HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 18:34, said:
No, I wasn't upset at you personally at all. I was being attacked for disagreeing with you when I didn't even realize I was disagreeing with you. And then later when I realized I was disagreeing with you, I said that I thought your ideas might be dangerous to anyone below a certain skill level. I then spent what felt like the next month of my life fending off truly obnoxious attacks from all over the place, even though I caveated somewhere that "I know my comment is going to be extremely unpopular, but..."
Ok cool. It seemed like you resented me for something. There are definitely some posters who's posts I don't care for that much but I don't usually say it openly without provocation from them. That said, I understand your frustrations, I do think that some of your points are valid wrt treatment of me vs new posters, but I also strongly believe that peoples attitudes and posting styles influence the way people treat them more than those people seem to realize. There are plenty of new posters who come and gain respect in natural time through good posting with no "credentials" known about. I again think since you are new you do not realize how much of my reputation on these forums stem from previous good posting history (overall) but it's definitely true that I used to be a better poster than I am now and put more effort in.
I mean, it's a community, and a relatively small one at that, maybe how you present your arguments should not matter as much as what your arguments are, and maybe past history should not matter, but those things always do. You come off as very confident on issues that no one could be confident on, you say controversial things like they are statements of fact, and you speak as if you are a bridge expert sometimes when you aren't. This rubs people the wrong way. I mean seriously if you changed your tone a little bit and did not say that you knew you were right in the face of disagreement from almost everyone, you would be much better received.
If you even said "Overcalling 1S seems ludicrous to me, can you explain why you would do it because it seems like you have all of these negative factors and I'm not seeing the upside and I see all of these things as downsides...[insert your analysis]" or anything like that it would be very well received.
I mean, I am a bridge expert but if you look at my post I basically said that I would overcall but passing is fine, and that I would bid 3S but I'm not sure and 2S is fine. I'm not sure how that post drew so much hate, I will almost always speak with more conviction than that but this hand was pretty meh to me, I have no super strong feelings.
Quote
I think your ideas are fine, Justin, I guess I just wish sometimes that you'd give a little more context for some of your comments. I think it's potentially dangerous to plant the idea in someone's mind that this overcall is reasonable, without a full contextualization for them of why it's reasonable. Why overcall here? What are the risks? What are the potential rewards? Etc. Because 90% of the players out there will take this idea and run with it in all kinds of wrong directions because they don't understand exactly why overcalling is right for you in this spot and not in a dozen of other similar spots that could come up.
I don't get it. I posted that I would overcall and gave the reasons that it was dangerous and why passing was reasonable. I don't feel the need to blow everyones mind every time I post, I thought some people would be interested that I would choose to overcall, but I specifically noted why it was dangerous and what the downsides were. I assumed that other people would debate the pros and cons (I didn't really care to, as I said these kinds of threads pop up all the time and it's always the same things, imo sometimes people just want to know where to draw the line and what people would do). If I don't post my reasoning I generally post what I would do and how clear I think it is. For some reason you didn't understand my post and think my posting is vague or whatever, imo that is probably your problem since most people don't have a problem understanding what I'm saying usually.
If you wanted to know more information about why I would do something you can just ask. That is the point of a forum. If someone posts something and you want more info or clarification you can discuss it.
Your stance is bizarre, you frequently post with much more conviction and with a much more black and white thought process than me. To me most of these judgement calls on initial actions are close, there are different styles, etc. If I think it is automatic (for instance if you made it QJTxx T9x AKxx x) I would say "1S and it is automatic." If you want me every time to post why overcalling 1S with that hand is automatic, I don't know what to tell you, I'm not really gonna do that and I don't know why you would expect it.
I'm sorry that you feel overcalling 1S is ludicrous and it's dangerous for me to post it's reasonable. We have a different opinion on the matter. Many people have posted that they would also overcall 1S. If I were you and I would saw that, my view would be "wow I didn't realize so many good players would overcall with that, maybe it is more reasonable than I thought even if I wouldn't do it."
There was a thread recently where my view was that not opening 2C on like Ax AKJTxxxx Kx x was ludicrous. Since I am around bridge and bridge players all the time, I have a pretty good grasp on things usually so I was shocked when all of Bobby Levin, Geoff Hampson, and Fred Gitelman said they'd bid 1H with varying degrees of conviction. We hashed it out, and I remained pretty unconvinced by their arguments (and they of mine I think), but what I did take from it was that opening 1H is not ludicrous and I was wrong, because it is much more likely that 3 players better than me are right than that I am on a simple judgement call like this. Weighting the strength of my feelings and my skill level with the strength of theirs and their skill level, I can at least say that I think either one is reasonable at the very least, and that I was wrong in my opinion on the hand that it was ludicrous. To me this is just a rational thought process.
I just feel like people are expecting earth shattering revelations on these types of things but it's not like me saying "but what can you rebid over 1H p 1S p ?!" was something that Geoff Hampson had not thought of. Likewise it wasn't like them saying "partner might have a lot of HCP and get us too high after 2C" was something I hadn't thought of. These are matters of judgement and experience, not of logic and precision, once the general logic is known.
I would overcall QJTxx T9x AKxx x for the same reasons as this hand, and it would have the same risks, it would just be that the upside is much more and the downside is much less. But the logic for both sides would be the same, I would just feel pretty confident saying that I was definitely right with QJTxx T9x AKxx x. I feel this way because "everyone" overcalls it, and the collective wisdom of "everyone" is pretty strong in a matter like this.
I don't feel because I'm "famous" I need to try harder at posting than I do right now. I think that's a strange stance. Be better behaved, a better ambassador for the game, whatever, sure, I get that. But harder on my bridge content? It just seems strange. I post more than anyone and I often don't have time for long posts so I make quick replies and feel that I get what I want to across. Others can discuss what I say or ask me specific questions if they want, I don't feel like I have to give longwinded answers in every post I make. Posting a low content reply with what I'd do and how strongly I feel is generally considered better than posting nothing imo.