[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]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 01:03, said:

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!

MrAce, on 2017-March-31, 16:16, said:

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!

MrAce, on 2017-April-04, 11:30, said:

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.

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-01, 13:28, said:

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.

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 01:03, said:

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!

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 01:03, said:

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? 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...m-2-f08os2cof9/

[RedSpawn]

nullve, on 2017-April-21, 03:28, said:

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.

msjennifer, on 2017-April-01, 03:16, said:

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]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 00:28, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-21, 08:37, said:

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.

msjennifer, on 2017-March-31, 04:32, said:

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.

cherdano, on 2017-March-31, 14:37, said:

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.

MrAce, on 2017-March-31, 16:16, said:

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.

msjennifer, on 2017-April-01, 03:16, said:

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?

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]

Jinksy, on 2017-April-21, 09:48, said:

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.

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]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 07:27, said:

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!

[Jinksy]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 10:24, said:

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? 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]

Jinksy, on 2017-April-21, 11:31, said:

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

Dude! You are cracking me up!
I am still laughing!
You just created a new signature for me!

[RedSpawn]

MrAce, on 2017-April-21, 11:17, said:

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!

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]

Jinksy, on 2017-April-21, 11:31, said:

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

Misogynistic? 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.

[RedSpawn]

.

[RedSpawn]

alok c, on 2017-April-21, 12:12, said:

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

Thank you for your comment. By the way, did you ever comment about the inappropriate quotation use of a world class player below?

Nope, you didn't provide any commentary on this matter after two different users revealed it was completely taken out of context. You stayed quiet on the 4hearts string....until now.

See when I screw up, everyone wants RedSpawn to come to the altar for forgiveness, but if others get busted for this, you get a "hall pass". You get to remain quiet about your error and hopefully it gets buried with other posts.

alok c, on 2017-April-03, 12:26, said:

" ----.The old system was based on controls & it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong.The distribution is the most important thing & you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first."
-Benito garozzo
Perhaps the greatest bridge player of all time.

johnu, on 2017-April-03, 16:11, said:

Pretty much irrevelant to the discussion about preempts. Garazzo was talking about strong 1♣ auctions and control responses or natural based responses. His comments had nothing to do with preemptive opening bids.

alok c, on 2017-April-03, 12:26, said:

" ----.The old system was based on controls & it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong.The distribution is the most important thing & you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first."
-Benito garozzo
Perhaps the greatest bridge player of all time.

Oh! You're good. . .real good!

But let's dig deeper and get the entire quote you happen to have locked away behind your ellipsis.

Here is the entire quote (italics, bold, & underline mine):

"The Blue Club system we played years ago is not good enough for top level play. Lea Du Pont and I have improved on it a lot and now it's ten times better than the old one. The old [Blue Club] system was based on controls & it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong. The distribution is the most important thing and you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first. When we played C. C. Wei and the Precision team, we developed Super Precision.

That was a fairly good system at the time but focused too much on controls and not enough on the shape of the hand. First it should be distribution and then only when you know enough about partner's hand should you worry about controls.

In pairs competition, you can effectively forget about slam bidding. You need to concentrate on declarer play and defense -- that is where most of the points are lost. At teams you need to have more system, particularly for competitive bidding. More than 70% of the auction nowadays are competitive and you have to know what you are doing."

Click the link below to read the entire quote from Google Books:


Blue Club System and Precision

So it seems he was referring to the Precision system and not SAYC. But I will indulge you with a very fair and valid question.

"First it should be distribution and then only when you know enough about partner's hand should you worry about controls."

If both teams are vulnerable, and you open the bidding in 2nd seat with 4♥ (because distribution matters 1st and suit controls later, even with 2 HCP hands). . . exactly where in the auction will you hear about your partner's hand to determine suit controls?

It seems to me that Garozzo was saying yes, distribution 1st but leave some bidding space in the auction for your partner to describe his hand so you can use Precision to subsequently evaluate suit controls.

Help me out here.

[RedSpawn]

MrAce, on 2017-April-20, 21:32, said:

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!

You are talking about this poll I think...

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

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.

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.

What I have asked is . . . .

• Does it concern you that 34 people out of possible 102 voted Pass even though that is insane to you. How did you overlook 34 people of a sample size of 102 people. That's approximately 33%! We here in America don't dismiss groups of the population that size.

I am going to let you answer me on this central issue. I am not talking about 2♣ right now, we can get to that one in a minute.

This is intriguing. You polled 102 people about a certain hand. 34 people voted a certain way (PASS) and it gets shoved to the back of the line as having little to no intellectual merit?

MrAce, how in the world....this poll is jilted from the start.

You create at least five voting categories for this hand at the start.

You have at least 4 categories of bids (that will ultimately be aggregated) competing against one category of PASS.

Wow. . . . .You aggregated the voting categories of various bids -- even though the question was not asked that way. The question was asked as Pass,2♥,3♥,4♥,5♥ etc. Each category was given its own unique identity for voting purposes but it wasn't kept that way for final presentation. We have 68 versus 34. Ummm, no.

I think you need to keep the voting categories separated in your presentation because the crux of our argument was always an all-in 4♥ versus Pass. If you don't believe me refer refer to Jennifer's comments. And I know I said in my personal opinion I think 4♥ is provocative and absurd. I will try to reach out to Jennifer because I think this is a "marketing issue" again.

If you ultimately have at least four categories of bids competing against one category of pass, the optics alone looks statistically skewed. I don't think most people would co-sign this aggregation approach.

PLEASE REPORT ALL THE INDIVIDUAL VOTING BLOCKS for the 1098765432♥ hand by bid level so we can see the proper distribution. Thanks.

[masse24]

Strangely . . . and significantly, we have yet to hear commentary from Redspawn about the know-nothings who voted here to open 1♦. Among the 1♦ bidders are at least 9 or 10 national caliber and world class players. Remarkably, there are still only two who think this is a 2♣ open, totaling a whopping majority (well, not quite a majority) of 3%.

Apparently the 1♦ bidders did not get the memo on hand assessment and bidding theory. Had they attended the Redspawn Academy of Metaphorical Hyperbole they would know that (and I quote):

• "he has a royal hand"

• "and must sound the trumpets."

• "roll out the carpet,"

• "and open up 2 ♣ to put his partner on official notice"

• "that he has a potential barn burner that warrants [a] game ending contract."

I am curious, Redspawn, does the thought ever cross your mind that maybe--just maybe--others may know more than you? And maybe--just maybe--choosing a 3% action when world-class players (who are choosing an action diametrically opposed to yours) is an opportunity to enlighten yourself? To figure out exactly why your thinking is different than theirs?

If not, then it appears as though your knowledge of the game has crystallized at its current level.

Which is good.

Because, quite frankly, it's very entertaining!

[RedSpawn]

masse24, on 2017-April-21, 14:07, said:

Strangely . . . and significantly, we have yet to hear commentary from Redspawn about the know-nothings who voted here to open 1♦. Among the 1♦ bidders are at least 9 or 10 national caliber and world class players. Remarkably, there are still only two who think this is a 2♣ open, totaling a whopping majority (well, not quite a majority) of 3%.

Apparently the 1♦ bidders did not get the memo on hand assessment and bidding theory. Had they attended the Redspawn Academy of Metaphorical Hyperbole they would know that (and I quot
I am curious, Redspawn, does the thought ever cross your mind that maybe--just maybe--others may know more than you? And maybe--just maybe--choosing a 3% action when world-class players (who are choosing an action diametrically opposed to yours) is an opportunity to enlighten yourself? To figure out exactly why your thinking is different than theirs?

If not, then it appears as though your knowledge of the game has crystallized at its current level.

Which is good.

Because, quite frankly, it's very entertaining!

I don't have a problem with world class players knowing more than me

What I do have a problem with is when these world class players abuse a quote by a world class player to prove a point to me and I and others reveal their error and instead of manning up and acknowledging the error, they disappear or don't address their error.

However, these same players who don't man up about their own errors will reappear later to throw a poisoned dart.

I have also had good players acknowledge that they made the error but somehow suggest that my fantasyland ideas caused them to make this unforced error which is not what accountability is about. Own your mess lock, stock, and barrel.

What I like about Jeff Meckstroth is that he acknowledges he made a mistake and he wants to learn from it and keeps it moving. He is not invested in image management to the point of denying the existence of his errors. This is very telling and the mark of a true champion.

I will get to 2♣ in a minute, we have a major issue over the previous poll where the author has decided to overlook a 33% voting block. 102 people voted over at least 5 separate categories of bids, and 34 out of 102 voted people voted PASS. The author is not presenting the data in the separate blocks that people could vote. He is aggregating the data for some reason. We need to see the individual blocks for each type of ♥ vote. And I want to keep my eye focused on the 4♥ category versus the PASS category.

I am sure this presentation will reveal something fundamentally different than the discussion that he, Jennifer, I and several others had.

This changes the outlook very much because the crux of the argument in the previous poll was all-in on 4♥ versus Pass, but the author is not presenting the final results that way. He wants to present PASS versus any ♥ bid. And to me, that is not intellectually honest, that is skewed for marketing purposes.

PLEASE REPORT ALL THE INDIVIDUAL VOTING BLOCKS for the 1098765432♥ by bid level so we can see the proper distribution. Thanks.

I agree with you this is very entertaining to conveniently displace 34 out of 102 people and have them compete against four other voting blocks (lumped together).