[Free]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 14:52, said:

You had Unauthorized Info (which you admitted at the time, your partner broke tempo). Do you debate this?

No, that would be lol.

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 14:52, said:

This unauthorized info demonstrably suggested doubling (partner is marked with values). Do you debate this?

At the time I was convinced partner had ♥, and there are 2 reasons for passing: bad suit quality or too weak. "Bad suit quality" clearly suggests doubling, "too weak" makes Dbl risky but all suits behave badly, so ok, we could say the hesitation always suggests doubling.

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 14:52, said:

Passing was a logical alternative to bidding, as evidenced by this thread (some people viewed passing to be correct). Do you debate this?

Here's where we disagree. The passers have clearly stated that they have different agreements for Dbl (strong ♦ for example), so their passes are quite irrelevant. The evidence rather proves/suggests that pass is no logical alternative when Dbl means "takeout of ♥".

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 14:52, said:

Since you must choose between logical alternatives not demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized info gained from partner's break in tempo, you must PASS. Do you debate this?

Well, if you're convinced pass is a clear LA then pass is indeed obligated. But as I said, the poll rather suggested that pass is no real LA. However, the discussion changed rappidly when I explained there was UI, so I guess the UI does suggest something.

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 14:52, said:

But of course, when your opp has the audacity to call the director on your infraction, you accuse him of doing so because he was sore that his bid had not worked out, even after reading the replies to this thread. LOL. Classic Free. Did you consider that he called the director because you violated the rules and he wanted equity to be restored?

As a matter of fact, my LHO didn't call the TD back because my opps were team mates and friends. My RHO thought my hand was a clear Dbl and didn't see any problems with it (and thought LHO should've passed btw), while LHO thought he would win the case. My partner also didn't see a problem with my Dbl as takeout because I have the perfect shape and enough strength.
Since we don't know what would've happened, I asked on the forums. First as a neutral question without the knowledge of UI ofcourse.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 20:24, said:

2) Gnasher, who is also good at bridge and no doubt smarter and a better thinker than me, also did not agree with your statement.

When did I say that? All I did was reply to David's question "how strong is the bid in yours?" If David says that in his partnerships it shows a weaker hand than in mine, I'm sure it does.

I'm unsure about how his agreement affects one's obligations under the rules. Partner might be a bit too strong for a Burn 2♥, or too weak, or he might be in range for 2♥ but with a suit that's not quite good enough. These seem to point in opposite directions, so maybe nothing is demonstrably suggested by the pause.

None of that has anything to do with the position Free found himself in, however. Free probably plays 2♥ as a reasonable hand, so partner's antics suggest that has almost a reasonable hand, or better. For Free, therefore, the UI suggests double over pass, and if pass is a logical alternative that's what he should do.

[gnasher]

Free, on 2011-January-05, 03:11, said:

Here's where we disagree. The passers have clearly stated that they have different agreements for Dbl (strong ♦ for example), so their passes are quite irrelevant. The evidence rather proves/suggests that pass is no logical alternative when Dbl means "takeout of ♥".

Well, if you're convinced pass is a clear LA then pass is indeed obligated. But as I said, the poll rather suggested that pass is no real LA. However, the discussion changed rappidly when I explained there was UI, so I guess the UI does suggest something.

MFA and MikeH both replied before there was any mention of UI. Unless I misunderstood, they both play the double as takeout but think this hand isn't strong enough. You and I might find that surprising, but it does suggest that pass is a logical alternative.

[mfa1010]

My minimum requirements for 2♥ are a little higher that what gnasher describes. I agree with the focus on suit quality.

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 20:24, said:

You will rarely hear young people categorize and lump all elderly people together since it violates "respect your elders." You will often hear old people do that, and not use logic or arguments to back it up. Of course, they will again cite their wisdom.

Unfortunately, wisdom is not always a substitute for intelligence. If you did hear young people lump older people together, they might factually say that older people are:

1) Less capable of learning
2) Less capable of admitting they were wrong
3) Less likely to accept an argument of someone younger than themselves, even if the younger person is more likely to be right or has a better argument
4) Less capable of adapting
5) More biased/prejudiced against groups of people, for instance younger people
6) MORE arrogant (oh yes!)

among other things. It is assumed that all people become wiser as they age. It is assumed that this wisdom translates into some kind of inherent knowledge. In fact you might even argue that older people are, on average, more likely to think they know everything than young people! These assumptions are of course arrogant by themselves. I guess it helps some older people sleep at night, but hey at least I recognize that not all older people are the same and should not be stereotyped as such.

What a wonderful post! While stressing how you don't stereotype older people, you slip in a number of 'factual' assertions about old people, which stereotype them!

And while there is some truth to some of the 'assertions', there is also a large amount of utter crap.

Your assertions that older people rarely listen to younger people, or that older people are less likely than younger ones to admit error say more about you than they do about older people in general. I hardly think you'd enjoy the exalted status you have on this forum if your assertions were accurate.

There are stupid old people, but unless they developed some dementia, they were probably stupid young people once. The same is true of prejudiced old people...most of them were prejudiced young people rather than people who became prejudiced as part of the aging process. The same goes for people who won't admit to mistakes, or who are arrogant...tho arrogance is one area in which some young people seem to improve as they gain more life experience.

You had a difference of opinion with dburn...fair enough. Maybe your bridge arguments are better than his. Maybe his argument based on age is crap...I happen to agree with you on that...but where do you get off pretending to be so unbiased while actually using the same type of reasoning yourself? And in such a 'oh, look at me! I'm not biased!' sort of way.

You're a heck of a bridge player, but this post reflects more than just bridge knowledge, and it was a disappointment to read.

[ArtK78]

This thread demonstrates the "Catch 22" aspects of current rules dealing with UI.

As has been discussed at length above, if this hand doubles after partner's hesitation and the opponents object, the result will be a rollback to 1NT undoubled, as pass is a logical alternative to double and double was clearly suggested by the hesitation.

But suppose that you (ethical player that you are) pass because of the hesitation. If the opponents object that your pass was suggested by the hesitation and that double is a logical alternative, can the TD or committee force you to double? In this case, pass would be suggested not because the hesitation demonstrated that partner had some values, making double a safer action, but because of your interpretation of the laws relating to unauthorized information and your opinion of what the hesitation suggests. A kind of ethical double-cross.

Is this circular argument realistic, or does the argument really end with the hesitation suggesting that the double is safer than it would be in the absence of a hesitation?

[Side note - it is unlikely that the fact that you had a problem will ever come to light if you pass. I can't imagine an opponent examining your hand, determining that you would have doubled if it were not for the hesitation and then complaining about it.]

[JLOGIC]

Quote

What a wonderful post! While stressing how you don't stereotype older people, you slip in a number of 'factual' assertions about old people, which stereotype them!

You have bad reading comprehension. I don't know what else to say. I said I don't stereotype old people? No! Of course I stereotype them before I know them just as much as they would stereotype me. I said:

Quote

You will rarely hear young people categorize and lump all elderly people together since it violates "respect your elders."

In fact, this quote IMPLIES that though young people stereotype them, they don't say these things as they are rude and disresepctful. And it should be obvious that once I know someone it is about what I know about them more than the stereotype. Surely dburn and I have conversed enough via the forums that he could argue with me and not a stereotype of a young person?

mikeh, on 2011-January-05, 09:07, said:

And in such a 'oh, look at me! I'm not biased!' sort of way.

You're a heck of a bridge player, but this post reflects more than just bridge knowledge, and it was a disappointment to read.

Are you serious? I BLATANTLY gave my stereotypes of old people, in response to his blatant constant stereotyping of me and young people. That was the whole point. How was it a "oh look at me, I'm not biased" sort of way? Of we all have biases. Sorry you're too old to understand my hip posting style! (or do I need to add a smiley now?!)

Mikeh, perhaps that rant was too subtle for you! Personally I think it was not, but perhaps you were angered in seeing my generalizations of older people. Perhaps, since you don't like me, you could not read between the lines. Anyways:

If you were angered by my generalizations, GREAT! As I said, you will pretty much never see young people categorize and generalize old people in some way so as to write them off, or write off their arguments. This is because it is disrespectful.

However, you may not realize that young people will frequently see this type of behavior by their wise elders. My point is, it is a complete joke. It is fine to have stereotypes of younger people. They might be rooted in fact (as are my stereotypes). But that's all they are, stereotypes. I am consistently annoyed with people like dburn to hear:

-You are arrogant because you are young.
-You are cocky because you are young
-You are overconfident because you are young
-You are aggressive because you are young
-You think X because you are young, you will learn.

Whatever. Those things have no factual basis (even if they do for other young people in general, surely I am beyond a stereotype on the forums/in the bridge world by now).

I will never, in the middle of a bridge discussion on this forum, say, well mikeh, you are too old to learn what I am saying, even though to me it is just factual that the older you get, the less your capacity for learning becomes. This is because it's a stupid point, and is just something to say if I don't know what to say to you.

I thought my post was pretty clear, of course these things are always more clear to ourselves than others. That said I got a good laugh out of you saying you were "disappointed" to read what I said. Haha. Come on Mikeh, try to be a little less fake. To be disappointed, you have to have expectations, and for that reason I doubt we can ever disappoint each other (except you seem to respect my bridge, so perhaps I could disappoint you there).

If you were angry, now you know how I feel every time anything I say comes down to age, most often when some moron cannot make a valid response to an argument that I have put forth. You at least argue with me and not my age!

If you actually think that I think all old people are stupid/arrogant/whatever, then I don't know what to say. You really missed the point. I think you're smarter than that (but then again...how old are you?).

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-January-05, 04:21, said:

When did I say that? All I did was reply to David's question "how strong is the bid in yours?" If David says that in his partnerships it shows a weaker hand than in mine, I'm sure it does.

I mean, I don't think that you disagreed with dburn about what a bid shows in his partnership, obviously. How is that even reasonable? As far as I know we were not discussing what 2H shows in dburns partnership, even he could win that argument.

[JLOGIC]

Free:

"Here's where we disagree. The passers have clearly stated that they have different agreements for Dbl (strong ♦ for example), so their passes are quite irrelevant. The evidence rather proves/suggests that pass is no logical alternative when Dbl means "takeout of ♥"."

I agree that you should disregard these people (and in fact, my own vote is cancelled for this reason). However, mikeh and mfa both passed playing a takeout X AFAIK. This means pass is a logical alternative. Tehnically it might not be since they are much better players than you (not meant as an insult both play internationally for their countries etc) and we should poll your peers. Since we don't really have enough of a sample on this forum that are both your level and play double the same way, I just include everyone in the thread as a "peer" else it would be pointless.

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-05, 12:11, said:

You have bad reading comprehension. I don't know what else to say. I said I don't stereotype old people? No! Of course I stereotype them before I know them just as much as they would stereotype me. I said:



In fact, this quote IMPLIES that though young people stereotype them, they don't say these things as they are rude and disresepctful. And it should be obvious that once I know someone it is about what I know about them more than the stereotype. Surely dburn and I have conversed enough via the forums that he could argue with me and not a stereotype of a young person?



Are you serious? I BLATANTLY gave my stereotypes of old people, in response to his blatant constant stereotyping of me and young people. That was the whole point. How was it a "oh look at me, I'm not biased" sort of way? Of we all have biases. Sorry you're too old to understand my hip posting style! (or do I need to add a smiley now?!)

Mikeh, perhaps that rant was too subtle for you! Personally I think it was not, but perhaps you were angered in seeing my generalizations of older people. Perhaps, since you don't like me, you could not read between the lines. Anyways:

If you were angered by my generalizations, GREAT! As I said, you will pretty much never see young people categorize and generalize old people in some way so as to write them off, or write off their arguments. This is because it is disrespectful.

However, you may not realize that young people will frequently see this type of behavior by their wise elders. My point is, it is a complete joke. It is fine to have stereotypes of younger people. They might be rooted in fact (as are my stereotypes). But that's all they are, stereotypes. I am consistently annoyed with people like dburn to hear:

-You are arrogant because you are young.
-You are cocky because you are young
-You are overconfident because you are young
-You are aggressive because you are young
-You think X because you are young, you will learn.

Whatever. Those things have no factual basis (even if they do for other young people in general, surely I am beyond a stereotype on the forums/in the bridge world by now).

I will never, in the middle of a bridge discussion on this forum, say, well mikeh, you are too old to learn what I am saying, even though to me it is just factual that the older you get, the less your capacity for learning becomes. This is because it's a stupid point, and is just something to say if I don't know what to say to you.

I thought my post was pretty clear, of course these things are always more clear to ourselves than others. That said I got a good laugh out of you saying you were "disappointed" to read what I said. Haha. Come on Mikeh, try to be a little less fake. To be disappointed, you have to have expectations, and for that reason I doubt we can ever disappoint each other (except you seem to respect my bridge, so perhaps I could disappoint you there).

If you were angry, now you know how I feel every time anything I say comes down to age, most often when some moron cannot make a valid response to an argument that I have put forth. You at least argue with me and not my age!

If you actually think that I think all old people are stupid/arrogant/whatever, then I don't know what to say. You really missed the point. I think you're smarter than that (but then again...how old are you?).

I don't know you well enough to dislike you. I do dislike some of the behaviours or attitudes you have displayed....that stunt with the big blue capital letters about me was not amusing...but I at least think I understand a little about what led to it, and one thing that I have learned with my (advanced) age and, especially, with the reactions to some of my less than well-considered posts is that it is misleading to assume that a poster is in reality the person we tend to imagine from the words they use. At least, I hope that I am not quite the asshole that I probably appear to be, based on my sillier posts.

Others whose opinions I respect are favourably disposed towards you.....Fred, for example, thinks highly of you as a person as well as a bridge player, and I have a lot of respect for his views, since I know him at least casually. So I try to moderate my visceral reaction to some of your behaviours by realizing that I am seeing only an aspect of who you are, accentuated by some positive (in engineering, not favourable terms) feedback at play. You annoy me, I write an angry response, that annoys you, and so on (I don't mean to suggest that you 'started it'). I suspect that if the occasion ever arose where we were part of a group discussing bridge over a beer or two, we might actually get along...tho I also suspect that such a situation won't ever arise....you move in higher/different bridge circles than I do. I don't think it would be an age thing...you play bridge...ergo you associate with a lot of old people

I was disappointed...I don't frankly care much if you choose not to believe that. I thought you made some valid bridge arguments, and then you appeared to descend to the very level of which you were critical. As you noted, I have never argued bridge with you, or anyone else, on any basis other than bridge logic, as I understand it. You were correct to call out dburn for what seemed to you, and to me, to be a bridge error, and to then call him out further for references to age. A bridge argument, as you clearly understand, stands or falls on its intrinsic merit. I read your posts, especially those where we disagree, with a view to improving my understanding of the game. You are one of a handful of posters to whom I look with that intent.....not to say that I don't learn from a lot of the other posts, but yours and those of a few others are almost always cogent and useful. So reading a long post that takes a different, and imo irrelevant, approach does disappoint me. I'm not saying that you always persuade me, but you sometimes do and even when you don't, you often add a perspective to my view of the situation. That wasn't true of the post to which I replied above.

When you've come after me, it's usually been either on the basis of a bridge argument or as a result of one or the other of us using hyperbole or sarcasm when commenting on each other or on people with whom we disagreed. When it's the former....that's what the forum is for. When it's the latter, at least when you've come after me, I often find myself, on reflection, wishing I hadn't written some of the things I've said, and I sometimes (tho not always) post to that effect. I had come to assume that even when we disagreed, your reasoning was either bridge based or arose out of an individual circumstance. So I was disappointed to see you fall into the behaviour that you were criticizing as inappropriate.

Maybe you were trying to be more subtle than an old fart like me can grasp. Maybe I do need more smilies than you do to recognize humour, altho I know, from reactions to some of my more feeble efforts to use satire or sarcasm that the need for smilies seems to be independent of age.

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 20:24, said:

Lol. I tried to bluff some old dude in poker yesterday, he tanked for like 3 mins and then called (story of my life) then called me "young and foolish." I guess I'll take "young and certain." It's better than old and senile!

Judging from the ages of the final of the WSOP main event, you would not be considered young.

But I'm sure he would be considered old by any standard.

[kenberg]

OK, here comes the old guy.

I would double if partner did not hitch, and I would double if partner did hitch. I long ago decided that if I am absolutely certain in my mind that I would take a certain action without the hitch, then I take the same action with it. If the bid gets rolled back because others think my action is not justified by the cards, then I accept this. I expect that they will believe I am acting on what I believe to be justified by my cards, and I will accept that they believe that the cards do not clearly justify my choice. We go on to the next hand as friends.

A situation along the lines David mentioned came up once. In a competitive auction, after lho bid, I was already thinking I would take the push. But partner goes into the tank. Oh hell. Competing is not clear cut and now I won't be able to compete. I decide that whatever I think, competing will be no win and will just give me a bad rep, so I will pass. Ah, partner finally emerges with not a pass but a double. Good grief, now what. I passed, a good score for us. Although I was going to compete over a pass w/o the tank, I think I would pass the X w/o the tank. And, again, pulling the X would be no win. A pull would be rolled back if it worked out, and no one will ever roll back my pass and force me to bid if bidding is wrong.

I try to do right, I really do, but if my conscience believes that a call is clear cut, I make it.


As to old versus young, I can sometimes (not as often as I like to imagine) get some satisfaction in outlifting some youngies at the Y. They can surely outdrink me and maybe outthink me, but how much can they press?

[JLOGIC]

I luv u all !

[whereagles]

> Unfortunately, wisdom is not always a substitute for intelligence

Nor is intelligence always equivalent to sucess.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on 2011-January-05, 14:35, said:

> Unfortunately, wisdom is not always a substitute for intelligence

Nor vice versa, and I'm an expert on that Heck, I may even be WC.

[l milne]

Can I just be the first to say, this thread is getting pretty weird

[whereagles]

threads gain lives of their own