[mikeh]

I recently learned of a practice known as sea-lioning. The OP is exhibiting many of the characteristics of a 'sea lion'. Note how he never comments directly on the advice he is given. note how he remains apparently polite yet persists in ignoring cogent responses to him. His answers to the Hog, arising from another thread, seems to be classic. I am going to double the size of my ignore list now. A sea lion appears to be a form of troll.

If in doubt: go to one of my favourite blogs: pharyngula. Yesterday had a post that introduced me to the concept.

[sfi]

The meme may be new (and I found a very amusing cartoon describing it) but it's an old technique. The tactic was perfected by the tobacco companies and has since been co-opted for any number of other retrograde causes since then.

Edit: I found the same cartoon on a different site. Still amusing the second time.

This post has been edited by sfi: 2015-January-02, 05:43

[the hog]

Michael000, I hate t tell you but in Acol, and virtually every system I know of, 1S 2H definitely shows a 5 card suit.

Rik, bidding 2D is a clear error. 2H is the correct reponse with 5440. Even if someone errs in bidding 2D you can till find the H fit

1S 2C
2D 2H
3H

Shows a 5440.

[Michael000]

mikeh, on 2015-January-02, 05:28, said:

I recently learned of a practice known as sea-lioning.

You need to get a life

[Michael000]

the hog, on 2015-January-02, 05:47, said:

Michael000, I hate t tell you but in Acol, and virtually every system I know of, 1S 2H definitely shows a 5 card suit.

That's OK Hog, you don't need to apologies for giving me your opinion, while else would I ask the question if I didn't want the hear the opinion of others!

Yes I know 1♠ 2♥ ideally promises 5 hearts but again ordinarily 1♠ 2♣ would promises some sort of cover in clubs above six high! If every hands always delivered easy bidding options it would be a very boring game. It is (in my very humble opinion) often a difficult choice and I then ask myself the question "what will give partner the best / most valuable information but seemingly I have a lot to learn!

[manudude03]

While we would love to always have values in the suits we bid, we can't always do so. Technically 2C is still the correct response with AT9 AKT9 AKT 432 (note that for a strong jump shift you should be virtually certain about what strain you want to be in).

[mikeh]

the hog, on 2015-January-02, 05:47, said:

Michael000, I hate t tell you but in Acol, and virtually every system I know of, 1S 2H definitely shows a 5 card suit.

Rik, bidding 2D is a clear error. 2H is the correct reponse with 5440. Even if someone errs in bidding 2D you can till find the H fit

1S 2C
2D 2H
3H

Shows a 5440.

Yes, but how does responder set hearts as trump while preserving the ability to explore for slam?

I would expect that almost everyone of any experience, outside of rubber bridge, who plays 2/1 as non game force, is likely to use 2♥ as a form of fourth suit forcing, even if they don't formally play 4SF as a 'convention'. After all, that is the genesis of 4SF....it was often being used without the suggested length to the point that it was felt to make sense to eliminate even the pretence that it was a natural bid.

[jillybean]

Michael000, on 2015-January-01, 15:45, said:

---

North opens 1♠ how would you respond with this hand, why and what next?

This was my hand opposite a unknown partner in the BBO Acol Bridge club. I understand that most of you do not play Acol. There are no tricks questions here, I am posting this solely to get an insight into the thought processes of others.

I played Acol with my mum once, this is an obvious 2♣ response.
Why, because anything else misrepresents my hand.
What next? that will depend on openers rebid, we are likely to play this is nt,

[mikeh]

Michael000, on 2015-January-02, 03:33, said:

Post 10 shows the hands in full. Half the pairs playing this hand ended up in 6NT and half in 3NT. Nobody made 6NT. It's easy looking at all the hands. The question I wanted to explore in posting this thread was how you (I mean you) pursue interest in a slam, b that I mean you must have some mechanism for alerting partner to your strength and more importantly exiting before you are up too high.

I consensus appears to be 2♣ and with sight of the hand and actual bidding it seems reasonable that partner would have bid 2♦ and I am then very comfortable with a jump shift bid of 3♥ showing strength. And, it's simple then seeing all the hands to pass out at 3NT. Clearly as half the field (not us) ended up in 6NT they thought they had values which encouraged them to go down that route.

I have been persuaded by someone with more generosity of spirit towards these sorts of posts than I have that maybe I was too harsh...maybe you are not a troll. So I will make an effort and see what transpires.

I am a student of the history of the game, so I do know a lot about the early development of bidding theory, whether that be in the US, the UK or even Austria (a power in the late 1930s). While I don't claim to know 'modern acol' I certainly know how acol came to be and have several of the most influential books in my library, including the seminal A Design for Bidding, by Simon,

I think/hope that you have accepted that the correct response to the opening bid is 2♣. I note that elsewhere you try to defend your choice of 2♥ on the basis that you play a 4 card major method and that had you not bid 2♥ you might be thought to have denied as many as 4.

That is wrong on several levels, but let's start with the easiest. It is common to all non-canapé methods to bid one's suits in order of length, when holding 2 or more suits of varying but biddable length, provided that one has the requisite hand strength.

So with say 1=4=3=5 14 count, one responds 2♣ even if one played a method permitting a 2♥ response, which no good player to my knowledge does. When I say 'no good player' I am not speaking based on my experience playing on BBO or in the local club. I am speaking from having read 70+ years of The Bridge World, from playing tournament bridge on occasion over some 40 years, and having won my country's team trials on 3 occasions, thus playing for my country (not very well, I confess) on several occasions. In saying that, you should understand that I am far from the best player on this forum....I say it only to give you a reality check, if you are genuine, about the calibre of the posters you may encounter here, when you claim to be a 'good player'. Maybe you will become one, but so far you are not. Paying attention to the advice you get here may help you on that journey.

I digress: since you would respond 2♣ with 1=4=3=5, it cannot be correct to state that your partner will assume that 2♣ denies 4 hearts...it simply cannot be correct as a matter of basic bridge logic.

That same logic says that partner will bid 2♥ over 2♣ if she held 4 hearts. If you are worried about 5440, see my other posts here about that.

Over your 2♣, you suggest opener bid 2♦.

This is another basic mistake. Opener has 4 card support for your 'suit' and only 3 diamonds. It is essential, if you want to learn how to bid well, to learn that showing shape is more important, in the early rounds of an auction, than showing high card strength, unless one is balanced and needs to bid notrump.

Here, opener has an easy 3♣ raise. I am indebted to PhilKing for pointing out that in Acol this raise is non-forcing, which is contrary to North American practice.

In those circumstances, S has the world's easiest 3N, since his 1=4=4=4 hand cannot offer much hope for a 12 trick contract when opener holds a minimum.

Were you to be playing something closer to what the vast majority of good players play, in which 3♣ cannot be passed, then my earlier suggested auction of responder bidding 3♥ and then making a quantitative raise of opener's 3N is textbook.

Continuing: assume opener were 5=1=4=3, and thus had the 2♦ rebid that you suggested, wrongly, on the actual hand.

You now propose to have responder jump to 3♥. I am unclear as to why.

Would 2♥, being a change of suit by a responder who has shown some strength via the 2♣ response and who is essentially unlimited upwards (we will return to that idea) not be forcing, at least one round?

Most good players would use 2♥ as a conventional call, known as Fourth Suit Forcing. However, 4SF arose from the practice that developed in these auctions of responder 'making up' or 'faking' an ostensibly natural call of 2♥. A change of suit by responder, in auctions that began with a 2/1 response, was always (well, for at least the last 70 years) a one round force in any naturally based method including, iirc, acol.

Some clever players reasoned that if players were often faking the 4th suit call in order to keep the bidding open without consuming bidding space, let's just dump the pretence that it is natural and make it artificial. It doesn't deny length but it doesn't promise it either...it is simply a forcing 'noise'. It is now viewed by good players, in natural methods, and in many other methods, as indispensable.

In any event, you don't need to worry about it being artificial. You bid 2♥ and see what partner does. If he retreats to 3♣, he is showing the 5=1=4=3. If he rebids diamonds, well opposite a hand with 5 spades and 5 diamonds, you have an incredible hand and the diamond grand slam may well be in reach. Note that if you jump to 3♥, it may be very difficult for her to show the 5th diamond, because she fears a misfit, with you bidding clubs and hearts, and she may well feel that either 3♠ or 3N is best, and you'll never learn of that very important 5th diamond.

I suspect you are unfamiliar with the concept of bidding space. Bidding space is the number of bids available to a partnership between the current level of the auction and the highest safe contract. Bidding is a conversation, in which players convey information to each other through coded bids (even a 'natural' bid is coded in the sense that it conveys information beyond suit length. Thus 1♠ didn't just show spades, it also promised a certain range of hcp and said something about relative suit lengths....all bids are 'coded' in that sense)

Bidding space is a precious resource and while in the early days players would jump to show general strength, the Darwinian-type of evolutionary development in which players would come up with ideas and those would be winnowed by use in competition, led to the realization that jumps should be very narrowly constrained, and that with more general 'good hands' it was preferable to keep the bidding low so as to maximize the amount of bidding space available.

In modern tournament play this has led to such ideas as the forcing club methods (in fairness, the Vanderbilt Club dates back to the origins of contract), and the strong 2/1 response, often played as establishing a game force. However, one need not play 2/1 gf to realize that jumping in non-fit auctions is a bad idea.

This is a very quiet day for me, hence I could spend the time to write this very long post. I hope that you are indeed what you claim to be...a player looking to learn. I hope that others are correct in saying that what has happened is that, as is common and has happened to me, you had formed a mistaken view of your skill level, formed in ignorance to the actual 'real world' of good bridge, and that in essence you turned on the tap expecting to sip a little water and found yourself facing a firehose.

To use another metaphor that I think is applicable to learning to play bridge: we start by seeing a hill in front of us...a hill that constitutes a level of ability in the game. From our starting point, that hill is 'it'. But when we reach the top, what we see is another, higher, hill, and when we climb that, still another, and ad infinitum. As we ascend each hill, our field of vision expands and we see aspects of the game that we literally could not see before.

Reese once wrote, and I paraphrase, that if the average player could follow the thoughts of an expert declarer at trick one, he'd refuse to believe it. I am no Reese, but every good player has surely had the experience of taking the time to think deeply about a difficult hand, with weak opps, and have the weak opps at some stage let it be known that the good player is wasting time....'what can you be thinking about?'. The truthful answer is that 'you wouldn't understand'. That is because the weak player is several, or more, hilltops lower and can't even see the issues concerning the good player.

It is not a reflection on you if you are still on one of the early foothills. It would be a reflection on you to continue to assert that you don't have a long way to climb. Btw, the higher you climb, the more beautiful the view/game.

I hope I am welcoming you to the trek, and not merely feeding a troll.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-01, 23:23, said:

I have a dissenting opinion on this.

What do we want to find out more than anything? We are eager to know whether partner has four hearts. We are playing opposite an unknown partner. We need to maximize the probability of him showing them when he has them.

Now suppose partner has a 5=4=4=0 or a 5=4=0=4 distribution. What will he bid? Some would bid 2♥ after our 2♣ response. But many would bid 2♦ up the line with the 5=4=4=0 (which means that our subsequent 2♥ rebid will be 4th suit, complicating matters) or raise clubs with the 5=4=0=4.

If, instead of responding 2♣, I respond 2♦, then opener might still raise, now with the 5=4=4=0 distribution. Because of my honor structure in the minors, a diamond raise with club shortness suits me better than a club raise with diamond shortness. So that is already a slight improvement over a 2♣ response. But if he has the 5=4=0=4 hand, he wouldn't even think of introducing his clubs. He would rebid 2♥ and I have achieved my goal. That is a big improvement over the 2♣ response.

So, I would respond 2♦.

I strongly disagree with this.

First of all, I am not convinced that finding a heart fit is much more important than finding a minor suit fit. After all, we are probably heading for slam.

Secondly, I am not convinced that we can't find a heart fit anyway if opener is 5440. He might rebid 2♥ with that shape (I wouldn't), but otherwise he can pattern out after our 2♥ FSF bid.

Thirdly, if we start with 2♦ and he rebids 2♠, we will still be looking for a club fit so we have to bid 3♣, but that would show a fifth diamond.

[Michael000]

mikeh, on 2015-January-02, 12:44, said:

I have been persuaded by someone with more generosity of spirit towards these sorts of posts than I have that maybe I was too harsh...maybe you are not a troll. So I will make an effort and see what transpires.

This is a very quiet day for me, hence I could spend the time to write this very long post. I hope that you are indeed what you claim to be...a player looking to learn. I hope that others are correct in saying that what has happened is that, as is common and has happened to me, you had formed a mistaken view of your skill level, formed in ignorance to the actual 'real world' of good bridge, and that in essence you turned on the tap expecting to sip a little water and found yourself facing a firehose.

Thanks you for taking the time to explain how and why the hand in question should have been bid. I have read all that you have written, I have no doubt that it is all perfect and correct and will read it again and again in the hope that I can improve. Thank you.

I consider myself to be a ‘good’ Bridge player. I also consider myself to be a good driver; I am sure, if I said that to Lewis Hamilton he’d laugh at me but my opinion of my driving is based upon years of negotiating my way through the problems on the everyday roads around me. Bridge is not my life it is not top of the list of what gets me out of bed each day. I play Bridge just once a week. I have played Bridge at Club level in three different countries over 15 years; that and they, I would argue are the real world and those people in that world consider me a ‘good’ player but perhaps that’s not your real world! I consider myself and have represented myself on this forum as a ‘good’ player not a great player, not and expert player not even an advanced player but a ‘good’ player and with humility I have acknowledged room for improvement. If you look past through my post I don’t believe I have ever argued that I was right and you or anybody else was wrong I have simply explained my choices. I don’t know who or what has happened on this forum before me but I struggle to conceive of the possibility that a troll would want to exist in this environment or even more bizarrely why you would consider me a troll. Why you with 70 years of study and devotion to the Holy Grail of perfect Bridge you would get so irritated and incensed by me asking questions (a valid and recognised method of learning) is lost on me. Also lost on me is why you believe that you have the right to poor contempt and disdain on me or anyone else who hasn’t reached your lofty levels of higher understanding of minutia of the nth degree of Bridge as you have. If you displayed this bullying discourteous attitude in any real world Bridge Club you’d last about two weeks before you were asked not to return. You (I presume) know that a certain level of courtesy and respect is required at the Bridge table; you should show that same level of good grace on this forum.

[eagles123]

Michael000, on 2015-January-02, 15:23, said:

Thanks you for taking the time to explain how and why the hand in question should have been bid. I have read all that you have written, I have no doubt that it is all perfect and correct and will read it again and again in the hope that I can improve. Thank you.

I consider myself to be a ‘good’ Bridge player. I also consider myself to be a good driver; I am sure, if I said that to Lewis Hamilton he’d laugh at me but my opinion of my driving is based upon years of negotiating my way through the problems on the everyday roads around me. Bridge is not my life it is not top of the list of what gets me out of bed each day. I play Bridge just once a week. I have played Bridge at Club level in three different countries over 15 years; that and they, I would argue are the real world and those people in that world consider me a ‘good’ player but perhaps that’s not your real world! I consider myself and have represented myself on this forum as a ‘good’ player not a great player, not and expert player not even an advanced player but a ‘good’ player and with humility I have acknowledged room for improvement. If you look past through my post I don’t believe I have ever argued that I was right and you or anybody else was wrong I have simply explained my choices. I don’t know who or what has happened on this forum before me but I struggle to conceive of the possibility that a troll would want to exist in this environment or even more bizarrely why you would consider me a troll. Why you with 70 years of study and devotion to the Holy Grail of perfect Bridge you would get so irritated and incensed by me asking questions (a valid and recognised method of learning) is lost on me. Also lost on me is why you believe that you have the right to poor contempt and disdain on me or anyone else who hasn’t reached your lofty levels of higher understanding of minutia of the nth degree of Bridge as you have. If you displayed this bullying discourteous attitude in any real world Bridge Club you’d last about two weeks before you were asked not to return. You (I presume) know that a certain level of courtesy and respect is required at the Bridge table; you should show that same level of good grace on this forum.

troll

[mikeh]

Q.E.D. I suspect. oh well.

[Michael000]

eagles123, on 2015-January-02, 15:36, said:

troll

define 'troll'

[Trinidad]

mikeh, on 2015-January-02, 11:09, said:

the hog, on 2015-January-02, 05:47, said:

Rik, bidding 2D is a clear error. 2H is the correct reponse with 5440. Even if someone errs in bidding 2D you can till find the H fit

1S 2C
2D 2H
3H

Shows a 5440.

Yes, but how does responder set hearts as trump while preserving the ability to explore for slam?

I would expect that almost everyone of any experience, outside of rubber bridge, who plays 2/1 as non game force, is likely to use 2♥ as a form of fourth suit forcing, even if they don't formally play 4SF as a 'convention'. After all, that is the genesis of 4SF....it was often being used without the suggested length to the point that it was felt to make sense to eliminate even the pretence that it was a natural bid.

As I wrote before, and MikeH points out too, the use of the fourth suit comes with complications.

You are assuming a competent partner, where the partnership has a thorough understanding of fairly complex auctions. And, yes, I would bid 2♣ with my regular partners, already just for the fact that they can do their own masterminding when they think it is needed. But the OP wasn't playing with a regular partner. They didn't have a thorough understanding of these complex auctions. He was playing with "a unknown partner in the BBO Acol Bridge club". That means it is the time to avoid potential complications in the auction. I suppose the field that the OP was playing in was filled with first time or irregular partnerships (correct me if I am wrong). There will be quite a few pairs who would run into accidents on a hand like this. Being able to foresee and avoid an accident and keeping the auction simple can yield better scores than making the correct book bid, particularly when you are not even sure whether your partner has ever read any books.

I fully realize that such an approach does not make one a Bermuda Bowl winner. But one wouldn't enter the Bermuda Bowl with an unknown partner. In my opinion and experience, the keep it simple at all cost approach works (and scores) very well in individuals and other unknown partner situations (particularly when the rest of the field is suffering from the same problems).

Rik

[Trinidad]

Michael000, on 2015-January-02, 16:17, said:

define 'troll'

Well, "Someone who replies to a post with "define 'troll' " " would be one way for me to define 'troll'.

Rik

[mikeh]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-02, 16:33, said:

Well, "Someone who replies to a post with "define 'troll' " " would be one way for me to define 'troll'.

Rik

classic sea lion, if I understand the concept correctly

[Stephen Tu]

I don't know why some of you guys are so quick to accuse people of trolling. It's so much easier and so often right to presume simple incompetence/ignorance. The ratio of people who simply don't know things and don't realize they don't know things (unskilled people cannot accurately assess how skilled they are, the Dunning-Kruger effect) vs. actual trolls (people posting things they themselves consider absurd simply to provoke an argument and get a rise out of people) has to be at least 50 to 1 IMO.

And it's not difficult to believe a person who is new to internet forums may not be familiar with the definition of "troll" in an online discussion context.

If one plays solely at the local club against the proverbial LOL's and LOM's, it's probably pretty easy to think of one as a "good" player, if one hasn't ventured out into the EBU tournament scene to face the likes of PhilKing/Frances/gnasher/jallerton/dburn and see what real bridge is like. Takes a good thrashing to realize how much you don't know, for some people.

[ggwhiz]

Stephen Tu, on 2015-January-02, 17:49, said:

I don't know why some of you guys are so quick to accuse people of trolling. It's so much easier and so often right to presume simple incompetence/ignorance. The ratio of people who simply don't know things and don't realize they don't know things (unskilled people cannot accurately assess how skilled they are, the Dunning-Kruger effect) vs. actual trolls (people posting things they themselves consider absurd simply to provoke an argument and get a rise out of people) has to be at least 50 to 1 IMO.

And it's not difficult to believe a person who is new to internet forums may not be familiar with the definition of "troll" in an online discussion context.

If one plays solely at the local club against the proverbial LOL's and LOM's, it's probably pretty easy to think of one as a "good" player, if one hasn't ventured out into the EBU tournament scene to face the likes of PhilKing/Frances/gnasher/jallerton/dburn and see what real bridge is like. Takes a good thrashing to realize how much you don't know, for some people.

x2

Friends of mine won their 1st ever duplicate club game and decided to play until they won once in each of (5) different clubs. Gave up a year later still looking for win #2.

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on 2015-January-02, 17:49, said:

I don't know why some of you guys are so quick to accuse people of trolling. It's so much easier and so often right to presume simple incompetence/ignorance. The ratio of people who simply don't know things and don't realize they don't know things (unskilled people cannot accurately assess how skilled they are, the Dunning-Kruger effect) vs. actual trolls (people posting things they themselves consider absurd simply to provoke an argument and get a rise out of people) has to be at least 50 to 1 IMO.

And it's not difficult to believe a person who is new to internet forums may not be familiar with the definition of "troll" in an online discussion context.

If one plays solely at the local club against the proverbial LOL's and LOM's, it's probably pretty easy to think of one as a "good" player, if one hasn't ventured out into the EBU tournament scene to face the likes of PhilKing/Frances/gnasher/jallerton/dburn and see what real bridge is like. Takes a good thrashing to realize how much you don't know, for some people.

I have long advocated for the idea that incompetence explains far more of the bad things in life than does conspiracy, which is just another way of putting your thesis.

We've had some posters here who came on very strongly early on, not understanding that being the best player in their circle was meaningless, unless their circle included Open events in major national or international events, but those posters learned very quickly, and even during the learning process their posts engaged with the others in a way showing that they were really reading, trying to understand, and asking questions that, from their then-limited perspective, were appropriate and sought clarification.

Take a look at this guy. Take a look at whether he seems to engage the substance of the responses provided to him. At least in my view, he doesn't or does so in an extremely limited fashion. I really hope I am wrong. The more interested and interesting posters we have, the better. And one need not be an expert to be a very valuable and valued member of this community, so this isn't about skill level: it is about attitude and intent.