[ahydra]

This thread needs to be preserved as BBO's first unanimous poll. 38 votes!

ahydra

[eagles123]

lol thank god I was south

I didn't think it would be quite this unanimous though as I didn't know about the never pre-empting over a pre-empt rule

[aguahombre]

 eagles123, on 2013-October-13, 12:18, said:

lol thank god I was south

I didn't think it would be quite this unanimous though as I didn't know about the never pre-empting over a pre-empt rule

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "never". But, it certainly is a fine general principle.

However, there are exceptions. On:

1m (3H) for instance..3S is forcing, but 4S instead should look more like a preempt (AKJTXXX and out).

[mike777]

great hand for the novice section....a really great hand.

fwiw I think it would be much more informative to hear from North and what they thought and their process. My guess is most of these posters are not novices and don't understand the problem.


It reminds me of my algebra class, the teacher never understood the problem from the students perspective but he was bright enough to take step one: hold an after school session.

btw this is often my cripe about teachers.....they are on step 5 when we don't get step one. granted we students are often lazy also.

Kenberg somehow someway is truly the exception when it comes to talking about math on this site as are several stats posters.

[the hog]

 mike777, on 2013-October-13, 21:50, said:

great hand for the novice section....a really great hand.

fwiw I think it would be much more informative to hear from North and what they thought and their process. My guess is most of these posters are not novices and don't understand the problem.


It reminds me of my algebra class, the teacher never understood the problem from the students perspective but he was bright enough to take step one: hold an after school session.

btw this is often my cripe about teachers.....they are on step 5 when we don't get step one. granted we students are often lazy also.

Kenberg somehow someway is truly the exception when it comes to talking about math on this site as are several stats posters.

I don't understand your post, Mike? Why is this a great problem? The raise to 4 of the Major is so obvious that it is a non problem. Look at the first unanimous poll in the history of BBO.

[mike777]

 the hog, on 2013-October-13, 22:32, said:

I don't understand your post, Mike? Why is this a great problem? The raise to 4 of the Major is so obvious that it is a non problem. Look at the first unanimous poll in the history of BBO.

North a true novice did not bid 4s.....hence a problem. I hate that most posters don't see the problem

again it reminds me of math1 as the teacher as all teachers you see the answer....not the problem.

My main and really one point is what did north see?

Hog let me put this in terms of linguists. As a teacher what do you see as the main problem of learning.. I mean you know the stuff. But how in the heck do you teach it? teach it too non genius or can you??

[mike777]

guys and gals let me back up.

IN the movie a Brilliant mind. He only wanted to teach the brilliant the super brilliant. the rest he was rude very rude.

I only ask what was north thinking?

[the hog]

"I only ask what was north thinking"
He/she wasn't.
Presumably this north has learned how to score and the purpose of the game. You learn by doing. Next time he/she will not make the same mistake.

[mike777]

 the hog, on 2013-October-13, 23:22, said:

"I only ask what was north thinking"
He/she wasn't.
Presumably this north has learned how to score and the purpose of the game. You learn by doing. Next time he/she will not make the same mistake.

as I said rude...I don't buy north was not thinking....rude very rude in novice section

[mike777]

 the hog, on 2013-October-13, 23:22, said:

"I only ask what was north thinking"
He/she wasn't.
Presumably this north has learned how to score and the purpose of the game. You learn by doing. Next time he/she will not make the same mistake.

as I said rude...I don't buy north was not thinking....rude very rude in novice section in fact I think north will not respond based on your rude.

In fact I think north was trying her very best.


this discourse prevents novice from reply.

[the hog]

 mike777, on 2013-October-13, 23:54, said:

as I said rude...I don't buy north was not thinking....rude very rude in novice section in fact I think north will not respond based on your rude.

In fact I think north was trying her very best.


this discourse prevents novice from reply.

Mike, sorry to be so blunt, but don't post rubbish. You have over 14,000 posts against your name and have in the past posted on some complicated topics eg Roth-Stone vs light openers etc etc. Now you are attempting to come across as a rank beginner. I am sorry, but that simply does not wear. I don't know what game you are trying to play with this "I know nuttink" game. Are you trying to do a Sgt Schultz imitation?.
As I said, anyone who knows how to score in this game will know that a 4S bid is mandatory. Again I point to the unanimous poll. How is it "rude" to say that Nth did not think? Ok, if Nth has only played 3 or 4 times in her life then that might be true. However, I don't think that that is the case given that this was posed as a bridge question, even given the forum in which it was posted.

[mike777]

As I said, anyone who knows how to score in this game will know that a 4S bid is mandatory. Again I point to the unanimous poll. How is it "rude" to say that Nth did not think? Ok, if Nth has only played 3 or 4 times in her life then that might be true. However, I don't think that that is the case given that this was posed as a bridge question, even given the forum in which it was posted.


Hog I rest my case this is novice posting


you may very well be an expert teacher...but guys this is novice posting....just don't say it.

I repeat many don't bid 4s. I rest my case your honour.

[the hog]

 mike777, on 2013-October-14, 01:00, said:

I repeat many don't bid 4s. I rest my case your honour.

Evidence please. Everyone bids 4S! My evidence is look at the poll.

[Zelandakh]

Mike, I might understand your concerns if a new user had started the topic but this was eagles. Anyone who has hung around the N/B section at all knows that he knows more than you are giving credit for. Therefore it is correct to post answers that pitch to that level. For another user, the answers would come in at a different level.

It would be the same thing if a new user created a thread on what to open with a non-descript 3352 6 count, asking why their partner was unhappy with their 1♦ opening. That would lead to a series of answers of what you are calling Step 1. You can see from eagles' follow-up post (#22) that the answers were fully understood so I do not see any problem here. If a lurker did not understand then I would simply encourage them to post themselves and I am confident that answers will be provided at a lower level.

[Trinidad]

Mike is working on a completely different problem. We all simply say that North should have bid 4♠ (or something stronger). End of problem.

Mike sees that this particular North passed. It is an interesting question why North passed. The answer could, of course, be trivial: North simply wasn't thinking or he pulled the pass card by mistake.

But what if North passed consciously? Beginners do think. They often think wrong, but they do think. If you don't know why North passed, it is difficult to teach him why he should raise.

I could imagine that North passed because he thought South's 3♠ bid was a weak bid ("because it was an overcall at the three level" or something like that). North just hoped that he had enough for South to scramble 9 tricks where 10 tricks would be unlikely. In that case, North has been thinking it over properly, but his understanding of what 3♠ meant needs to be "fixed" (as well as the underlying reason why North misunderstood 3♠).

There may be many more reasons why North may have passed. Perhaps Eagles can ask North and find out?

Rik

[ArtK78]

This thread has gone about as far as it can possibly go. In fact, it reached that point some time ago.

That said, I thought that I would relate a hand from a Sectional Open Pairs from this past Saturday. The Open Pairs was played opposite a Non Life Masters Pairs, so there should be no real novices in the field.

Here is the hand:

---

When the dummy hit, I asked the declarer what the meaning of 3♥ was. I was told it was limit. That was interesting enough. But even more interesting was that declarer could not even find a way to make 10 tricks. So I guess that bidding only 3♥ with the North hand and passing with the South hand makes sense if the limit of your play is 9 tricks.

Since a few pairs managed to go minus on the NS cards, we "only" got 18 out of 22 for -140.

When I asked North why she bid a limit 3♥ on the North cards, she said that her hand got worse when I bid clubs. That is an interesting concept.

Try explaining to novices (or more advanced players, as this pair was not a true novice pair) how their thinking on this hand was totally backwards. And as for the play, try explaining to South that perhaps trying to ruff a diamond in dummy (play the hand on a partial crossruff after taking the spade tricks) might make some sense.

By the way, this pair finished 18th in the NS field of 23 pairs, and came in ahead of my teammates for Sunday's game (who had one of the worst games on Saturday of any good pair I have seen in some time).

Only 14 pairs of the 23 NS pairs who played this hand managed to score 620 or more, which is fewer than I would expect. And there was a 600. Interestingly enough, two other NS pairs managed to score +140. 8 pairs scored less than a game with the NS cards. Despite the fact that the NLMs were in a separate event, the field was very poor.

[Wackojack]

Mandatory:
Required or commanded by authority. So naughty north for disobeying this command.

This is a hand evaluation issue. There are many possible reasons why north did not raise to 4S. One of course could be that he was not thinking. Another is "bottle". It is not uncommon for beginners to view 4S-1 as a disgrace whereas 3S+1 to be perfectly OK. The fear of going down completely outweighs the fear of missing game. This psychology you also see in some old players.

[eagles123]

 Wackojack, on 2013-October-15, 08:44, said:

Mandatory:
Required or commanded by authority. So naughty north for disobeying this command.

This is a hand evaluation issue. There are many possible reasons why north did not raise to 4S. One of course could be that he was not thinking. Another is "bottle". It is not uncommon for beginners to view 4S-1 as a disgrace whereas 3S+1 to be perfectly OK. The fear of going down completely outweighs the fear of missing game. This psychology you also see in some old players.

The amount of times i've seen post hand discussions of "I didn't bid it incase blah blah blah" is untrue, I wouldn't call the level i play at "beginner" though but that's another discussion