[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Feb 22 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

You are the most arrogant poster I have ever seen in my life. You say things directly like...

Damn... I'm really losing my touch.

[fred]

Last night I had a chance to ask my regular partner (Brad Moss) about what he thought about this sequence. He said:

1) About 4D (immediate response): DEFINITELY (capitals his) non-forcing.

2) About 4H (10 second delay): Strange bid, would not expect you to make this bid, but it is obviously non-forcing. I would Pass if I had a good hand in context for hearts.

3) About the concept of using 4H as an some artificial bid: Might be useful as an artificial slam try in diamonds, but we are NOT (capitals his) making this agreement.

Not that this proves anything other than that I have found myself an appropriate partner (which I knew already).

Note to Ken: it is NOT (capitals mine) absurd or foolish to think you one can bid successfully without having definitions of what a bid *shows*. You can also have a successful auction by considering what a bid *means*. In other words, you can (or at least I can) define somes bids in terms of *intention* instead of *description* and do just fine.

Anyways, I have had just about enough of this. If you can't accept the argument put forth by another poster that "since a bunch of really good players thinks x then x is probably right" argument, I can understand that. If you don't agree with the arguments that these players make to justify x, that is also your right.

But in my view it is most impolite to call these arguments foolish or absurd. It is not that hard to respectfully disagree with people who should have earned your respect, especially when such people have gone out of their way to try to help you become a more successful player.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

This thread is getting a little too hot. Please stick to bridge issues rather than name calling, or I will be force to lock it. And for justin, there are a lot of arrogant posters here... it would be very difficult to name one as the most arrogant. And to Ken, I have always seen Justin agreeing with your use of 4♥ as cue-bid for ♠, slam try and no club control is the best treatment, so your battle with him has never made sense to me.

[Apollo81]

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

[mikeh]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

You're a dangerous thinker, Appollo

[cherdano]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

Can I vote for myself?

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Feb 22 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

Can I vote for myself?

You could, but you'd be wrong

[Free]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

=> watercooler

[inquiry]

Free, on Feb 22 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

maybe someone should post a poll about who the most arrogant posters are

=> watercooler

personal attacks on members are not allowed, even in the watercooler.

[kenrexford]

OK. Fair enough. It does sound arrogant.

That was not my intention. It was, rather, a reaction to what I perceived as arrogance directed at me. When some people articulate things like attackiong my idea with claims as to how all these other people are much better players than I am (see Justin's comments) rather than addressing the argument, especially when I have never played with or against Justin, then I'm being attacked from an arrogant person, and demeaned.

When I try to articulate how my thinking makes sense to me, and the reaction is to call my thinking nonstandard, esoteric, or poor bridge, frought with potential for disaster and not good partnership bidding, rather than addressing the merits, then, again, I am being attacked from an arrogant point of view.

I was probably disrespectful, in reaction to extreme belittling of me. I admit that and apologize for my part, especially to the innocent bystanders dragged into this.

From the perspective of the interest of this issue. Whether you agree or not, does it not seem logical for a general approach to bidding to allow the person who has defined their hands most to complete the picture? The cost of X...4♦ being nonforcing is that Responder cannot use 4♦ as a waiting bid. (Perhaps the better course might be for 4♦ to be non-forcing and for 4♣ to be simply waiting, which is what I have never written but secretly thought, namely that 4♥ may be the only slam move agreeing spades, but that is another issue.)

What you end up with is this. Assume that 4♥ will be bid by one partner, the other deciding where to play. If Opener bids 4♥, and Responder decides what to do, Opener's parameters will be relatively complete, and Responder will be well-placed. If, however, Responder bids 4♥, his parameters are much wider, and Opener will be much less informed for the choice.

So, it seems that the best technique would be for Responder to have the cheapest punt bid available (maybe 4♣, maybe 4♦ forcing), to enable the partner who has already described so much to complete the picture.

If this is not standard, this may be worth discussing? Although I've never discussed this with any partner, I now think that 1X-3Y-X-P-3Z-P-4Y should not be a slam move, but rather waiting for pattern completion. This happens to allow 4♥ to be LTTC for spades, which I admittedly want to keep, but it also solves many problems for a partner who uses a flexible double and needs more intel before placing the contract.

So, again, sorry to those who got blasted by me unnecessarily. Justin is a hopeless cause when it comes to me and my posts. Fred, I respect you immensely and am sorry that we seem to have such friction.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Feb 22 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

So, again, sorry to those who got blasted by me unnecessarily. Justin is a hopeless cause when it comes to me and my posts. Fred, I respect you immensely and am sorry that we seem to have such friction.

Apology accepted - no hard feelings.

But you might not realize that Justin is already in the same league as me as a player. By the time he is my age (another 20+ years) I think there is a good chance he will be widely recognized as the best player in the world (and not just because all the other great players are dead).

So even if you don't like his style, I suggest you listen to his bridge insights. If I can learn from reading Justin's post then probably you can too.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

fred, on Feb 22 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

  By the time he is my age (another 20+ years) I think there is a good chance he will be widely recognized as the best player in the world (and not just because all the other great players are dead).

No offense to justin, but is Joe Grue going to be dead in 20 years? And to Justin, what the heck, Number 2 is probably not that bad.

[mikeh]

Ken, your 'apology' reminds me of an apology that one of my clients received in a libel action we brought: 'I am sorry that your conduct made me say things that you don't like'. That apology did not work

You still don't seem to 'get it'. No one is telling you that your intepretation of the logical meaning of 4♥ is silly or weird. Those of us who disagree do so on the basis that, at the table, we'd default to 'undiscussed bids of this nature are offers to play' rather than 'undiscussed bids of this nature are cues, trying for slam and carrying inferences about other controls or lack thereof'.

You seem to feel that your view is the only legitimate view... and that is the arrogance that has attracted the criticisms that drive you to frustration. It is your attitude towards this issue that causes the attacks on you.. and this has been ennunciated time and again: perhaps most clearly in this thread but also in other threads. Justin is somewhat less reticient than others in his criticism (altho I suspect that most see me as not too far behind), but it is a fallacy (and an arrogant fallacy, at that) to claim that the fault lies in others... on this thread, in terms of the criticisms directed at you, the fault lies squarely with you: NOT because you think 4♥ SHOULD mean a cue denying a ♣ control but because you refuse to consider that others may legitimately disagree. None of us would 'attack' you if you had merely said: "personally, I think that 4♥ most logically should mean the following, and I am sufficiently confident of that, that I would expect my partners to work it out... but I recognize that others may legitimately disagree.... I'll do what Fred did (with Moss) and check it out"

But you didn't: you said that your meaning is simple and the bid is unambiguous to tbe point that you'd expect Fred (and Justin) to have agreed if they were your partner... it is so clear, from your pov, that you got frustrated with the presumably moronic or wilfully blind majority of posters who saw it as less than 100% clear or...worse... actually contemplated other meanings as more plausible.

As one who prefers an alternative meaning for 4♥, but recognizes that this is ambiguous, I find it insulting to be told by you, inferentially, that I must be an idiot for disagreeing with you. You complain about attacks on your ability and experience, but you bring those on, or make the situation worse, by your references to your partner being asked for bidding advice by Hamman and that partner (or another) creating a text with your help... and that if we don't know that, we don't know what we are talking about.

I know Justin's accomplishments. I know Fred's accomplishments. I have been a teammate of Fred in two world championships. I know nothing of you... and 27 years of playing does not amount to 'experience' of the sort that Justin and Fred have. As I said earlier, that doesn't mean that your theories are wrong (note that Justin agrees with you as to the preferred meaning of the call), but it does mean that most (me, for one) will need to see some pretty persuasive reasoning on your part to convince us that you are 100% right. And your (many-times-repeated) arguments fall short, in at least my view. Loosen up: recognize that there is more than one logical interpretation.

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Feb 22 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

I know nothing of you... and 27 years of playing does not amount to 'experience' of the sort that Justin and Fred have. As I said earlier, that doesn't mean that your theories are wrong (note that Justin agrees with you as to the preferred meaning of the call), but it does mean that most (me, for one) will need to see some pretty persuasive reasoning on your part to convince us that you are 100% right.

Ken is probably too humble to share this with you, so as a way of introduction, here is a link about him... Cuebdding blog

His book "Cue bidding at bridge, a modern approach" covers such topics as this 4♥ bid being a cue-bid.... (not sure if that specific example is in the book, however. So he is at least speaking on this topic as someone who has "written" the (a) book as it was. You can also find it and one great and one not so great revfiew on Amazon. Someone I respect said the book had some good ideas in it.

Amazon link

His vested interest in the topic might explain some of his reaction, and remember, justin agrees his approach here is best assuming you have such an agreement in place with your partner.

[fred]

inquiry, on Feb 22 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 22 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

  By the time he is my age (another 20+ years) I think there is a good chance he will be widely recognized as the best player in the world (and not just because all the other great players are dead).

No offense to justin, but is Joe Grue going to be dead in 20 years? And to Justin, what the heck, Number 2 is probably not that bad.

I probably should have said "widely recognized as one of the best players in the world".

I don't think anyone has ever been widely recognized as the best player in the world. Strange that there are no Michael Jordans in bridge...

Agree that Joe Grue (who will be my teammate for 2 years starting in the July) also rates to make it into this class.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

inquiry, on Feb 22 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

fred, on Feb 22 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

  By the time he is my age (another 20+ years) I think there is a good chance he will be widely recognized as the best player in the world (and not just because all the other great players are dead).

No offense to justin, but is Joe Grue going to be dead in 20 years? And to Justin, what the heck, Number 2 is probably not that bad.

I found this backhanded comment as rude as any of them.

Do you think Fred's compliment was intended as saying there will be no other great players in 20 years?

Think of it this way, someone pays you a nice compliment and the next person says "No offense, but I think this other person is better than you and always will be."

For someone that is supposed to be a moderator and try to prevent flame wars from happening, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed.

[inquiry]

Fred, congradulations on your selection of a new teammate. Maybe playing on your team, Joe might make it to the top reaches sooner than 20 years....many great players don't get the recognition they deserve because they never won it all... hopefully, the new team will go all the way... Joe's play (from what I have seen and read about) really impresses me.

[inquiry]

Echognome, on Feb 22 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 22 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

fred, on Feb 22 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

  By the time he is my age (another 20+ years) I think there is a good chance he will be widely recognized as the best player in the world (and not just because all the other great players are dead).

No offense to justin, but is Joe Grue going to be dead in 20 years? And to Justin, what the heck, Number 2 is probably not that bad.

I found this backhanded comment as rude as any of them.

Do you think Fred's compliment was intended as saying there will be no other great players in 20 years?

Think of it this way, someone pays you a nice compliment and the next person says "No offense, but I think this other person is better than you and always will be."

For someone that is supposed to be a moderator and try to prevent flame wars from happening, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed.

Are you serious? Do you mean to say I can not pay a complement to one player without insulting justin? Do you even think anyone will ever be unanomously recongnized as the greatest bridge player? I would vote Bob Hamman today, Benito years ago, but people will disagree with both.

If I was to say that the Univerity of Florida is the greatest basketball team, would it be an insult if someone else said, no it is North Carolina, or Wisconson, or UCLA, or Ohio State. Or someone would say forget that, you can't measure greatest by todays standards, clearly the greatest is Duke or kentucky or ucla based on lifetime acheivements.

I am certain Justin took no offense whatso ever, and if you want to know the truth, I suspect at some time, Lall and Grue will be on the same team and winning many world championships together (not necessarily as partners, but team mates).

And on top of that, I put a smiley face on my post, to show I the intent was to be humerous. To be honest, I think some of the current middle age guys who will be old guys in 20 years might still get the recognition as being the "best". Fred got the point with his "among the best"... as who really is number one will never be truely establishable.