[FrancesHinden]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-16, 08:04, said:

Amongst lesser players, 3♦ is natural, ie shows diamonds, because they always bid 2NT to ask for partner's minor. A natural 3♦ is not alertable, but 2NT is alertable since it is artificial, though I doubt that many players in the ACBL bother, unlike the UK where they are used to alerting artificial bids, and whether alerted or not, damage would be very rare.

1♠ - 2 ♠ (hearts + another) - Pass -

An excellent scheme of continuations here is:
- 2NT = asks for partner's minor, at least invitational values (if a heart fit, exactly invitational)
- 3♣ = pass or correct, not invitational
- 3♦ = natural
- 3♥ = natural, NF
- 3♠ = FG from strength with a heart fit

I must remember that "le sser payers"play this. Perhaps I should change my methods.

[aguahombre]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-17, 15:16, said:

I must remember that "lesser payers"play this. Perhaps I should change my methods.

Also, don't forget that David's opinion of us is relevant to the alert and disclosure procedures.

[CamHenry]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-17, 15:16, said:

I must remember that "le sser payers"play this. Perhaps I should change my methods.

Hasn't anyone here studied formal logic? "Lesser players play this" does NOT imply that "those who play this are lesser players". There are both world-class and thoroughly mediocre players who use 1NT=15-17 balanced, for example.

Admittedly, David's phrasing was not at his most tactful ;-)

[Zelandakh]

I prefer to play the same as Frances except that the good heart raise goes through 3♦ rather than 2NT and the responses to 2NT show min/max/strong as well as the minor. Is your 3♦ bid forcing or non-forcing Frances? I can understand the former but surely the latter would just tip the opps off that there is a misfit and invite getting doubled?

[bluejak]

Two points. First, Frances' methods are not the norm of lesser players, who also play 3♣ as natural. Second, generalisations are generalisations, despite repeated attempts here to suggest they are applicable to anyone in that class and no-one otherwise. Third, the earlier years on the internet, the complete rudeness I often met, and the continuous rudeness over many years of one specific leading English player on the internet have knocked all the tact out of me on the internet. I nowadays reserve tact for inter-personal relationships either face-to-face, or by phone or email or text or other messaging method, or for when I play or direct at bridge. But not in forums - I have given up being tactful in them.

Furthermore, I cannot count.

[Vampyr]

 CamHenry, on 2012-October-18, 03:02, said:

Hasn't anyone here studied formal logic? "Lesser players play this" does NOT imply that "those who play this are lesser players". There are both world-class and thoroughly mediocre players who use 1NT=15-17 balanced, for example.

Admittedly, David's phrasing was not at his most tactful ;-)

I think that "amongst lesser players X" and "amongst better players Y" leaves no room for formally logical or any other spin.

 bluejak, on 2012-October-18, 05:52, said:

Third, the earlier years on the internet, the complete rudeness I often met, and the continuous rudeness over many years of one specific leading English player on the internet have knocked all the tact out of me on the internet. I nowadays reserve tact for inter-personal relationships either face-to-face, or by phone or email or text or other messaging method, or for when I play or direct at bridge. But not in forums - I have given up being tactful in them.

In that case perhaps it is time to give up posting in them.

[bluejak]

Do you really believe that forums will be better if I do not post in them?

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 15:51, said:

Do you really believe that forums will be better if I do not post in them?

I don't believe they would be. I think Stef was reacting in kind to the tenor of the previous post. And, the forums are always better when you go back and eliminate your duplicates

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 15:51, said:

Do you really believe that forums will be better if I do not post in them?

I don't, but I don't think that the fact that people on "the internet" have been rude to you means that it is OK to display a lack of courtesy or tact towards others on "the internet", who may well have been politeness itself towards you. "The internet" is not one person.

You have mentioned in another post that people the world over are rude to you at the bridge table. Do you really think you have been singled out this way? To my mind you have two options:

1. Admit that you are being hypersensitive;

2. Accept that it is probably not a massive coincidence or worldwide conspiracy and try to determine the cause.

There is someone I know who, whenever a person's name comes up, says, "She really hates me" or "She is always horrible to me", "I don't know why". Believe me, the listener knows why.

[bluejak]

Excuse me, it is not one person who is tactless or rude: there are an enormous number who are tactless: all I have done is join them. Please don't suggest I am being different.

As for people being rude at the table, I don't believe I am singled out. But I do believe that I cannot do anything about it, while others can. And I know the reason, so I don't have to work it out.

The internet stalking approach is something else: that is rare, and I have no real idea why it happened. That does not tend to happen to other people, though I have occasionally known it.

I really am not going to go back to being considerably more tactful than the norm, and have people being rude and tactless to me [and lots of other people], while I have to be super-polite back. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

As for being over-sensitive, when I post something somewhat tactless but not aimed at anyone at all, I think it is completely over-sensitive to worry about it.

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 18:45, said:

Excuse me, it is not one person who is tactless or rude: there are an enormous number who are tactless: all I have done is join them. Please don't suggest I am being different.

Perhaps you are not, but there is only one way to go about changing the culture -- take the late Michael Jackson's advice and start with the man in the mirror.

[bluejak]

That is what I did for several years. I think I have the right to give up.

[blackshoe]

"Never give up, never surrender. Never, never, never." -- Winston Churchill

We all react differently to these things. Having worked in tech support, and gotten to the point where I quit because I found myself too frequently wanting to pick up the phone and snarl "yeah, what the f*** do you want?" I can sympathize with David. Perhaps I've mellowed a little. Nowadays I at least try not to initiate rudeness, and not to see rudeness in every comment that might be intended that way. But that's just me.

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 19:31, said:

That is what I did for several years. I think I have the right to give up.

OK, buy keep in mind that you have also given up the right to complain about others.

[aguahombre]

I surely hope my old friend, Gerard Cohen, can see this thread from up there.

[bluejak]

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-22, 21:00, said:

OK, buy keep in mind that you have also given up the right to complain about others.

No, I haven't. I believe I am merely tactless, not deliberately rude. I do not complain about other tactless people - I would be doing a lot of complaining - but there are still the deliberately rude people, and I see no reason why I should not complain about them.