[RedSpawn]

 Phil, on 2017-April-22, 02:08, said:

Don't know how I stayed out of this cesspool of a thread.

More straw men here than a week at Burning Man.

Sure. Let's group 4 categories of bids versus 1 call and look at the results. That sounds really fair upfront?

How often do you have elections at the candidate level but when final results are presented you sum up totals by party affiliation? None.

Leave the results at the candidate level because that is how the question was asked at the poll. All election results are presented at the way they were polled.

The aggregation maneuver just skews the results even more and hides the true distribution of results. The poll forerunners are pass and 4 hearts. So how does it look when the author is on record for saying pass is insane to him but it comes in a respectable 2nd place out of 5 categories?

Does that support his narrative? Nope. So let's combine. 2,3,4&5 hearts and compare them to pass and say hearts win 2 to 1. Nahhh, no straw man here.

The aggregation maneuver is false advertising. It tries to throw PASS to the back of the line when the results show it came in strong 2nd place among 5 available categories.

You don't see a discussion of its 2nd place standing but you see it was packaged as a 68 to 36 vote count. Very interesting switch out.

[Phil]

Bridgewinners has some great features. If you like, you can create a poll (and it lands on the front page) and select only 4H and pass as the choices.

The pass/3H/4H matrix is notable, but it's accepted in bridge literature that (in this case) that (along the 4H---pass spectrum) that the 3H bidders are not closer to a pass and partially support 4H! A moderator in The Bridge World would judge the poll results on a binary "action vs no action".

If this problem appeared, and based on Bridgewinners voting, Bridge World would score the problem something like:

4h 100
3h 80
Pass 60
2h 20

[Phil]

By the way, this hand has an element of deja vu. Look at board 13 from the first final session of the Silador Pairs, Reno 2016:

http://live.acbl.org...ABC161/03181300

I opened 3H and it went x, p 3N (a little slow) 4N (!?!?) 6N.

[RedSpawn]

 Phil, on 2017-April-22, 03:19, said:

By the way, this hand has an element of deja vu. Look at board 13 from the first final session of the Silador Pairs, Reno 2016:

http://live.acbl.org...ABC161/03181300

I opened 3H and it went x, p 3N (a little slow) 4N (!?!?) 6N.

the 4NT shows that East doesn't perform downgrades of hands. The dubious J♣ trapped in the doubleton and the excess number of Jacks and Queen's in East's hand should be an immediate red flag that a slam in not on the horizon.

By the way, I am tired of the cesspool. I am going to take my 2nd place (PASS) standing as a moral victory that the PASS call is not nearly as insane as MrAce alleged it to be. It's just not worth the time and energy. I had to fight tooth and nail to get the PASS vote to be recognized as 2nd place out of 5 categories!

When people don't respect you to begin with and attach your quotes and UserID to email signatures in a "high school" like fashion, you quickly realize their maturity level. They won't believe anything you say regardless of source because they don't like you. If they don't like you, they aren't gonna like any idea coming from you regardless of veracity or intellectual merit.

That forum is a classic case of GroupThink in action. You either conform to the collective's entrenched beliefs or leave.

Groupthink

[Jinksy]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 12:38, said:

That forum is a classic case of GroupThink in action. You either conform to the collective's entrenched beliefs or leave.

Y'know, I voted for 2♥ on this hand. Various people have subsequently claimed this was idiocy. And yet, I'm still here - and slightly better placed to know what to open on such hands in future.

It's great how getting criticised by stronger players improves my game. It's almost like that's why I come here.

[RedSpawn]

 Jinksy, on 2017-April-24, 13:46, said:

Y'know, I voted for 2♥ on this hand. Various people have subsequently claimed this was idiocy. And yet, I'm still here - and slightly better placed to know what to open on such hands in future.

It's great how getting criticised by stronger players improves my game. It's almost like that's why I come here.

What you call criticized, I call bar-be-qued. They even have a "secret marinade" for such occasions.

[Vampyr]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 12:38, said:

That forum is a classic case of GroupThink in action. You either conform to the collective's entrenched beliefs or leave.

Groupthink

Do you really want to see this "groupthink" in action? I suggest you peruse a thread you have not participated in. You will see that the "collective" have a variety of viewpoints and constantly disagree with one another.

You remind me of a poster who came on to the forums intending to teach us all to play bridge. He whinged and said we were mean and cliquey when we gave more credence to the opinions of a Bermuda Bowl finalist than his own. He did not last long. Maybe you can do better.

PS ignore the sigs. They have been on there forever and are not directed at anyone.

[RedSpawn]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-25, 20:24, said:

Do you really want to see this "groupthink" in action? I suggest you peruse a thread you have not participated in. You will see that the "collective" have a variety of viewpoints and constantly disagree with one another.

You remind me of a poster who came on to the forums intending to teach us all to play bridge. He whinged and said we were mean and cliquey when we gave more credence to the opinions of a Bermuda Bowl finalist than his own. He did not last long. Maybe you can do better.

PS ignore the sigs. They have been on there forever and are not directed at anyone.

Did you see the thread, involving the "other" candidate of entertainment value, which I unintentionally resurrected from the dung heap? It is in the Beginner/Novice group. While his position was not all founded on any bridge theory and was patently wrong, I think a reasonable case can be made for groupthink once an idea is clearly in the oddball, "you can't be serious" realm.

[Vampyr]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-26, 02:28, said:

Did you see the thread, involving the "other" candidate of entertainment value, which I unintentionally resurrected from the dung heap? It is in the Beginner/Novice group. While his position was not all founded on any bridge theory and was patently wrong, I think a reasonable case can be made for groupthink once an idea is clearly in the oddball, "you can't be serious" realm.

Is that what you mean by "groupthink" - that nobody agrees with an idea that is, as you say, patently wrong? OK then.

[RedSpawn]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-26, 04:42, said:

Is that what you mean by "groupthink" - that nobody agrees with an idea that is, as you say, patently wrong? OK then.

Let me make this clear what happened:

1) The thought of calling pass on T98765432♥ in 2nd seat was called insane.
2) Further tag-team comments corroborated the idea that passing on T98765432♥ in 2nd seat is insane.
3) Several group members recommended the bid of 4♥ from 2nd seat.
4) I called T98765432♥ "obscene garbage" and the bidding of 4♥ from 2nd seat "Texas Hold Em Poker"
5) Jennifer and I asked to differentiate how you bid/call AKXXXXXX♥ versus T98765432♥; I snarkily replied that it is the respondent's responsibility to be amazingly clairvoyant and know when partner is bidding which one (even if he is void in ♥).
6) So we take a vote on Brigewinners.com.
7) Bridge winner shows that 4♥ carried 49% of vote and PASS carried 33% of vote if each bid/call type is mutually exclusive as it should be.
8) So, the results are "aggregated" to show 67% ANY BID versus the call PASS 33% which was NOT the essence of the argument. 4♥ versus PASS was the main argument.
9) And finally, the author of the bridgewinner poll took efforts to discredit the large 33% showing for the call PASS by suggesting (indirectly) that the voters are chock full of amateur/non-experts ==> if this is the case, why even take the brigewinners poll in the 1st place?

I firmly believe that to discredit a 33% voting group (when compared to a 49% voting group) just because their vote does not conform to your bridge sensibilities or "insane" narrative is definitely groupthink or heavily misguided.

In groupthink, "group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints." Calling PASS was definitely an alternative viewpoint that was suppressed though "aggregation" of poll results AND by trying to suggest the 33% voting block is full of potentially rank amateurs.

[eagles123]

thank god for the "ignore user" option

[Vampyr]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-10, 08:11, said:

In groupthink, "group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints." Calling PASS was definitely an alternative viewpoint that was suppressed though "aggregation" of poll results AND by trying to suggest the 33% voting block is full of potentially rank amateurs.

There is no "group"on BBO to conform to.

[RedSpawn]

 Vampyr, on 2017-May-10, 10:09, said:

There is no "group"on BBO to conform to.

When the collective hears an alternative idea that doesn't conform to their sensibilities, the attack formation begins.

I am okay with the attack formation.

We take a vote. I am okay with the vote.

However, if the vote shows that calling pass on T98765432♥ is not as insane as the author purported it to be, OWN THE OUTCOME. No bid/call had a majority at the time and the poll forerunners were 4♥ and PASS.

To try and throw a poisoned dart and suggest (indirectly) the 33% voting block is rife with rank amateurs to STILL HOLD ONTO the "insane" narrative is consistent with a groupthink maneuver.

[johnu]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-10, 10:37, said:

When the collective hears an alternative idea that doesn't conform to their sensibilities, the attack formation begins.

I am okay with the attack formation.

Is your alternative idea the same as an alternative fact? In any case, this is called Attack Formation Echo-3 IIRC.

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-10, 10:37, said:

We take a vote. I am okay with the vote.

However, if the vote shows that calling pass on T98765432♥ is not as insane as the author purported it to be, OWN THE OUTCOME. No bid/call had a majority at the time and the poll forerunners were 4♥ and PASS.

To try and throw a poisoned dart and suggest (indirectly) the 33% voting block is rife with rank amateurs to STILL HOLD ONTO the "insane" narrative is consistent with a groupthink maneuver.

67% of the responders chose something other than pass. All 67% are essentially saying we see the suit quality, but a 9 card suit should be opened. The exact level of the opening is up for debate, but basically 50% of all the voters chose 4♥. Pass is a minority position, no matter how you slice it.

I know and respect some of the people who voted for pass, but I think they are completely wrong to pass. There are twice as many non-passers, and many more "name" players among the 4♥ openers.

I ran some double dummy simulations on Dealmaster Pro with random hands for the other 3 players.

4♥ makes 8 or more tricks 76%, 9 or more 59%, 10 or more 32%, and slam 6%

The opponents can make 9 tricks or more in 3NT 68% and have a slam 18%.
The opponents can make 10 tricks or more in 4♠ 49% and have a slam 15%
The opponents can make 11 tricks or more in 5♣ 30% and have a slam 16%
The opponents can make 11 tricks or more in 5♦ 23% and have a slam 12%

Obviously partner is almost always going to pass 4♥. Your chances of making game or better in another suit or NT is pretty close to zero in my 200 hand sample size. If slam is a possibility in hearts, partner can use RKC to check for keycards.

The opponents contract percentages need some context. The opponents hands are random after taking out the cards in the 9 card heart suit hand. 3NT going down includes hand where the opponents don't have any heart stopper as an example. 4♠ includes hands where the opponents have 7 or fewer spades). The percentages of makeable contracts is a lot higher if you eliminate "silly" contracts that wouldn't be bid on the actual cards.

How should you interpret the simulations? Holding only 2 HCP, this is overwhelmingly going to be the opponents hand, so 4♥ is either going to be a good sacrifice (or making), or you are forcing the opponents to make a decision starting at the 4 or 5 level instead of getting in a couple of bids at the 1 or 2 level. I know where I want the opponents to have make their first decision.

[MrAce]

[Vampyr]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-10, 10:37, said:

When the collective hears an alternative idea that doesn't conform to their sensibilities, the attack formation begins.

As for me, I don't care about the hand or vote. I do object to your talking about the "collective" and "attack formation" because, honestly, there is no such thing. Read another thread, and see how much agreement there is within the so-called collective.

[mycroft]

Yeah, Vampyr, we're always on the same side. And so is Nige1, gordontd, barmar, blackshoe,...

(by the way, Vampyr, when is this month's "agree with you" bottle going to show up?)

[kuhchung]

i can't believe i just the whole thread

[xbabarx]

4♥ come what may

[xbabarx]

 MrAce, on 2017-May-10, 14:39, said: