[dburn]

bluejak, on Jul 8 2010, 09:45 AM, said:

In what way do you think I am taking this too seriously?

In the same way you always do. It really ought not to be necessary to raise a large flag with the word "JOKE" on it to make it clear that no one is actually accusing your partner of anything at all (other than taking, shall we say, a slightly conservative view either of her own hand or the likely content of yours, or possibly both).

[nige1]

[jdonn]

Yes all sarcasm should include little yellow smiley faces. Never without them, never! Otherwise sarcasm would be completely undetectable. We can now safely assume that all smileyless posts are to be taken completely seriously and all appropriate offense expressed vigorously in one's defense. I am quite glad this important issue has been clarified.

[bluejak]

dburn, on Jul 8 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 8 2010, 09:45 AM, said:

In what way do you think I am taking this too seriously?

In the same way you always do. It really ought not to be necessary to raise a large flag with the word "JOKE" on it to make it clear that no one is actually accusing your partner of anything at all (other than taking, shall we say, a slightly conservative view either of her own hand or the likely content of yours, or possibly both).

Joke? You have consistently attacked may abilities as a player and in as a Director and in my knowledge of the Laws over many years in a variety of forums. You have demeaned my abilities time and time again. Now you have decided to attack my friends and partners as well. You have upset me more times than you could imagine, which I expect pleases you. You have often sent me into deep despair. You have killed many arguments I have made by personal attacks. You have driven me off one forum nd nearly driven me off another by your repeated attacks. No doubt you consider it a triumph whenever you upset me.

And you are claiming these attacks are jokes?

[gnasher]

dburn, on Jul 8 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

South would presumably have been fined for attempted fielding of a psyche.

Which law or regulation would South have broken by attempting to field a psyche?

Quote

The original comment was that my partner had deliberately done something wrong.

And which law or regulation says that what your partner was alleged to have done would have been improper?

[jallerton]

gnasher, on Jul 8 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

dburn, on Jul 8 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

South would presumably have been fined for attempted fielding of a psyche.

Which law or regulation would South have broken by attempting to field a psyche?

If the TD infers from the attempted "field" that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, then potentially there is a breach of Law 40A3/Law40C1.

[jallerton]

jeremy69, on Jul 8 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

Quote

if I had had a perfectly normal

QJxxx
xx
xx
Q9xx
then even 3S is in jeopardy

I don't think that is a very likely hand when East has bid 3C.

I don't think that is very likely hand whether East has bid 3♣ or not, but if that is partner's hand, I'd expect to receive an average plus score by virtue Law 12C2(a) [contestant no way at fault] following an apparent breach of Law 1.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Jul 8 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 8 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

dburn, on Jul 8 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

South would presumably have been fined for attempted fielding of a psyche.

Which law or regulation would South have broken by attempting to field a psyche?

If the TD infers from the attempted "field" that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, then potentially there is a breach of Law 40A3/Law40C1.

I wasn't asking what the TD would do. I was asking which rule prohibits the intentional fielding of a psyche, in the absence of any relevant partnership agreement.

So far as I can tell, there is no such rule in the EBU. All there is is a rule telling us how the score will be changed if we do. I've always found that very odd.

Anyway, what it means is that it's not unethical to intentionally field a psyche (in the absence of any agreement about psyching). Threfore, I don't believe it's offensive to accuse someone of doing it. Nor is it correct to suggest that someone might be fined for it.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Jul 8 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

if I had had a perfectly normal

QJxxx
xx
xx
Q9xx

even 3♠ is in jeopardy.

If this is a typical hand, perhaps you should have raised.

[VixTD]

jdonn, on Jul 8 2010, 12:39 PM, said:

Yes all sarcasm should include little yellow smiley faces. Never without them, never! Otherwise sarcasm would be completely undetectable. We can now safely assume that all smileyless posts are to be taken completely seriously and all appropriate offense expressed vigorously in one's defense. I am quite glad this important issue has been clarified.

Please let's not do anything of the kind. The intended meaning should be obvious from the choice of words used and the context, and certainly was to me in dburn's posts.

I am used to communicating in written and spoken English, but the practice of peppering my text with those irritating flashing yellow circles or "textspeak" abbreviations to convey extra nuances is alien to me. I don't think I could ever get used to it.

I'd hate to think anyone was reading into my posts any unintentional slight or insult because I've failed to include the correct image. Can't we just agree to try not to give offence and, just as important, not to overreact?

[gnasher]

VixTD, on Jul 9 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

Please let's not do anything of the kind. The intended meaning should be obvious from the choice of words used and the context, and certainly was to me in dburn's posts.

Was the intended meaning of jdonn's post also obvious to you?

[campboy]

"Ooh, a sarcasm detector. That's a really useful invention"

[boom]

[VixTD]

gnasher, on Jul 9 2010, 08:14 AM, said:

VixTD, on Jul 9 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

Please let's not do anything of the kind.  The intended meaning should be obvious from the choice of words used and the context, and certainly was to me in dburn's posts.

Was the intended meaning of jdonn's post also obvious to you?

No, it wasn't, but thank God for that. I was thinking that we plain English speakers were in the minority on these forums, but after another look perhaps I'm wrong, and it just seemed that way.

Apologies, jdonn, for my overreaction.

[nige1]

jdonn, on Jul 8 2010, 12:39 PM, said:

Yes all sarcasm should include little yellow smiley faces. Never without them, never! Otherwise sarcasm would be completely undetectable. We can now safely assume that all smileyless posts are to be taken completely seriously and all appropriate offense expressed vigorously in one's defense. I am quite glad this important issue has been clarified.

VixTD, on Jul 9 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

Please let's not do anything of the kind. The intended meaning should be obvious from the choice of words used and the context, and certainly was to me in dburn's posts. I am used to communicating in written and spoken English, but the practice of peppering my text with those irritating flashing yellow circles or "textspeak" abbreviations to convey extra nuances is alien to me. I don't think I could ever get used to it. I'd hate to think anyone was reading into my posts any unintentional slight or insult because I've failed to include the correct image. Can't we just agree to try not to give offence and, just as important, not to overreact?

IMO, this exchange and several previous posts show why smileys are such a good idea on the internet