[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps if you reverted to Danish, Roland, your meanings would become clearer (or incomprehensible for most of us, like the tack that this thread has taken...) I, for one, prefer to remain with the topic.....so what happened next?

[han]

One thing about the LOL (little old ladie). This seems to be a standard term among North American bridge players (and perhaps elsewhere too), and it is used both by men and women. I'm willing to concede that most uses of the word are not intended as sexist at all, and that the term is very convenient for describing a certain kind of bridge player. It is true that some men would also qualify as LOL's, but I have never heard it being used for a male bridge player.

There is something inherently sexist about the word, and it would be nice if we had a neutral alternative available.

[Winstonm]

I vote for LOP - Lil' Ol' Persons.

Back to the hand in question.

I suppose I could double the double, saying I think they are right and asking partner to pull...but somehow I don't think anyone would let me get away with this.

Partner heard opps bid and raise spades, yet was willing still to bid 3N - I'm not expecting a great wastage in spades. I think partner expects to make 9 tricks as long as I have long, decent clubs as my limit raise in clubs implied....where is the hole in his hand, though? Hearts or diamonds? Axxx, AK, x, KQxxxx or Axx, x, AKx, KQxxxx or the like or maybe even J10xx, A, AKx, QJxxx.

Perhaps the 6th club compensates for the lack of the heart King. Maybe 2S wasn't so crazy after all. Seems more likely that partner has weak hearts than diamonds.

I pass, loudly. If we make this they will never recover their composure in time to beat us.

Winston

[Walddk]

Part 3:

West pulled to 5♣ with no significant hesitation, and now this happened:

5♠ from LHO, double by partner and redouble to your right. You are in the spotlight again. What is your bid?

Roland

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Dec 3 2005, 12:50 AM, said:

I vote for LOP - Lil' Ol' Persons.

Sigh. Little old People just doesn't sound the same...

Like "OMWH" (pronouced Omwah...)

For anyone who doesn't know, the "OMWH" is the most feared creature on the road...

Old
Man
With
Hat

[pclayton]

2♠ is a master bid - intended as a strength showing psyche and hoping to slow the auction down for the table. Certainly the opponents hold the ranking suits (♦/♠) while we hold the inferior suits. Seeking to slow down the opponents is indeed a master stroke.

This Scottish lady shouldn't be condemned; she shouls be awarded a BOLS Brilliancy award for this intelligent tactical bidding!

Back to the 'problem'. I'm sure she thought through this scenario when she made the master 2♠ bid, so at the table she would have had the perfect call prepared, which is beyond the intelligence of the mortal posters on BBF and myself.

But I'll try.

Not gifted with her intelligence or foresight, I put the 4♠ card on the tray. I cannot have a strong hand, otherwise I would sit for 3N x'd. 4♠ by a passed hand suggests a distributional bomb unsuitable for 3N, but interested in bigger and better things.

(Sorry for the sarcasm here. - I can't resist with the way this thread is going).

[Winstonm]

Well, I've successfully cut down on the number of redoubled overtricks - I'm sure the auction was the same at the other table except they played 4S redoubled.

I pass and look forward to our pickup.



Winston

[whereagles]

How on Earth am I supposed to choose any action if all my previous actions were totally against what I think I should have bid?

Anyway... one thing is clear - I'm calling in my insurance policy and pull this to 6♣. And if they bid 6♠ and pard doubles, I'll pull it out to SEVEN CLUBS

[Robert]

Hello Walddk

Robson/Segal use a dual meaning fit showing jumps. They may be weak or strong. They do share a high offensive pattern. If you happen to also hold defense, you double later in the auction as needed. The weak fit showing jumps do not make any penalty doubles.

Partner can decide based on fit with partner whether to bid higher. Since he does not count on you for defense, his doubles tend to show solid values in their suits.

Partner would not have to decide what my fit showing 4H bid contained on this hand. I would not have passed the first time it was my turn to bid. I paid my entry fee.

LOLs can be used to describe either male or female. I have been called a LOL and I most certainly am a male. My army physical certified me as male.

The term LOL is sometimtes used to describe people who did not look fearsome, however, some LOLs of either gender can play very good bridge.

I have also heard a number of stories where the heroes of the story were reffered to as LOLs.

Regards,
Robert

[awm]

I'd have bid my hearts the first time. Having not done so, I would bid them now. Here's my reasoning:

(1) It could easily be that 4♥ is the only making game. We could have three losers off the top. If I never introduce hearts, we won't find this game. Of course, the opponents could certainly bid 4♠ over us, but I'd much rather set 4♠ than play 5♣ going down...

(2) Partner may eventually have to make a decision about what to do when opponents bid 4♠ or 5♠. If partner has strength in diamonds it is probably right to defend. If partner has strength in hearts then we probably need to push higher.

(3) I think a direct 4♠ splinter carries more slam overtones than it should. Partner is basically forced past 5♣ on many hands, even if 4♠ is not exclusion keycard. Oftentimes this will mean playing 6♣ down when we should be in 5♣ or 4♥. Partner is going to have trouble figuring out that ♥AK are pure gold, whereas ♦AK are much more defensive cards over the 4♠ splinter. Admittedly 4♠ carries more appeal if it guarantees a void and I would open basically any 7-count with a spade void (as perhaps Ben's ZAR methods would mandate).

(4) If I bid 4♠ or 5♣ directly, what will happen if/when opponents bid 5♠? If partner doubles, do I trust him to make the right decision? After the 4♠ splinter, which I interpret as a slam try, I would double as opener on almost any hand with spade "wastage". Since responder's hand could well contain negative defense in hearts (highly unexpected) I'm not sure partner gets this right. If I bid 5♣ and LHO bids 5♠, this probably gets passed to me. Partner will rarely double or compete, since he doesn't know about the spade void or the ridiculous offensive potential of the hand. Now it's my guess whether to bid 6♣ or not, and I have no real confidence that I will get it right.

To give some example hands for opener:

Kxx AKx xxx KQxx probably makes 6♥ or 6♣.

Kxx xxx AKx KQxx can make 4♥, 5♣ is dubious, 5♠ likely goes down.

If opener hears 1♣-1♠-4♠-5♠, how will he know what to do? These hands look identical to me, yet on the first it is right to bid 6♣ or 6♥, and on the second it's best to pass or perhaps double. If opener hears 1♣-1♠-4♠-Pass, how does he know to stop in 5♣ on the second hand and bid on with the first?

[Walddk]

awm, on Dec 2 2005, 11:27 PM, said:

To give some example hands for opener:

Kxx AKx xxx KQxx probably makes 6♥ or 6♣.

Kxx xxx AKx KQxx can make 4♥, 5♣ is dubious, 5♠ likely goes down.

I agree with most of your points, Adam, just not this. In a previous post I did write that EW play a 14-16 NT.

Roland

[cherdano]

I would have bid 3♥ on the first round for the exactly the reasons Adam has given. If I get the chance to bid 5♣ over 4♠, partner is in a good place to make the correct decision over 5♠. It will tell him that pointed honors are defense, and round honors are offense. Yes he may somewhat misevaluate ♥Axx, but I think it is the best I can do.

For me, a fit jump is a competitive tool, not a constructive tool. So I don't care so much when partner misjudges the slam potential of heart holdings, since I am not implying slam interest.

Arend

[awm]

Walddk, on Dec 2 2005, 05:40 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 2 2005, 11:27 PM, said:

To give some example hands for opener:

Kxx AKx xxx KQxx probably makes 6♥ or 6♣.

Kxx xxx AKx KQxx can make 4♥, 5♣ is dubious, 5♠ likely goes down.

I agree with most of your points, Adam, just not this. In a previous post I did write that EW play a 14-16 NT.

Roland

Must've missed that one; I was assuming the fairly standard (in the UK) 12-14 range.

Take away the ♣Q from both hands, or add the ♠Q to both, and the point remains the same though.

[mikeh]

6♣

I started this whole mess with a weird bid: I think that there are 2 6-6 hands heare, and that RHO was walking the dog: AJ10xxx x AKQxxx void would not surprise me.

But I will pass 6♠ If partner doubles this, it had better be going down!

[luke warm]

first, i voted for 3♠... next, if i had bid 2♠ and it came back 3nt x'd (loudly) i'd bid 5♣.. over 5♠ i'd bid 6♣

as for the off topic stuff, LOL is not gender-specific to me and never has been... as far as chauvinistic remarks, are they any more offensive than other remarks that have been written on the forums, most of whose authors weren't taken to task with anywhere near the gusto roland was?

that's a serious question, asked because i really don't know... if (IF) one makes a chauvinistic remark, is it objectively more offensive that other insults we've all read, a few of us have posted, and fewer still have been the subject of? if they are, why?

if you're an advanded + offender, you may hide your answer

[inquiry]

I will speculate an answer. A random LOL comment about someone playing a hand poorly hardly offends anyone. Stories of random LOL stopping in 2♠ and playing poorly and making only 8 tricks against a pair of experts in a national master event while the entire field bids 4S down one, giving the experts a zero are legendary. These stories also tell us that the LOL got "her" points 100 master points that allolw her to play in the event over decades of random results and saving the "fractional master points". We all know people like this (all sexes, all ages), and we can relate to it.

In this case, Roland was talking about a national event, with a national recognized players, who happened to women. Now a condecending remark has a completely different tenor.

Ben

[mike777]

I object to "Little", this is typical of the discrimination that people of shorter statue face in our society. Let alone "Old" another cynical term to degrade not only short people but old short people...showing the obsession of our modern culture on youth....

Hopefully not only gender neutral terms but height and age neutral terms can be used in the future.....so we can all be neutered.

BTW looking like we will need my LTC and FTL arguments for the commitee now in 6 clubs Good think we wrote them down and showed them in writing to the opp before our bidding 6 clubs .

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Dec 2 2005, 03:40 PM, said:

It might seem strange for me to be commenting on "offensive" posts, however, my decisions to insult people are typically very deliberate.  And I stand behind my insults...

just trying to understand a little more about the nature of offensive posts, here... roland made the statement that he didn't mean his post to be either offensive or chavinistic (i know, i know, one and the same eh?)... conversely, you admit that some of your insults are deliberate

so tell me again how a deliberate, unabashed, insult is somehow purer than one that possibly exists only in the minds of the beholders... put another way, i'm having trouble understanding why a subjectively perceived slight is viewed in a harsher light than one that is openly admitted

Quote

Hopefully not only gender neutral terms but height and age neutral terms can be used in the future.....so we can all be neutered

heh heh heh