Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Cornelia Yoder
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 40 41 42 43
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My “Other” was really “All of the Above”.
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I psyche when the conditions are perfect for it, regardless of how many how often, but only against players I can't beat naturally.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sabrina, MY confusion is why you would read this wrong. If the COC says, “…run-of-the-month…”, that is clearly the most recent run. If the hyphens are missing, I still read it the same way, although I can understand your confusion.
July 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a law that says you can't add a choice to your standard set?
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm confused, I read this statement as saying, “…as of the ACBL computer run-of-the-month preceding the event.” — hyphens mine, of course, to clarify what I would think this meant —
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When my students ask me (and they do this often), “Should I learn ThusAndSuch Convention?”, I just ask them to describe the problem that the convention solves. If they can't answer that, they don't need the convention.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have always believed that it's stupid to psyche against opponents that you can beat naturally.

I once played a hand against Zia in an online tournament where he psyched an opening bid. I simply sent him a private message saying Thanks for the compliment that he considered me a dangerous opponent that he couldn't beat naturally.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And Mark, those other 36 pairs who don't play Flannery have apparently realized it's not so valuable.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron says, “At least when I open 1C and rebid 1S, my partners know I have at least 4 4 in the blacks; yours only know you have 4S”

And when you open 1C and rebid 1N, your partners don't even know you have 4S.

I prefer my partners to know about my spade suit. We can get to NT later if it's best.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe “It's a common agreement to bid 1♣-1♥;1NT holding four spades”, but it still misses 4-4 spade fits.

Jacoby 2N is a common agreement, too, but it's alertable, so why should bypassing a spade suit not be, just because “it's common”? And I could name many more common agreements that are still alertable.

There are two points here: (1) IMO bypassing spades is dumb and misses spade fits, and (2) bypassing even 4 spades should be alertable because common or not, it's unexpected by large numbers of players.

You want to bypass spades, please come and play against me, but alert your agreement – I'm entitled to know you are bidding in a maybe-common to you, but non-standard way.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill, I think it's good partnership management to avoid any expectation of apology and all fuming about partner's stupidity until after the session.

My partners know they are not going to hear one single sigh from me at the table, and they can move on without any embarrassment when they do something stupid. As can I.

Private discussion later does not damage a partnership like blame and fault at the table does.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark, how many pairs were not playing it?
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So it's ok to bypass 4 spades but not 6? How about 5? How about a really good 4? How about a very junky 5?

Just because some people think it's “good bridge” to skip spades and miss spade fits doesn't make it so.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If this 1N response should be alerted because it might bypass a spade suit, why not ALL of the various bids that bypass spade suits to bid 1N?
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played Flannery years ago and the 1N was specifically alertable.

However these days, too many people are playing some kind of stupidity that bypasses a 4 card spade suit to bid 1N in a lot of different treatments, so I believe that rule was changed so that 1N is no longer alertable if you might be bypassing a spade suit.

And by the way, I now consider Flannery the 3rd worst convention ever invented. And anything that bypasses 4 spades is the 4th worst.
July 11
Cornelia Yoder edited this comment July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tell all my partners, “I don't apologize and I don't want you to. We all play our best and sometimes we go wrong, it's just part of the game.”
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps the clubs are ignoring the ACBL attempts to impose artificial limitations on bridge.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When opponents have bid a suit or there is a clear 4th suit unknown, a jump to 5 of your suit asks partner to bid slam if they can stop two quick losers in the suit.

When the above conditions do not exist, 5 of your suit asks partner about their honor holding in the trump suit.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've been playing bridge for about 55 years. Yesterday, I played a slam hand, making on a double squeeze after everything else I tried didn't work. A king was offside, a suit split 4-2, another suit split 4-2, and a third suit split 5-1.

I suck at squeezes, but after everything else had failed, I recognized the possibility of a squeeze about trick 9 and played it perfectly from there on. When I played the last card – the now-good 5 – sitting here alone in my office, I actually screamed “Yes! It worked!! Awesome!” out loud.

After 55 years of this game, I still have FUN :)
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's sad that this is quick becoming a game of bot manipulation instead of bridge.
July 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 40 41 42 43
.

Bottom Home Top