An excuse like this

[kenberg]

It looks like a resolution. Great!!!

 

Prompted by this discussion I took my first ever look at the B/N forum. I was surprised. It appears that a B/N asks a question and then the replies are pretty much all from advanced players. I think this is good, I just wan't expecting it.

 

And I was wondering if I fit in. I will give an example.

 

A question was asked about the bid of 2NT after an opening 1 level bid and two passes. Ths evolved into a discussion of ranges for various actions involving NT in the balancing position.

 

Here was one reply

 

 

Mike Lawrence suggests that a balancing 1NT should start at 12 HCP and have a variable upper limit depending on the suit of the opening bid. So over 1♣ it's 12-14 and over 1♠ it's 12-16. This means that doubling and then bidding 1NT has a variable lower limit, 15 over a club, 17 over a spade. The upper limit would be 18 in all cases, I think. So 2NT logically is 19-20, and doubling and then bidding 2NT is 21-22. You need the narrow ranges when bidding 2NT, so you need the immediate 2NT bid to be natural, or your ladder only reaches 20 points. I don't know what the odds are that fourth seat will have more than 20 points when LHO opens at the one level, but presumably they're high enough that extending your ladder to some point above 20 is worth doing.

 

 

 

I started a reply to this reply, as follows:

 

Since I agree with this approach for the balancing NT I want to add a word. You say that doubling 1S and then bidding 1NT shows a 17 count. More likely (unless the auction comes back to you as 1SXX) it shows an insufficient bid. I mention this not to catch you out but rather to explain why I like the upper limit of 16 on the balance of 1S: If you think, or hope, that 1NT may be playable then now is the time to bid it. Without a doubt the large range leads to ambiguity, but it's a price I pay.

 

 

 

But I didn't post it. Is this really something for B/N players? You may agree with my thoughts on the balance (hey, I've got Mike Lawrence in my corner) or you may not, that's not my question. I am asking whether this is the sort of discussion we need in the B/N forum.

 

I am neither an expert nor an idiot and I definitely am not a troll, and neither is the poster I am quoting, but this all seems far afield for B/N. Your thoughts?

 

And I have a suggestion. On the I/A forum mikeh has a pinned posting called "a primer on reverse bidding" I find it useful. That's not the same as saying I agree with every detail in it. But many players on bbo and elsewhere have given very little thought to how to develop an auction after a reverse.It's extremely useful to be able to say "I'm fine with playing it the way mikeh describes in his pinned note". If I play regularly with someone, we can discuss tweaks. Or not. Maybe there could be a few pinned posts of a similar nature suitable for B/N players. It is not necessary that the recommendations have unanimous support, choices have to be made, but they should be standard and sensible.

[StevenG]

Is this really something for B/N players? You may agree with my thoughts on the balance (hey, I've got Mike Lawrence in my corner) or you may not, that's not my question. I am asking whether this is the sort of discussion we need in the B/N forum.

 

I am neither an expert nor an idiot and I definitely am not a troll, and neither is the poster I am quoting, but this all seems far afield for B/N. Your thoughts?

I suspect a significant number of posters (not me, though) check out all new forum content and are oblivious to whether they are posting in the N/B or the Expert forum.

[mikeh]

I believe that was his attempt to prove he isn't a troll, actually.

It's ironic that I thought that those two threads were the definitive proof this he was! He started threads that read, initially, as if he was trying to be a genuine contributor, but at an early opportunity began writing utterly trolling comments, rubbishing the opinions that he had purported to solicit.

 

It goes to show that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, I suppose :D

 

Anyway, unless and until he re-emerges, I have no more to say on the topic, and if he does re-emerge, I try truly hope you prove to be correct and me wrong.

[diana_eva]

It's ironic that I thought that those two threads were the definitive proof this he was! He started threads that read, initially, as if he was trying to be a genuine contributor, but at an early opportunity began writing utterly trolling comments, rubbishing the opinions that he had purported to solicit.

 

It goes to show that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, I suppose :D

 

Anyway, unless and until he re-emerges, I have no more to say on the topic, and if he does re-emerge, I try truly hope you prove to be correct and me wrong.

 

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but in the end this has to be said.

 

Not everyone who joins the Forums does so with the intention to learn. There will be people thinking the forums are a place to state opinions on equal level and then defend their opinions on equal level and then refuse to accept the learner position. The reasonable ones will of course be open to dialogue and learn from these exchanges. But some will not be prepared right from the start to assume a humble position in an argument, and be downright offended if someone gives them a lecture on how much they have to learn. They didn't come to learn, they came to share and state opinions. Not sure how to word the difference accurately, but it's a state of mind.

 

Some people readily admit that they are never too old to learn. Others don't do that and think they have every right to speak up after say 30 years of experience. The Forums have the power to switch some of the "i've come here to talk" camp to "I guess I still have some things to learn" camp, but let's not just assume everyone is prepared to be on the humble side :)

[barmar]

Not everyone who joins the Forums does so with the intention to learn. There will be people thinking the forums are a place to state opinions on equal level and then defend their opinions on equal level and then refuse to accept the learner position. The reasonable ones will of course be open to dialogue and learn from these exchanges. But some will not be prepared right from the start to assume a humble position in an argument, and be downright offended if someone gives them a lecture on how much they have to learn. They didn't come to learn, they came to share and state opinions. Not sure how to word the difference accurately, but it's a state of mind.

Which is somewhat OK, but there are right and wrong places for this. If you think you're an expert and want to argue your opinions with other experts, the Expert forum is an appropriate place. They're all big boys there, they can deal with it. The Novice/Beginner forum is not a good place, because its purpose is education of beginners, and "discussions" like this will be more confusing than helpful.

 

We've gotten complaints in both cases, but they were very different. When someone was repeatedly posting idiotic ideas in the Expert forum, complaints didn't usually appear until they devolved into derogatory name-calling, and the complaints were about the abusive language. But in the N/B forum, we've received numerous complaints about the offbeat ideas themselves, because it seemed like the poster was intentionally trying to confuse the newbies with his strange ideas.

[MrAce]

Which is somewhat OK, but there are right and wrong places for this. If you think you're an expert and want to argue your opinions with other experts, the Expert forum is an appropriate place. They're all big boys there, they can deal with it. The Novice/Beginner forum is not a good place, because its purpose is education of beginners, and "discussions" like this will be more confusing than helpful.

 

This

 

 

+ 1 million.

 

 

 

[helene_t]

I might be wrong but that someone is deliberately trying to misinform beginners would rarely be the most likely explanation imo. I think Diana's explanation is more likely to be true.

 

I don't think Al-u-card deleiberately misinforms anyone about climate change either. He might deliberately cherry-pick evidence etc. (as most of us probably do in such debates) but the basic message is probably something he believes to be true.

 

I recall from when I was a teenager I held some very bizare political views and would construct fairly absurd arguments in their defense. There were certainly times where I were aware that my arguments were not very sound, and towards the day when I eventually gave up most of those believes there probably was a while when I didn't believe everything I was saying but held on to some views because I was afraid of admiting I had been wrong.

[MrAce]

.

 

I recall from when I was a teenager I held some very bizare political views and would construct fairly absurd arguments in their defense. There were certainly times where I were aware that my arguments were not very sound, and towards the day when I eventually gave up most of those believes there probably was a while when I didn't believe everything I was saying but held on to some views because I was afraid of admiting I had been wrong.

 

Being afraid to admitting that you were wrong is ok. As long as you keep it silent afterwards or among your teenager friends. The minute you go into a kinder garden, or a primary school and continuously try to tell these to kids who has no or little knowledge about the subject, after telling them that you are a mentor, is not ok.

 

Another example related to what actually being here imo is; You may not deliberately want to harm kids. But there is another person that you hate and he says to kids "Smoking is bad for your health" and you say the opposite just to piss off the person you hate, or just to receive attention, then even though your intention was not to harm kids, this is exactly what you might be doing.

 

Actually to find out whether someone is really stupid or a troll is easy. We can check the hand records, thanks to BBO. Check the auctions and actions taken by the person in question. If you see he/she is not doing any of the stupid bids he suggests in forums = he is a troll. Otherwise he is plain too stupid. I actually checked his hand records.

 

Something like

 

xx

Kxxxx

Qxx

Jxx

 

His pd opened 1m and RHO overcalled 1♠ and PhilG007 bid 2♥. Maybe he really does not use negative DBL after all, as he advertised. So maybe he is genuine. Although some other hands tell otherwise.

 

But regardless, you do not let someone around kids, whether he is pedophile or touching the kids inappropriately out of stupidity with no sexual harm intended and doesn't know any better. You simply can not let this happen.

[helene_t]

Ha-ha, I was just called out on facebook for comparing the Dutch LGBT movement's dilema with their pedophile fraction to the British one's dilema with their UKIP fraction. Delighted, now, to see that pedophilia can also be compared to not playing negative doubles :)

[MrAce]

Ha-ha, I was just called out on facebook for comparing the Dutch LGBT movement's dilema with their pedophile fraction to the British one's dilema with their UKIP fraction. Delighted, now, to see that pedophilia can also be compared to not playing negative doubles :)

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

[kenberg]

Except for being pleased that there seems to be agreement I figured there was nothing more to say.

Helene'e post) (which I argee with, prompts this suggestion:you could adopt a p;o0licy along the following lines:

 

"The B/N forum hopes to assist newer players in learning mainstream bridge practices so that they cam easily play online with other newer plaers. With this in mind we will sometimes restrict postings that we believe to be outside of mainstream ideas."

 

This way it is not necessary to declare someone to be either a troll or an idiot. You just say it isn't sufficiently mainstream for the B/N forum. As the bbo representatives, the judgment is entirely yours as to what is sufficiently mainstream. We denizens of other forums can cope.

 

A friend of my wife's has expressed an interest in learning bridge (she has had a very basic intro to rubber bridge). I gave her the telephone number of someone who plays, directs and teaches and said I think you will like her and she can be trusted to give sensible advice. That seems to be what you are aiming for and you can just do it.

[nige1]

Ha-ha, I was just called out on facebook for comparing the Dutch LGBT movement's dilema with their pedophile fraction to the British one's dilema with their UKIP fraction. Delighted, now, to see that pedophilia can also be compared to not playing negative doubles :)

Mr Ace's analogy is interesting. Traditionally, when teaching Bridge, we kept things as simple as possible, at least to begin with. For example ...

• Most bids are natural and limited. (Splinters, Cue-bids, Trial-bids, Asking-bids, Transfers, etc can be introduced later).
• Doubles are natural and penalty, apart from doubles of opening suit bids. (Negative, Responsive, Maximal, Lead-directing, and other conventional doubles are introduced later).

Arguably, that traditional approach is mistaken, because switching to the main-stream, requires us to unlearn what we've taken trouble to learn. Experts in the beginners' forum seem to adopt a more modern approach, introducing conventions that are unfamiliar to many traditionally taught beginners e.g. Protective 1N, Non-limit raises.

[barmar]

I recall from when I was a teenager I held some very bizare political views and would construct fairly absurd arguments in their defense. There were certainly times where I were aware that my arguments were not very sound, and towards the day when I eventually gave up most of those believes there probably was a while when I didn't believe everything I was saying but held on to some views because I was afraid of admiting I had been wrong.

This is actually a well known psychological effect. When you have a long-held belief, you develop a sense of "ownership" of it. Giving it up feels like losing something. To avoid cognitive dissonance, the mind will sometimes construct elaborate justifications for the original view.

 

This is why it's so hard to use rational arguments to convince people to give up ingrained beliefs like religion, sexism, and racism.