Bidding on misfitting hands

[RedSpawn]

..... but if you open 2♣ on this you will have horrible issues when partner plays you for a real hand on a misfit, or if preemption happens, how are you going to enjoy a 2♣-(3♠)-4♣ start for example.

 

You know you present a plausible point, I seem to have the same issues when a partner reaches for rule of 18 or rule of 19 to justify opening a marginal hand in 1st or 2nd seat, and we have those horrible issues play out in the auction.

 

It usually results in my playing my partner for a real hand and our receiving a penalty double for that incorrect assumption.

 

My partner usually alleges that I should have known the opening wasn't a plain vanilla open and that it was marginal -- even though it was from 1st or 2nd seat. Or the questionable opening is conveniently dismissed as the unavoidable collateral damage of opening light in the modern bridge era.

[MrAce]

wow a 3 page debate on whether AJ AK9 AQT7542 2 is a 2 club opener lol what has become of this forum!!

 

+1500

 

Someone says this is a 2♣ opener. 2 good players say it is not. Other player insists. I am fine up to here.

Why these two good players insist on convincing the other player is something beyond my imagination.

I was planning to participate in this topic until I saw the 2♣ suggestion.

[RedSpawn]

+1500

 

Someone says this is a 2♣ opener. 2 good players say it is not. Other player insists. I am fine up to here.

Why these two good players insist on convincing the other player is something beyond my imagination.

I was planning to participate in this topic until I saw the 2♣ suggestion.

Uh oh, this one really hurts as I was sincerely looking for your approval and validation.

 

If you honestly think your whole "good player/bad player" determination is certified and verifiable, then I have news...it's just like bridge. . . all relative.

 

You have done this before with the 4♥ bid to then suggest the large amount of people who voted pass were "meh, bad players" not worthy of any intellectual merit. Only two of the players were actually good players by your assessment. How quaint how you can dismiss a huge count of players who don't ascribe to your bridge sensibilities.

 

The dart hit the dartboard, try again.

 

"So far 1 vote for 2h, 10 votes for 3h (3 very good players among them) 24 votes for pass (2 good players among them) 27 votes for 4h and many good players among them including Meckstroth and Diamond."

 

Oh yeah, and 24 of those people who voted Pass that I don't agree with, 22 of them are just "someone" and the other 2 are good players. Okay, yeah, right.

 

24 votes for Pass and 27 votes for 4♥. Well the Pass people are essentially fools, right? Dismiss them, they don't fit the profile. Next!

[sfi]

Someone says this is a 2♣ opener. 2 good players say it is not. Other player insists. I am fine up to here.

Why these two good players insist on convincing the other player is something beyond my imagination.

I was planning to participate in this topic until I saw the 2♣ suggestion.

 

Which is a shame, because the original hand was interesting and is now mostly lost in a random tangent. There are still interesting and useful posts relating to the hand interspersed with the 2C hijack though.

[sfi]

If the auction is passed to East, East would normally open 1 ♦.

 

After an initial pass, West has a little more freedom in responding to East. The problem with West opening initially is that West may have problems stopping East who has 18 real and likely would have slam investigation in sight. West has two choices in responding, 1 ♠ or 2 ♣. 1 ♠ gets West's major suit in view immediately and keeps the bidding low. 2 ♣ is a bit more descriptive, but suppresses ♠. West does have a big playing hand IF a fit can be found but may not be worth so if there is a misfit.

 

I'd probably bid 2 ♣.

 

West has a bit more freedom, but East is still going to assume partner has a reasonable hand. This one has nice playing strength only if you have a fit, which makes your 2C risky.

 

After West's response, East has a choice of two bids. One is a jump rebid in ♦ usually showing 16-18 and s good 6 card suit. East is a little heavy for that bid, but West's 2 ♣ response has the initial markings of a misfit. The other choice is a reverse with a "hasty" 2 ♥ bid on a 3 card ♥ suit. It could cause a problem if West has a 4+ ♥ fit and raises ♥.

 

Assuming the partnership is aware that the reverse might be suspect (for hands just like this), the worst that will happen is West raises to 3H with 4 of them. Now when East retreats to 3S or 3NT, responder should be aware there is unlikely to be a 4-4 heart fit and not insist on hearts. It's one of the fairly common workarounds people use in Standard, and can be managed if the reverser considers what to do over partner's next bid.

 

After a 3 ♦ jump rebid, West could pass or push on. West hand just seems to have too much value to pass. So the likely bid is 3 ♠ after which East has an easy 3 NT call.

 

Passing would be anti-system on the auction you are proposing:

 

1D - 2C

3D

 

Opener has every right to expect this is forcing after a 2/1, since responder is showing invitational values. If you have a hand that wants to pass here, I would suggest you shouldn't have bid 2C initially.

[RedSpawn]

Which is a shame, because the original hand was interesting and is now mostly lost in a random tangent. There are still interesting and useful posts relating to the hand interspersed with the 2C hijack though.

 

Please note that whenever someone disagrees with you on the forum the word random enter the lexicon. First the hand was no where near a 2 club open and then it was transitioned to being called a random 22 point hand to demote its value. Now, the 2 club discussion itself has been called a random tangent with no intellectual merit.

 

Actually, the shame is when someone conducts a poll of roughly 60 people and cavalierly dismisses 22 of them as fools for not ascribing to his notions. But the 27 who voted the way he did....good people. How did he account for the sampling error if upwards of 22 people are bad players and how did he know that the 27 who voted 4♥ were mostly good people? The voting group of 24 and 27 are both statistically significant, so he can't just dismiss one group and co-sign the other in a lump-sum fashion.

 

He just waved a magic wand called professional opinion and slapped good and bad labels on 51 of the voters to add an air of legitimacy. How convenient. And anyone who voted pass was immediately relegated to the gutter. I'm shaking my head as I type this because this is basically what was presented to the forum and not one soul questioned the self-serving arbitrary determinations of good versus bad. Why should anyone do that when they like the 4♥ win?

 

Johnu who is the statistical guru didn't even highlight any of the concerns about the poll. Why should he? Because 4♥ was his vote and is the only legitimate answer. It doesnt serve his interests to be intellectually honest and disclose any of the polling method flaws or reveal how crude the invalidation of the statistically significant group who voted pass was. 4♥ won the race so who cares how it got over the finish line?

 

Good day all. Humpty Dumpty was right....a bid means just what he says it means-neither more nor less. And if the bid doesn't generate the outcome he likes, then just change its meaning. Well played, sir, well played.

[RedSpawn]

.

[MrAce]

24 votes for Pass and 27 votes for 4♥. Well the Pass people are essentially fools, right? Dismiss them, they don't fit the profile. Next!

 

When you start to spit nonsense as you just did, instead of replying with same nonsense I will ask you to prove what you just said. Show me where I said that others are fools or show me where I said you should dismiss them. Please!

 

 

 

Actually, the shame is when someone conducts a poll of roughly 60 people and cavalierly dismisses 22 of them as fools for not ascribing to his notions. But the 27 who voted the way he did....good people. How did he account for the sampling error if upwards of 22 people are bad players and how did he know that the 27 who voted 4♥ were mostly good people? The voting group of 24 and 27 are both statistically significant, so he can't just dismiss one group and co-sign the other in a lump-sum fashion.

 

You are talking about this poll I think...

 

http://bridgewinners...m-2-nhbyore3be/

 

Now I will make 2 points about who I call "good players" and about the names I mentioned.

 

1. The players I consider "good" are totally my own opinion. You may of course believe that this is because they agreed with me, as you did, however the records of BBF and BW will prove you wrong. I have many times debated and disagreed with both Cyber and SFI in this forum. I have been in disagreement with players who I believe to be much better than me, such as Gnasher, Justin Lall, Fred Gittelman, Frances Hinden, MikeH etc etc. So your entire point about me "dismissing them" or seeing them as "fools" when they disagree with me is an unfair nonsense at best.
2. My opinions about them are due to my debates in forums and the games I played with or against them, the games I watched when they play and their records. There maybe very good players who voted for pass that I do not know. But this is all subjective opinion except the two names (only names I mentioned) which were Meckstroth and Diamond. I did not even spell the names of players with national wins. I only spelled the names who won the world title MANY times!

If you noticed in the topic you are referring to, I voted for 4♥ but did not even try to convince anyone for this option. That was my personal choice. All my argument in that topic was (you can go back and read) about passing vs bidding. I do not even count the 2♥ and 5♥ openers and the poll results show there are 68 bidders vs 34 passers. I was in disagreement with your opinions back in that topic as I am now. But I never said "bad player" or anything that says "fool" to the people with opposite view. In fact, if your memory serves well I was the first and only one to disagree with people when they chose to call you a "troll" and when they tried to measure your level looking at your BBO hand records. FYI, in this topic I still did not say anything about 2♣ opening. Although it is obvious that I strongly disagree with 2♣, the reason I decided not to participate in this was due to my experience in forums about where the topic was hijacked to. And I was right, it totally turned into whether E hand worth a 2♣ opener or not, when I strongly believe the auction would never be passed to East. South has a clear 2♥ opening to start with.

 

Anyway, you are writing things and basically telling me or us that our opinion of good-bad players are biased. A bias that exists due to being on the same side of the argument/debate. I tried to explain you this is not even remotely the case. Of course you are allowed to believe what you believe but please do not ever again put words in my mouth that I did not say.

[sfi]

Please note that whenever someone disagrees with you on the forum the word random enter the lexicon.

 

Not true. I think I've used it this way exactly twice in 8 years here. Congratulations - you're special.

[RedSpawn]

Not true. I think I've used it this way exactly twice in 8 years here. Congratulations - you're special.

 

You're welcome and I don't mean you as in the 2nd person, I mean you as in the collective plural. I am referring to the techniques that the collective has employed to delegitimize certain individuals who don't conform to their bridge sensibilities.

 

For example, has anyone even talked to Msjennifer about how she said she felt attacked after voting for pass on the 4♥ winner hand or was that too just delusional posturing by another random?

[RedSpawn]

First off, the argument WE HAD was never bid versus pass. The argument was pass versus an all-in of 4 hearts from 2nd seat while vulnerable. I wholeheartedly said that I believed a 4 hearts bid was wow....absurd.

 

I will go back and check but I don't think I had an issue with 2 hearts or 3 hearts because those were bids that saved bidding space for the guy called partner across the table who hasn't even bid yet.

 

But still, with all of the buckets available 34 passers is statistically significant.

 

Mr. Ace, your use of innuendo and celebrity endorsement is phenomenal. You said at the time that 24 voted for pass and 2 of them are good players. The 2 good players were juxtapose to the remaining 22. Now, product placement matters when you are marketing an unspoken idea.

 

So, what are you suggesting about the quality of the remaining 22 players who voted pass? Are they good players? Are they neutral players? Are they randoms? Are they brilliant? Are they woefully inadequate? Are they "insufficient information to determine"?

 

You don't exactly say but you appear to have a convenient ellipses on this matter. You don't bother to fill in the blanks on this subgroup. Hmmmm.

 

About the 27 who voted 4♥, you said they were mostly good players. Well, nothing to see here since all appears to be in order with that bucket. The ones who voted 4 hearts can't be " someone" because their votes reconcile with your bridge sensibilities and most have been affixed with your personal good player assessment. You took the time to fill in the blanks on this category of voters by adding celebrity endorsements and personally affixing good player ratings to most in this group.

 

The huge disparity in your marketing treatment of both voting groups speaks volumes about your personal opinion.

 

You didn't have to expressly say the other 22 players were fools or questionable or dubious or bad players or "someone's". You let the juxtaposition of 2 good players versus this subgroup and glaring omissions do that ugly, dirty work for you.

 

We won't analyze or make a direct statement about the remaining 22 passers. We will remain silent and let the audience make their own inferences or conclusions about those 22 after a carefully timed product placement. And you are free from any liability of expressly saying anything because you let your marketing treatment of this voting group do the work for you.

[nullve]

A bidding system can be either like a natural language (e.g. English), where the meaning of a call/sequence is determined by its use, or like an artficial language (e.g. Esperanto), where the meaning follows from definitions that are entirely up to the inventor of the system.

 

Even a "natural" system like Max Hardy's 2/1 GF should be thought of as an artificial language where the meaning of a 2♣ opening is whatever its inventor says it is. (We can disagree with Hardy about design choices, but not about what 2♣ shows in his system.)

 

In Norway, most good tournament players say the play 2/1, although I suspect only a few of them has ever read relevant books by e.g. Bergen, Hardy or Lawrence. The vast majority are just trying to play what their peers are playing, which happens to be a system that is far removed from American 2/1 dialects. I think the 2♣ opening illustrates this well, because it seems to have evolved from the very old "Halle's 2♣"¹, which has a lot in common with the Benji/SEF 2♣ opening.

 

While we forumers can pretend we all speak Natural, what we really speak are different dialects. So the same call made by a American or Norwegian can be false friends, just like the 'rar' (Eng.: 'weird') in Norwegian and 'rar' (Eng.: 'friendly') in Danish.

 

¹ 2♣ openers from Halle's 1942 book:

 

a) ♠AKxx ♥AKxxxx ♦K ♣Qx

b) ♠KJTxxx ♥Qx ♦AKQx ♣x

c) ♠Kx ♥Axx ♦AKQJxx ♣Kx

d) ♠AQx ♥Jxx ♦AKx ♣KQJx

e) ♠AKT75 ♥AK762 ♦5 ♣Ax [he mentions that Culbertson recommends 1♠ on this hand]

[MrAce]

First off, the argument WE HAD was never bid versus pass. The argument was pass versus an all-in of 4 hearts from 2nd seat while vulnerable. I wholeheartedly said that I believed a 4 hearts bid was wow....absurd.

 

Do not bother to go back and read. Here is what I wrote in that topic and I arranged a poll after that. It speaks for itself! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

 

This!

I wanted to write and in fact did write similar things yesterday in this topic but then I realized I was too harsh to passers and deleted, decided not to post. Arend said it more polite than I could.

Even thought of passing sounds insane to me!

 

I made a poll at BW for this hand.

To be honest I expected a lot of pass vote from amateurs and NO pass vote from good players. I was wrong and there are 2 good players who passed.

Still the overwhelming majority of experts there, including Meckstroth, did not pass.

 

http://bridgewinners...m-2-nhbyore3be/

 

And here is your own words before the poll.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

 

PLAY YOUR POSITION regardless of your professed rating or title. If you have a garbage hand, sit in the corner, be quiet in the auction, and respond when asked (e.g. takeout doubles and forcing bids). Otherwise press PASS and allow your partner to do his job effectively without all of the unwarranted, distracting NOISE coming from the West seat.

 

I will go back and check but I don't think I had an issue with 2 hearts or 3 hearts because those were bids that saved bidding space for the guy called partner across the table who hasn't even bid yet.

 

 

Ooops!http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

 

 

 

But still, with all of the buckets available 34 passers is statistically significant.

 

Mr. Ace, your use of innuendo and celebrity endorsement is phenomenal. You said at the time that 24 voted for pass and 2 of them are good players. The 2 good players were juxtapose to the remaining 22. Now, product placement matters when you are marketing an unspoken idea.

 

So, what are you suggesting about the quality of the remaining 22 players who voted pass? Are they good players? Are they neutral players? Are they randoms? Are they brilliant? Are they woefully inadequate? Are they "insufficient information to determine"?

 

You don't exactly say but you appear to have a convenient ellipses on this matter. You don't bother to fill in the blanks on this subgroup. Hmmmm.

I love this. If you noticed I only mentioned the good players. Those are the ones that I know as good players. It is your own pathetic effort to show this as if I see the others as "fools" and therefore they should be dismissed. Even just 1 name I mentioned actually says it all. It is like comparing a killer whale with any other sea creature when it comes to be at the top of the food chain in the ocean! Do you even remember that "celebrity endorsement" that you are crying about was started with you? Do you even remember it was you who mentioned Meckstroth first? You have no idea whatsoever about the names who are silent but following these forums daily. You exactly tried to gloat about something Meckstroth said which had nothing to do with 4♥ opening and tried to sell his words about precision 1♦ opening as a reference. You said "Wait a minute! Did a world champ said this..." At this point I decided to step up and let the Meckstroth himself speak for himself with his vote. Not for 1D openings, not for any other thing but exactly his vote on the hand you are debating. Now suddenly it became my innuendo of celebrity endorsement?

 

I know it is not pleasant when you are pimpin around with names and giving lectures to get your *** handed to you. But who said pimpin is easy? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif That is OK though. I can arrange polls without saying a word here at the end about the voters. It obviously upsets you. Fair enough. Here is a poll about this hand and what people prefer to open. I will NOT comment on voters, I promise! And FYI, I did not even vote!

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-f08os2cof9/

[RedSpawn]

A bidding system can be either like a natural language (e.g. English), where the meaning of a call/sequence is determined by its use, or like an artficial language (e.g. Esperanto), where the meaning follows from definitions that are entirely up the inventor of the system.

 

Even a "natural" system like Max Hardy's 2/1 GF should be thought of as an artificial language where the meaning of a 2♣ opening is whatever its inventor says it is. (We can disagree with Hardy about design choices, but not about what 2♣ shows in his system.)

 

In Norway, most good tournament players say the play 2/1, although I suspect only a few of them has ever read relevant books by e.g. Bergen, Hardy or Lawrence. The vast majority are just trying to play what their peers are playing, which happens to be a system that is far removed from American 2/1 dialects. I think the 2♣ opening illustrates this well, because it seems to have evolved from the very old "Halle's 2♣"¹, which has a lot in common with the Benji/SEF 2♣ opening.

 

While we forumers can pretend we all speak Natural, what we really speak are different dialects. So the same call made by a American or Norwegian can be false friends, just like the 'rar' (Eng.: 'weird') in Norwegian and 'rar' (Eng.: 'friendly') in Danish.

 

 

Very provocative and thought-provoking. I agree with the analysis especially about the evolution of the 2♣ amongst the various dialects.

 

This makes it very difficult for any group to put very tight handcuffs on a 2♣ bid. No one has a monopoly on this bid. Like all other bids we have recommended guidelines which make it tough for tournament directors to rule on the misuse of this bid.

[RedSpawn]

Mr Ace, we were talking about a 4 hearts All in bid versus pass. If these were the two choices, I would say the person holding 1098765432♥ should sit down, be quiet, pass and not bid 4 hearts.

 

In fact, MsJennifer chimed in and said show her some authoritative text that recommends opening T98765432♥ as a 4♥bid. See the posted quote below.

 

Please show me anywhere in the string where I said that 2hearts or 3hearts is absurd or insane or ridiculous.

 

In fact, I believe it was your "insane" comment about passing as well as a few comments from others (along with some condescending sounding e-mail signatures) that made Msjennifer feel attacked. That would be my guess, but you would need to talk to the source to be sure.

 

It appears you want to teach EIGHT voters to drop out of the class.I have not seen even a single renowned book on bidding various systems advocating to open with s bid Of 4 H on the garbage hand.Perhaps your new book may change the face of bridge and I wish good luck to you.Your super champion intentions are meant only to obstruct opponents and also your partner.I follow what is given in the text books and my teacher ,who has international repute having won many events like the Reisinger et all.He just asked me to IGNORE your and others comments saying "They have the right to open 4H ,but at the same time they are not ENTTLED to ridicule others not agreeing with them".A very POLITE answer indeed ! So I shall just ignore the rebukes and continue to enjoy bridge in my own way by not opening on the garbage.Good Luck.

 

By the way, have you talked to MsJennifer yet or have you decided that she was probably mistaken about her interpretation as to how she was treated by you and others?

 

I will edit this post and provide the quotes that show we were discussing all-in 4♥ versus pass.

 

I didn't subscribe to bridge winners so I don't have a listing of the votes, but there is no mistake about where your loyalties were on the poll. I said johnu the statistical guru voted 4♥.

 

By the way, I said the 4 hearts voting group reconciled with your bridge sensibilities. Therefore, it is not surprise that their marketing treatment was more favorable and didn't include glaring omissions like the 22 individual subgroup who voted PASS. And please remember that you are officially on record for saying that the thought of Passing sounds insane to you.

 

While we are here, please explain the quality of the remaining 22 players. 2 are good players and the remaining 22 players are. . . ___________________". What are you suggesting about the quality of the remaining 22 players who voted pass? Are they good players? Are they neutral players? Are they randoms? Are they brilliant? Are they woefully inadequate? Are they "insufficient information to determine"? Are they potentially insane?

 

This will help remove incorrect inferences or conclusions. Thanks.

[Vampyr]

For example, has anyone even talked to Msjennifer about how she said she felt attacked after voting for pass on the 4♥ winner hand or was that too just delusional posturing by another random?

 

Why don't you tell us since you know all about it?

 

In any case, I have just gone back over that thread and can confirm that msjennifer was not attacked.

[RedSpawn]

Why don't you tell us since you know all about it?

 

In any case, I have just gone back over that thread and can confirm that msjennifer was not attacked.

 

Any bid except PASS is a bad bid in second seat .The WORST possible bid is 4Hearts.I shall pass.

I fully agree with rmnka447 and the argument that has been made therein.

 

I can't believe anyone would pass this. If 4H breaks this partnership, then you should be glad to get out. Oh. And if you were taught that 4H shows 8 tricks at equal vulnerability, then it's about time to drop out of the class and start forgetting what you were taught.

 

This hand makes 7 tricks in hearts, and 0 elsewhere. End of story.

Let us not forget the e-mail signature following this statement, "Obviously we have a recall bias in favour of the @$$h)le$." -helene_t. To remain compliant with the BBO forum policy I have censored the curse word.

 

This!

I wanted to write and in fact did write similar things yesterday in this topic but then I realized I was too harsh to passers and deleted, decided not to post. Arend said it more polite than I could.

Even thought of passing sounds insane to me!

And let us not forget his email signature after saying this, "Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity is boundless"

 

You are absolutely right, a reasonably prudent lady would not be offended at all by any of these comments taken as a whole, especially with the attached e-mail signatures.

 

It appears you want to teach EIGHT voters to drop out of the class.I have not seen even a single renowned book on bidding various systems advocating to open with s bid Of 4 H on the garbage hand.Perhaps your new book may change the face of bridge and I wish good luck to you.Your super champion intentions are meant only to obstruct opponents and also your partner.I follow what is given in the text books and my teacher ,who has international repute having won many events like the Reisinger et all.He just asked me to IGNORE your and others comments saying "They have the right to open 4H ,but at the same time they are not ENTTLED to ridicule others not agreeing with them".A very POLITE answer indeed ! So I shall just ignore the rebukes and continue to enjoy bridge in my own way by not opening on the garbage.Good Luck.

 

I don't want to read too much into her statements here, but it seems to me she feels that she has received rebukes and she has been ridiculed.

 

Also, when she said that PASS is the best bid and 4♥ is the worst bid, all bets were off. That statement alone did not reconcile with the collective's bridge sensibilities and statements started pouring using vernacular like "insane" and others said she needs to consider dropping her bridge teacher since he is not teaching preemptive techniques that world-class players use. The e-mail signatures with these statements did not help matters as they appear to have a condescending tone to them.

 

Now, if you believe I have misread this posting from MsJennifer, especially with respect to her feeling that she has received rebukes and been ridiculed, please show me where.

 

Have we done our due diligence here and talked to the offended lady or have we dismissed her statements as not worthy of further clarification?

 

Why don't the gentlemen who allegedly attacked her find out why a lady would feel this way?

 

Why don't the gentleman who suggested the thought of those who passed the 109765432♥ is insane to him ask msjennifer? Did she misinterpret the e-mail signature, perhaps?

 

Why do you want me to do that dirty work when the alleged attackers are right here in the forum? :unsure:

 

You have concluded that Jennifer was not attacked. Have you confirmed that with the source, Jennifer? Or have we determined that her feelings and statements have no intellectual merit?

[Jinksy]

The 'offended lady' in a related and concurrent thread implied that aggressive bidders have 'unacceptable secret agreements made before the start of the event', so to put it bluntly, she can suck it. Accusing people of cheating because you don't like their bidding style is a lot worse than anything she suffered in the 4♥ thread.

[RedSpawn]

The 'offended lady' in a related and concurrent thread implied that aggressive bidders have 'unacceptable secret agreements made before the start of the event', so to put it bluntly, she can suck it. Accusing people of cheating because you don't like their bidding style is a lot worse than anything she suffered in the 4♥ thread.

 

:o :blink:

 

I don't even want to know what you are alleging she should "suck". Sounds to me like a potentially misogynistic comment.

 

I think the collective will ignore this as it seems to comply with BBO Forum standards.

[MrAce]

Mr Ace, we were talking about a 4 hearts All in bid versus pass. If these were the two choices, I would say the person holding 1098765432♥ should sit down, be quiet, pass and not bid 4 hearts.

 

In fact, MsJennifer chimed in and said show her some authoritative text that recommends opening T98765432♥ as a 4♥bid. See the posted quote below.

 

Please show me anywhere in the string where I said that 2hearts or 3hearts is absurd or insane or ridiculous.

 

In fact, I believe it was your "insane" comment about passing as well as a few comments from others (along with some condescending sounding e-mail signatures) that made Msjennifer feel attacked. That would be my guess, but you would need to talk to the source to be sure.

 

 

By the way, have you talked to MsJennifer yet or have you decided that she was probably mistaken about her interpretation as to how she was treated by you and others?

 

I will edit this post and provide the quotes that show we were discussing all-in 4♥ versus pass.

 

I didn't subscribe to bridge winners so I don't have a listing of the votes, but there is no mistake about where your loyalties were on the poll. I said johnu the statistical guru voted 4♥.

 

By the way, I said the 4 hearts voting group reconciled with your bridge sensibilities. Therefore, it is not surprise that their marketing treatment was more favorable and didn't include glaring omissions like the 22 individual subgroup who voted passed. And please remember that you are officially on record for saying that the thought of Passing sounds insane to you.

 

While we are here, please explain the quality of the remaining 22 players. 2 are good players and the remaining 22 players are. . . ___________________". This will help remove incorrect inferences or conclusions. Thanks.

 

Are you now suggesting that you disagree with the 4 ♥ voters? Because the way you favorably marketed this voter group hints where your vote would have been.

 

Dude, I don't give a damn about what MsJennifer was debating. I know what I was debating in that topic, which I quoted. I know damn well what you wrote which I also quoted above. You first drop the name of a world champ to endorse your ideas and I gave your head in a plate to your own hands. After that you tried to change the subject and attempted to show me as if I said "fools" and "therefore their votes should be dismissed" which are not remotely belong to me. What made you think everyone in that topic was replying to MsJennifer or to you. What I said there is still there.

 

Anyway, back to this VERY topic!

 

http://bridgewinners...m-2-f08os2cof9/

Oh! You can not still see the results of the poll? How sad! Don't worry I will broadcast the results for you! As for now it is 49 votes for 1♦, 2 votes for 2♣ and 1 vote for pass!

Enjoy it! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

[Jinksy]

:o :blink:

 

I don't even want to know what you are alleging she should "suck". Sounds to me like a potentially misogynistic comment.

 

Abusive? Sure. Though not as much as accusing someone of cheating.

 

Misogynistic? :lol: Suck it.

 

I'm not the one trying to play Sir Walter Raleigh to the purported damsel in distress.

[alok c]

Someone in this or in a related thread rightly commented Quote At least philG was more entertaining Unquote.

[MrAce]

I'm not the one trying to play Sir Walter Raleigh to the purported damsel in distress.

 

 

 

Dude! You are cracking me up!http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

I am still laughing!

You just created a new signature for me!

[RedSpawn]

Dude, I don't give a damn about what MsJennifer was debating. I know what I was debating in that topic, which I quoted. I know damn well what you wrote which I also quoted above. You first drop the name of a world champ to endorse your ideas and I gave your head in a plate to your own hands. After that you tried to change the subject and attempted to show me as if I said "fools" and "therefore their votes should be dismissed" which are not remotely belong to me. What made you think everyone in that topic was replying to MsJennifer or to you. What I said there is still there.

 

Anyway, back to this VERY topic!

 

http://bridgewinners...m-2-f08os2cof9/

Oh! You can not still see the results of the poll? How sad! Don't worry I will broadcast the results for you! As for now it is 49 votes for 1♦, 2 votes for 2♣ and 1 vote for pass!

Enjoy it! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

 

Dude,

 

If you didn't give a darn about Jennifer, you wouldn't have rung my e-mail box asking about what I found out. This occurred after Diana_Eva commented about bumping.

 

You particularly e-mailed me about the Jennifer situation. I told you go the source to find out, which apparently you didn't do.

 

That is humbling dirty work, and geniuses never do that. They try to get simpletons like me to do it for them. That's why I referred you right back to Jennifer.

 

So, let me get this right, you didn't care enough about Jennifer to e-mail me about her and ask me what I found out.

Or have you forgotten you sent me that e-mail?

 

{dropping the microphone}.

 

I guarantee you this "gentleman" will have amnesia and forget that he e-mailed me about Jennifer. It will be the perfect cover for plausible deniability.

 

It is gonna take time to post all of my 4hearts comments. I will however post them because I find it ironic that you want to lump FOUR CATEGORIES against one category and then compare the results. It's like tag-teaming all over again but this time its voting blocks.

[RedSpawn]

Abusive? Sure. Though not as much as accusing someone of cheating.

 

Misogynistic? :lol: Suck it.

 

I'm not the one trying to play Sir Walter Raleigh to the purported damsel in distress.

 

This is funny.

 

When you can't argue on the intellectual merit about the alleged attack that Jennifer received you name-call as a diversionary tactic.

 

I have reedited my posting to remove my name call because I refuse to sink to that level. I fell for it, I admit, but I have removed it because we need to remain focused on how you didn't even address any of the points about how it could be possible that she was offended.

 

What I am doing is showing you the fraternity mentality that the collective uses when they hear ideas that don't conform to their bridge sensibilities.

 

Once Jennifer said that the 4♥ was the worst bid and that PASS is best--all bets were off. The tag team commentary from the fraternity brothers started flowing in. The behind the door hi-fiving and the slap on the backs and the attaboy "I couldn't have said it better myself" comments came through loud and clear.

 

And I said in a different string {tongue in cheek} that the collective believes that Jennifer got what she deserved which seems so close to what Jinsky said that I am just . . .wow.

 

Good luck fellas, and I use that term very loosely.