almost done with that.

You want him to apologize? If so, why?

You want him to stick around? Then just stop and leave it as is. It wd have been just great if you both wd have stopped after stating that you want him to stay.

 

It is pity we can't upvote posts from admins. This one deserves one.

 

We've all done it (and will do it again), but proving self right is quite a destructive human trait.

 

Nick

[rhm]

Then you should rename the forum. An expert playing rubber bridge with three intermediates is not "Expert-Class Bridge".

You obviously do not understand that the level of Bridge questions and problems arising at the table have nothing to do with the issue how good the players are and this is a forum about bridge not about people.

I am sure Bridge greats like S.J. Simon (Why you loose at Brige) would heartily disagree with you.

There is an art playing well in a sophisticated long standing partnership, but there is also an art playing well with less gifted partners or in not so well established partnerships.

You can set up great expert defensive play problems, where you get the information your partner is an expert and you can set up just as great an expert defensive play problem with the information your partner can hardly distinguish a king from a jack.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

You obviously do not understand that the level of Bridge questions and problems arising at the table have nothing to do with the issue how good the players are and this is a forum about bridge not about people.

What makes you think that I do not understand this? What you are saying is blindingly obvious, I just wouldn't call such a problem a problem about "Expert-Class Bridge".

[Fluffy]

There is an art playing well in a sophisticated long standing partnership, but there is also an art playing well with less gifted partners or in not so well established partnerships.

You can set up great expert defensive play problems, where you get the information your partner is an expert and you can set up just as great an expert defensive play problem with the information your partner can hardly distinguish a king from a jack.

 

 

So this is an expert problem?

 

You have:

 

♠-

♥AKJ973

♦A654

♣A53

 

All vul, MPs, your partner can hardly follow suit, and might take a 2♣ opening as weak 2.

 

pass-pass-??

 

Lets say you decide to be practical and open 4♥

 

pass-pass-4♥-pass

4NT-pass-

 

What now? (you play 4 aces blackwood if you think he is asking for keycards)

 

 

I get a lot o expert problems when partner can't recall which cards are high and which ones are not. They are really difficult, and I often get them wrong. The key to them is that you need to force partner to play his winners before he can discard them. Sometimes it is kinda frustrating because there is no real answer:[hv=pc=n&s=s76hdj7c&w=sk52hdc6&n=sat9hqdc&e=sqhjt9dc]399|300[/hv]

On lead against 4♥ after you won 2 tricks already you need to find a way to cash 2 more. The problem is you can't, if you lead a spade partner mightl finesse into declarer's queen. But if you try to endplay declarer by leading ♦J he might forget it is high and ruff it with the master trump. What is more likely?

 

Are these Expert problems?

[diana_eva]

So this is an expert problem?

 

You have:

 

♠-

♥AKJ973

♦A654

♣A53

 

All vul, MPs, your partner can hardly follow suit, and might take a 2♣ opening as weak 2.

 

pass-pass-??

 

Lets say you decide to be practical and open 4♥

 

pass-pass-4♥-pass

4NT-pass-

 

What now? (you play 4 aces blackwood if you think he is asking for keycards)

 

 

I get a lot o expert problems when partner can't recall which cards are high and which ones are not. They are really difficult, and I often get them wrong. The key to them is that you need to force partner to play his winners before he can discard them. Sometimes it is kinda frustrating because there is no real answer:[hv=pc=n&s=s76hdj7c&w=sk52hdc6&n=sat9hqdc&e=sqhjt9dc]399|300[/hv]

On lead against 4♥ after you won 2 tricks already you need to find a way to cash 2 more. The problem is you can't, if you lead a spade partner mightl finesse into declarer's queen. But if you try to endplay declarer by leading ♦J he might forget it is high and ruff it with the master trump. What is more likely?

 

Are these Expert problems?

 

I find these quite entertaining FWIW :P We shd put them in the puzzle solvers forum

[Zelandakh]

I don't recall ever posting (or thinking) that, but I will take your word for it.

I believe it is a reference to this post, Fred. I suspect you were not actually referring to Fluffy here although he was active in the thread. Hrothgar also took it as a reference to him further on. This is a common issue with such nebulous attacks and something I take on board too on occasion (I had a discussion with Mike recently in similar circumstances, for example, when I was unsure if he was including me in a (negative) grouping of posters). The internet just makes it very difficult to make such comments without offending people, usually much more widely than originally intended.

[Fluffy]

I don't recall ever posting (or thinking) that, but I will take your word for it.

 

It was a rather stupid and rude thing for me to say. I apologize.

Thanks, it was about 10 years ago so... I remember everybody else was flattering you (licking your butt is the spannish term) so perhaps I was teassing you a bit just to compensate :)

[Antrax]

Cool problems, Fluffy, though your site probably won't support the recommended solution (lead the ♦J and glare meaningfully at partner while thinking "don't you dare ruff")

[rhm]

So this is an expert problem?

 

You have:

 

♠-

♥AKJ973

♦A654

♣A53

 

All vul, MPs, your partner can hardly follow suit, and might take a 2♣ opening as weak 2.

 

pass-pass-??

 

Lets say you decide to be practical and open 4♥

 

pass-pass-4♥-pass

4NT-pass-

 

What now? (you play 4 aces blackwood if you think he is asking for keycards)

 

 

I get a lot o expert problems when partner can't recall which cards are high and which ones are not. They are really difficult, and I often get them wrong. The key to them is that you need to force partner to play his winners before he can discard them. Sometimes it is kinda frustrating because there is no real answer:[hv=pc=n&s=s76hdj7c&w=sk52hdc6&n=sat9hqdc&e=sqhjt9dc]399|300[/hv]

On lead against 4♥ after you won 2 tricks already you need to find a way to cash 2 more. The problem is you can't, if you lead a spade partner mightl finesse into declarer's queen. But if you try to endplay declarer by leading ♦J he might forget it is high and ruff it with the master trump. What is more likely?

 

Are these Expert problems?

I never said or claimed that all problems you get with a weak partner are suitable for the expert forum.

In fact most will not be.

 

First try to understand what I said.

Then respond

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Are these Expert problems?

I think they're professional problems but not expert problems. Like Diana, I find them quite entertaining, though I confess it's mostly schadenfreude.