Yes, I have at last decided on a Bones Principle logo winner. It is Doug Ross, for this:
Which will now appear on all Bones Principle hands. Our readers will finally get to see what a two-logo hand really looks like. Doug will win, besides everlasting glory, whatever it was I decided to give away, whenever I get around to sending it. The entries were excellent, as ever, and I should note especially the runner-up, from a modest reader:
Thanks to all participants.
Gee seems to have his knickers in a twist. You can read the whole thing if you like, but there are a few points of interest:
Aaron, as usual, you lie, you misrepresent everything on the sole purpose to make me look like a fool…You carefully suppressed the lines in between that lead to my comments, but this is not the first time you do that. You are very deceptive, Mister!
I’m pretty sure he’s accusing me of hiding something, although his syntax is difficult to parse. He doesn’t tell me what I hid or cite any other examples of my alleged misrepresentations. An eyewitness to the remarks I quoted testifies to my complete accuracy. Everything Gee writes to me I publish prominently and in full, including, of course, this.
On another subject, you reported in your so called columns a discussion we had, you and I, about a squeeze play. That discussion never happened, it is a pure invention of your imagination, and I don’t care if what you wrote makes me look good, it is all false.
Now this is interesting. Why would I fabricate a discussion that makes Gee look good if I were interested in character assassination? I wouldn’t, of course. But the comments were spelled and punctuated properly and the analysis was sound, so I thought something might be fishy. I checked my referer logs, and sure enough, the comments that were purportedly from Gee came, not from his provider, but from an ISP in the UK. So what happened? I guess some misguided avenger of Gee’s honor sent in these comments under his name to make me look bad. I will retain the comments, but under the name of “pseudo-Gerard,” until the impostor decides to reveal himself. It was scurrilous of me to accuse Gee of analyzing a hand correctly, and it won’t happen again.
On the same token, you reported questions asked by justinl and shotgun. They never asked you these questions.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. “Superstitious in the Sudan” isn’t really from the Sudan. “Mystified in Missoula” isn’t from Missoula either. I’ve even heard rumors that Dr. Robert doesn’t have an M.D. Now that would be a scandal.
Meanwhile, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, I do not accept a challenge by you at the bridge table until these columns about me either stop or stop being a character assassination of me. Show yourself as a gentleman, and then we’ll talk, but not before.
Something may have got lost in translation here. Perhaps an analogy would be in order. I offer to flip you a coin for $100. You answer, “Tell you what, pay me the $100 and then we’ll flip.” I’ll go through it again, slowly. Closing down the site is not a condition of the match; it is the stake of the match. You can’t make the stake a condition, because then there isn’t a stake any more.
I refer the interested reader to several examples of gentlemanly discourse.
I’m told — not personally of course, but by a third party — that Gee has declined to play my challenge match. My conditions are apparently unfair. After careful consideration, I am willing to abandon my third condition. He need not advertise my site on his card since everyone knows where it is anyway. While I’m at it, I’ll drop the second condition as well; why shouldn’t Gee retain the right to banish spectators, especially at other people’s tables? And now that I think about it, I don’t really want him to open his Lehmans either, lest he scare off prospective opponents. Better drop that too. I’ve already agreed that Gee can choose his partner; suppose I let him choose mine as well, no experience necessary. Finally, I think it only fair that if I have to close down my site if I lose, I should have to close it down if I win as well. I look forward to further negotiation.
A reader was kind enough to forward a complete copy of Bridge Is a Conversation, which I plan to peruse over the next couple of days. There will be additions to the book page. For now, I leave you with this: “Recently, I played Roman Club 1959 with a partner and got rimmed by him because I used a modification that appeared in the 1961 version.” Did he really say “rimmed”?
For all your web design needs.
I hear Gee wants me to close this site down. I can’t for the life of me understand why, but I’m an agreeable sort, and I’m willing to comply. On one condition.
All Gee has to do is agree to play a 100-board IMP match, with a partner of his choice, against me and Justin Lall, who is already well-known to Gee Chronicles readers. Two experts against an intermediate and a child: piece of cake. And if he wins, I close down the site, forever, no tricks. But if, by some remote chance, he loses, the following conditions obtain:
Now is that a reasonable offer or what?
Yes, it’s time for another logo contest. Several readers have asked for a Bones Principle logo. I hear you. Of course I could Google up a skull and crossbones or something, but I’d rather you guys do my work for me. The prize, as ever, is an inscribed copy of Shadow in the Bridge World, by the Bones Principle author himself, whose work is not confined to bidding theory. As usual, the contest closes when I get something I really like.
In a recent hand Gee’s partner opened 1NT and accepted a 2D transfer to hearts, over an intervening double, holding Ax. The ensuing ardent discussion of bidding theory deserves to be quoted in full:
Spec #1: Why did he accept the transfer? Does anyone else play accepting the transfer promises 3 after a double?
Spec #2: If you don’t accept, you need clear agreement on how to retransfer
Spec #2: How many pickup pards on here would you risk that with?
Spec #3: That is easy enough to agree upon
G: Besides all this, what if I transferred like here with 6 points? I don’t want to play at the 3 level
Spec #1: I wouldn’t risk redoubling as a retransfer
Spec #4: If my pd redoubles, I would safely bid the transfer any day
Spec #1: But I would risk passing the double of a transfer to show 2
G: Redoubling does not make any sense to me
Spec #5: Redoubling can get you in trouble sometimes
G: Forces one level higher
Spec #1: ????????
Spec #4: Why is it one level higher?
Spec #1: How does it force you one level higher G?
Spec #4: 2D X pass pass rdbl!
Spec #6: Why?
Spec #4: Then your pd now transfers 2H
G: 2DXX…not gonna stand
G: opps will bid
Spec #6: Huh?
Spec #4: If opps bid, slaughter time
Spec #1: Ohh I see G, you are right, sorry
G: Now have to bid up to 3H
Spec #1: Yes of course
Spec #4: Why bid 3H when you can slaughter any 3 level?
Spec #1: What was I thinking
Spec #5: With my luck I’d be declaring 2DXX
G: How do you plan on doing this if I had a weak weak hand?
G: Like here??
G: Can’t slaughter the opps
Spec #4: Just redouble, up to your pd to bid 2H
Spec #5: That’s not a weak hand would accept a transfer refusal
G: They won’t let it stand against a 1NT opening
Spec #4: If they compete to the 3 level and you are weak, they will always be at the 3 level anyway
G: Maybe not
Spec #4: If not, then your pd will retransfer to 2H and stay there
Spec #1 (to Spec #4): Just tell him he’s right and he’ll be quiet
Spec #4: But you are right G
G: You really believe opps will leave 2DXX in after a 1NT opening?
Gerard is no longer a spectator.
Spec #4: What can opps bid????
Spec #1: LOL
Spec #7: Do not argue with the master!!
Spec #5: ?
Spec #6: What is he talking about? Can someone translate?
Spec #5: no
Spec #1: You haven’t learned how to converse with G. I’ll translate
Spec #1: G is saying they’ll compete if you retransfer with a redouble
Spec #1: Then you MUST bid 3 hearts, and have to play 1 level higher because they competed
Spec #6: Huh?
Spec #4: If not, then opps will not let 2DXX stand
Spec #1: They will not just pass 2DXX
Spec #4: And then they will run to 6C
Spec #1: Get it now?
Spec #6: I need another Jack Daniels
Spec #5: Pass the bottle
Turns out I had the wrong idea about that phone call. Here’s the real story. “I called Aaron, not to threaten him, but to tell him that I meant business and I was not just making noise. And if he doesn’t like it, he had better lay low.”
You see? It wasn’t a threat after all. Glad we cleared that up.
I got a weird phone call yesterday from some guy with a French accent. Didn’t identify himself, just started in: “I just want you to know that I have your home telephone number and your address and my lawyer has…” I hung up at that point. I’m a very tolerant person. I wait until the second time before I call the police.
And here’s a little excerpt from yesterday’s spec chatter:
G: all of you specs… If you really care, and you seem to… most of you at least, please help me to chase aaron away from here so all this horrible stuff ends
Spec #1: aaron who?
Spec #2: Elvis Aaron?
Spec #3: the person who writes the website about G
Spec #4: what website?
Spec #2: only a small part of the website is about G tho
Spec #5: must have a lot of free time
Spec #3: he runs websites for his living
Spec #3: i’m sure a little blurb about G on his own doesn’t take much time
Spec #6: ughh
Spec #7: http://gee.aaronhaspel.com
Sounds like fun. Can I play too?