| |
BGonline.org Forums
"Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Friday, 12 February 2010, at 1:14 a.m.
I prefer the terminology "too good, take" as well. I can understand why some people might want to call them "not good enough" because ND > DT, but in my opinion this is more confusing than helpful.
I'm not even sure people use the terminology "too good and not good enough" in a consistent manner. For example, in Paul Lamford's article, I did a quick check of the positions in GNU, and in no case did GNU actually deliver the verdict "too good to (re)double, take." In my preferred terminology, what people often seem to do is to argue that there are both good and bad market freezers. Then they call the position "too good and not good enough," even if the position is not actually "too good, take." Even in Kit Woolsey's excellent article on the Five-Point Match, he suggests that a certain position (I think this is in the section on 2-away/3-away) is "too good, take" when it's really just not good enough. I think he confuses himself because part of the reason the leader doesn't have a double in that position is that it kills his gammons. Anyway, I'd prefer to steer clear of such confusions by using more careful terminology.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.