[kenrexford]

You need not respond, Mike. However, if you happen to read this, you might observe a few things.

First, the original poster thanked me because my answer is what he was looking for. And I in fact was correct as to his understanding. This seems to win the theory debate for me.

Second, your post immediately after his thanks is ironic in the timing.

Third, if you had not ranted about pet conventions with such unjustified and errant arrogance, juxtaposed as it was to thanks from the original poster, you would not have been called out for being a boorish dolt.

Maybe think on these things. It might help you.

[CSGibson]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-17, 13:44, said:

You need not respond, Mike. However, if you happen to read this, you might observe a few things.

First, the original poster thanked me because my answer is what he was looking for. And I in fact was correct as to his understanding. This seems to win the theory debate for me.

Second, your post immediately after his thanks is ironic in the timing.

Third, if you had not ranted about pet conventions with such unjustified and errant arrogance, juxtaposed as it was to thanks from the original poster, you would not have been called out for being a boorish dolt.

Maybe think on these things. It might help you.

I think this is really over the top. I disagree with Mike's assessment of the value of presenting alternative bidding solutions in this case, but I've found him to be helpful and even nice when pointing out I'm an idiot previously - he usually talks around it instead of saying it straight out. And he definitely adds a great amount of insight and value to the forum - I think of him as one of the level heads around here, and one who is always willing to expound upon his idea into multiple paragraphs of actual understandable logic.

[kenrexford]

CSGibson, on 2014-January-17, 14:03, said:

I think this is really over the top. I disagree with Mike's assessment of the value of presenting alternative bidding solutions in this case, but I've found him to be helpful and even nice when pointing out I'm an idiot previously - he usually talks around it instead of saying it straight out. And he definitely adds a great amount of insight and value to the forum - I think of him as one of the level heads around here, and one who is always willing to expound upon his idea into multiple paragraphs of actual understandable logic.

what part of calling the correct answer that the original poster wanted a masturbatory pet convention with four paragraphs about people essentially trolling would qualify as
Valuable insight and nice?

[CSGibson]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-17, 14:39, said:

what part of calling the correct answer that the original poster wanted a masturbatory pet convention with four paragraphs about people essentially trolling would qualify as
Valuable insight and nice?

I'm aware of your tricks, lawyer! Where did I say that particular post was valuable insight and nice? Your question appears to assume a false premise as fact. Stop with that wordplay trickeration!

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-17, 14:39, said:

what part of calling the correct answer that the original poster wanted a masturbatory pet convention with four paragraphs about people essentially trolling would qualify as
Valuable insight and nice?

What part of the OP persuaded you that you were the subject of the masturbatory comment?

For example, I clearly implied that I play the strong walsh: iow, I would adopt your suggested answer! I later explicitly stated that many 2/1 players play that, and that accordingly I think I implied that your answer was excellent for many, many people, and finding that the OP seems to have agreed is therefore unsurprising. I went on to set out some ideas for those who play differently than do you and I.

There were posts to which I intended to refer, and perhaps I went overboard...I think I'd not use the masturbatory word had I paused a little longer before pressing send but, frankly, I find cyberyeti's invariable use of weird treatments, coupled with what I infer to be his claim that his methods are infallible, to be as difficult to take as I assume he finds my responses Suggesting, as he seems to have suggested, that he would rebid and thinks a 2/1 bidder should rebid 2♣ as opener, rather than 1♥ seems idiotic. He has even designed his system so that 2♦ is now an artificial ask...and he is either recommending that as an IA 2/1 solution or he is showing off with no intention of helping the OP. Now that is the sort of post to which I was referring. Your initial response, by contrast, provided a valid 2/1 approach, but fell short, imo, of being as full an answer as I prefer to give (which is not a fault of yours) by making what I know to be an invalid assumption: that 2/1 invariably uses strong walsh.

You might ask yourself why you felt that you were being singled out for criticism by a post that, to the extent it referred to you, did so by expressing agreement with your suggestion, merely adding that for those who don't play strong walsh, here is an alternative...

[kenrexford]

Actually, I didn't feel singled out, for the reason you said. However, two things set me off.

1. I thought the conversation was a good one, but you seemed to throw everyone who posted before you into a group while doing the same thing you called out. So, as the poster who was probably on the most solid ground but clearly included in the discussion (Walsh was a major point) I was defending the crowd.

2. The tone was so frigging arrogant. And you doubled down on that approach.

[kenrexford]

I laughed at cyberyeti, btw. So we had a lot of agreement on that issue. LOL

[Cyberyeti]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-17, 15:53, said:

I laughed at cyberyeti, btw. So we had a lot of agreement on that issue. LOL

Most of these are only truly weird to you because we have a lot more freedom in that we know partner has 4 clubs for a 1♣ opener. It radically simplifies getting to the right place when both partners have clubs. Given the definition I read when I joined BBO, you virtually have to be an international to call yourself an expert, so I only qualify as advanced, hence I post this sort of thing in I/A as it should be for players of my own standard.

Certainly on my posts, unless I post that a problem is to be done using my system, I'm always happy to see other peoples' weird and wonderful treatments, maybe I learn something.

[kenrexford]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-17, 16:42, said:

Most of these are only truly weird to you because we have a lot more freedom in that we know partner has 4 clubs for a 1♣ opener. It radically simplifies getting to the right place when both partners have clubs. Given the definition I read when I joined BBO, you virtually have to be an international to call yourself an expert, so I only qualify as advanced, hence I post this sort of thing in I/A as it should be for players of my own standard.

Certainly on my posts, unless I post that a problem is to be done using my system, I'm always happy to see other peoples' weird and wonderful treatments, maybe I learn something.

I was joking, of course.

[mr1303]

We've seen a number of potentially interesting threads locked down because of two or three posters who can't be polite.

I don't want this one to be another one. So if mikeh, kenrexford and csgibson can't be civil on here, can you go and be uncivil elsewhere?

[the hog]

it seems that K. Rexford is at it again - arguing about things he knows very little about. Can you provide evidence about your assertions regarding strong Walsh being a part of 2/1?. I think not. Can you even provide evidence to show that any form of Walsh is part of 2/1? I think not.

How about changing your comments to "gibberish out and even more gibberish out".

[CSGibson]

mr1303, on 2014-January-17, 21:39, said:

We've seen a number of potentially interesting threads locked down because of two or three posters who can't be polite.

I don't want this one to be another one. So if mikeh, kenrexford and csgibson can't be civil on here, can you go and be uncivil elsewhere?

Show me a single breach of civility of mine in this thread, or apologize for giving the impression that I have been uncivil.

[lycier]

CSGibson, on 2014-January-16, 17:56, said:

my own auction playing my preferred xyz methods would be:

1♣-1♦,
1♥-2♦*, Transfer to hearts, either game forcing or drop dead
2♥-2♠, Accept transfer (not just shy of a jump shift), patterning out & showing GF 5+♦, 4+♥
3♣-3♦, Values or advanced cues
3♥-3♠, Values or advanced cues
4♠-5♣, Kickback, showing 0 or 3
5♥-5♠, (systemic, with 0 pass, with 3 clarify the Q situation, 1st step denies the Q but shows 3 keycards)
6♥

my own auction playing my preferred xyz methods would be:

---

So actually this is simple bidding sequences.it is not a hard problem.

[Cyberyeti]

deleted, wrong thread

[kenrexford]

the hog, on 2014-January-18, 03:13, said:

it seems that K. Rexford is at it again - arguing about things he knows very little about. Can you provide evidence about your assertions regarding strong Walsh being a part of 2/1?. I think not. Can you even provide evidence to show that any form of Walsh is part of 2/1? I think not.

How about changing your comments to "gibberish out and even more gibberish out".

I would imagine that Max Hardy ' 2/1 Game Force book, which is probably the most authoritative text for standard 2/1 gF, works? His version includes strong Walsh. P. 44.

This is funny. I answered the question correctly for the poster. He thanked me. Mike wants me to discuss nuances of strong walsh, weak walsh, standard American, t-walsh, Montreal relay, and other unknowns to be accepted. Hog doesn't believe me and wants citation of authority, without which I am presumed by him to be spouting gibberish.

[MrAce]

Ken, i don't think even those who plays Strong Walsh will agree with you on 2♥ being GF. I agree with you and i have been using it as GF for over 2 decades. But i also agree with Mike that it is not what you think it is for everyone else, including those who plays strong walsh.

If you look at the past walsh topics, i suggested that very long time ago. (1♣-1♦-1M-2M being GF and 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ being a relay forcing bid instead of 4th suit or natural without 4 card hearts) Phil Clayton was one of the first against it but later admitted that it comes a lot. I was even LOL ed for it by some BBF members Me and him started calling it "Timo convention" because i provided some relay bids and some other auctions how to get out of relays when needed, beside the fact that i was the only one who defended this idea, surprisingly to me not only in BBF but also in other forums. I have never seen anyone who said "yes, it is GF" At best i was told that it is an interesting idea, and that they never thought of it.

Imo it is an overlooked area if you are playing a walsh style where you respond diamonds only with GF hands, when there is a major suit next to it. And not been discussed by a lot of pdships.

I was told, if i remember correctly, by Justin, that 2♥ shows exactly 3 card hearts, and some invitation hand or something similar to this (i am not good at finding past topics) and that this is the std. After that i asked "when was the last time anyone encountered this " And i also mentioned that, if we ever gonna spare a bid for a specific hand type, it better makes a huge difference when it comes. I did not and still do not believe the suggested 3 card ♥ usage of 2♥ bringing too much on the table, if any. And the debate died at some point.

So, i understand your logic on this specific auction, and i like it. But i don't think it is std and after seeing people's reaction, i would not even do it w/o agreement. I would not be sure if pd would take it as forcing, and even if he does, he would not be sure if i meant it as forcing. Because it is unusual situation where you make a GF bid by raising openers 2nd suit at 1 level, to 2 level.

[monikrazy]

Perhaps this has changed in Max Hardy's most recent works but I have two books of his (2/1 revised expanded and Standard Bidding in the 21st Century) and his only mention of Walsh bidding is for Walsh Relays after 1NT opens.

[eagles123]

bit pathetic arguing on an internet forum but fwiw in general i agree with Mike. Nothing more annoying than some smart git giving u the run down on how HIS/HER system would've got to a certain contract when it is clearly not applicable to the level of the OP. I couldn't care less if you have a gadget and if you insist on posting it please at least explain it fully not simply how it would work in the given example!!

[kenrexford]

monikrazy, on 2014-January-18, 12:13, said:

Perhaps this has changed in Max Hardy's most recent works but I have two books of his (2/1 revised expanded and Standard Bidding in the 21st Century) and his only mention of Walsh bidding is for Walsh Relays after 1NT opens.

He doesn't call it Walsh in my book, but the method is Walsh. Bypass diamonds unless opening strength as a prepared two bid auction. Opener only re bids a major himself if real diamond length (unbalanced).

In my book, page 44.

I am surprised that anyone who plays Walsh would three steps the strength hands (1D then 4th suit force then raise Opener's major) but directly bid the fragment fit with the invite hands, as that seems unnecessarily counterintuitive. I mean, a raise sounds like a raise, raising with actual fits helps those auctions tremendously, and 4th suit sounds like a problem, the problem usually being a 3-fit. There must be a good reason, but I am often simple, believe it or not. Intuitive seems best to me when counterintuitive seems like an arbitrary modification.

[monikrazy]

Ok. I reviewed my text and I am with you so far. My reading of the text shows a responder who bids 1D ( 4+ D, GF) has 3 options going to game in the major. Splinter, Jump to Game, and Asking Bids.

An example of an asking bid would be something like :1C - 1D - 1H - 4S (Requests slam bid with spade control, mandates a 2452 shape)
or 1C - 1D - 1H - 5C (requests slam bid with club control)

I am now very confused as to what the 1C-1D-1H-2H auction should show according to Hardy since he doesn't seem to reference it explicitly in the text.Similarly, what would 1C-1D-1H-3H show?


Edit: Upon doing a little research I discovered he discusses Walsh bidding in greater depth in Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st century, so if anyone has that text they may be able to clarify how a 'standard walsh' auction can proceed.