[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2014-August-30, 23:57, said:

Gwnn, I certainly don't think the x is stupid. I think it is a mistake and I would not x. I like to have trump tricks in principle for a x. I DO strongly disagree with your partner's opening bid unless you are playing wnt. Even then I would think twice about it. However THAT is a different argument to the x. If pd xed we would have a discussion about the hand afterwards.

Now these are opinions I can agree with:

• I think X is not stupid. I can certainly sympathize with those who would not double but would pass (exactly for the lack of trump tricks), even if it wouldn't be my choice.
  
• If partner claims to be a sound opener, he shouldn't have opened that hand. I would have opened that hand, but I don't claim to be a sound opener.

Rik

[blackshoe]

rhm, on 2014-August-30, 04:24, said:

Some players never play 3NT as anything but as a suggestion as a final contract.
But it has to be said this is an accident prone attitude only used by indecent players, who do not know how to bid.

I do not think that word (indecent) means what you think it means. Hint: one synonym for "indecent" is "obscene".

[rhm]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-31, 07:02, said:

I do not think that word (indecent) means what you think it means. Hint: one synonym for "indecent" is "obscene".

I choose my words here carefully.
But you have to read it in context

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2014-August-31, 09:04, said:

I choose my words here carefully.
But you have to read it in context

Here is the full context:

rhm, on 2014-August-30, 04:24, said:

cherdano said:

Of course, for almost any halfway decent player 3NT in this position would be artificial, offering a choice between the two red suits at the 4-level.

Some players never play 3NT as anything but as a suggestion as a final contract.
But it has to be said this is an accident prone attitude only used by indecent players, who do not know how to bid.

And by the way, what 4♣ in this context would mean for so called decent players escapes me, probably an invitation to 6♦

It still does not make sense taken at face value. I think you mean indecent as "not of a decent standard", as in "poor", but indecent does not have this meaning here. I do not think it really matters - this is an international forum and not everyone has English as a first language - it is only to point out what Ed is referring to.

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-31, 15:55, said:

It still does not make sense taken at face value. I think you mean indecent as "not of a decent standard", as in "poor", but indecent does not have this meaning here. I do not think it really matters - this is an international forum and not everyone has English as a first language - it is only to point out what Ed is referring to.

It doesn't really matter, except that rhm's reaction is quite clarifying. Rhm makes a typical English language mistake, i.e. one that many non-native speakers would make. A native speaker is kind enough to point out that he has make this mistake. But rhm is too arrogant to realize this, and instead thinks this native speaker has misunderstood what he was trying to say.
I'd say that's rhm-ism in its purest form, and many of his other posts are more easily explained if we start with the assumption that it contains at least a mild imprint of rhm-ism.

[PhantomSac]

German on German violence

[barmar]

I'm putting a stop to this, there's more heat than light being generated at this point.

[barmar]

I received one PM agreeing with my decision, one that seemed agnostic, and a few PMs and public posts disagreeing. So I'm restoring this thread. Sorry for the overreaction.