Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Cornelia Yoder
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is exactly why those inferences need to be removed from the game entirely.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some of us cannot even see the tiny window on a smartphone LOL. I'll stick with my real computer :)
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge is a game that should be played electronically, so none of this matters. You are correct to ask if it is cheating, because some of us think it is.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only people I know who can tolerate it are smartphone/tablet users. Anyone on a real computer is having nightmares.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no idea what drugs might have been involved in the Helgemo case, but I do know that some blood pressure drugs are on the Olympics (and thus the WBF) forbidden list. There have been other BW threads discussing this.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to Team Zimmerman and applause to Team Lavazza for their sportsmanship.

It's still a shame that someone who needs to take something as simple as blood pressure medication to keep themselves healthy and alive can no longer participate in tournaments.

WBF has done a super job of recognizing the difference between physical performance-enhancement and mental performance-enhancement, and taken an intelligent step to eliminate this stupidity.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Screens were invented to prevent “reading” partner. As soon as electronic bridge with each player in separate rooms to prevent “reading” opponents becomes the norm for tournaments, we'll have a decent competitive game called Bridge.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Lynn … rationalization for you doing something you think you are good at and don't want to give up, because you can't win without it. I prefer to play the real game of Bridge.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And all of the comments in these replies, as well as the idea that South is not allowed to bid his hand is EXACTLY the reason (#3) why I will not play live bridge any longer and why far too many people are driven away from it.

I don't agree with you on your interpretation of the laws, and would be further horrified to find out that you could ever be correct. No wonder bridge is dying ….
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge is a game played with written rules, rules that do NOT include using “reading people”.

If you truly believe that a game should be about reading people, go try the game called “Who Wants to be a Werewolf”. It's also played with cards – one card per person – and the rest of the game is entirely about reading people.

Leave Bridge to the people who want to play a logical analytical game.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Reading people” is NOT part of Bridge. It's part of competition and an abomination to the true game of Bridge. The sooner electronic bridge replaces cardboard bridge, the better off this game will be.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I totally disagree with the idea that South based anything on hearing his partner's statement of “spades+other”. Even if that was in fact their stated, documented agreement, he is still entitled to bid the way he did given the hand that he had.

He obviously intended to bid Diamonds from the start and alert or no alert, explanation or no explanation, he was entitled to do so without the opponents taking advantage of that to get a result they are not entitled to.

They were not damaged in any way whatsoever by South's decision to play in diamonds. Just like my situation, they were only ticked off that they felt fixed.

If the NS convention card said “spades+other” and both N and S explained “spades+other”, and NS bid the same, there would be no issue. There was no damage – EW were only ticked off because NS were in a better contract – just like my situation was.


As for my granddaughter, I do not intend to take her to another live tournament ever. Both these situations ARE the same, and one of the three specific reasons I quit live bridge. I should have stuck to that, and I'm sorry I ever exposed my granddaughter to a live tournament. She and I will stick to online from now on.

The three reasons I quit live tournaments are

1. Too expensive
2. Too late at night
3. Too many attempts to get good results you didn't earn by exploiting non-bridge issues such as described here, such as a child beginner misbidding, such as body language, hesitations, and the like.

and numbers 1 and 3 are obviously much worse than they were when I quit.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South is entitled to make any bid he wishes, in or out of system, and is entitled to pull 4 to 5 if he wishes. As long as North explained what he believe the bid was agreed to mean, no damage at all.

I get SO SICK of seeing people trying to get “rectification” because an opponent accidently misbid or deliberately bid out of the system.

I played last Saturday in a local sectional with my 10-year-old granddaughter, her playing in her first tourney ever, and with a bare minimum knowledge from a 1-week kids bridge camp last summer, something the opponents knew from pre-start discussion.

First board, she opened 2N, I bid 3 and she passed. My RHO looked at me quizzically, I shrugged dejectedly, he asked her if she played transfers, she got the “oops” look and nodded sheepishly. He then passed and I played 3 with my Jxxxx 10xxx xx xx, making 3.

RHO complained, so I called the director and he asked for redress because he got fixed. He held 4 nice spades, and 3 goes down 1.

Fortunately the director knew what he was doing and laughed “it's just bridge” at the guy.

There is no excuse for this kind of attempt to get something you didn't earn – not last Saturday here, and not in the case described in this thread.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a simple solution to not displaying chxxters as if they were winners … just take down ALL the posters and don't display anything.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I kinda like having an opening bid that game forces partner, so I don't have to worry about pard passing before I'm ready.

I play 2 as a game force on responder unless opener rebids 2N, and I can't ever remember getting in trouble with that.

Of course you have to have some standards for the 2 bid, but that's easy enough.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If that were true, Barry, why don't we limit lower levels to just basic Blackwood … no other conventions at all.

After all, Stayman is too good a convention, and so are Jacoby transfers, and Jacoby 2N, and 4th Suit Forcing, and New Minor Forcing, and …..

Come to think of it, Blackwood is too a good a convention, too, so we'd better limit it to high level events as well, for fear of driving a lot of players right out the door.

<Remove tongue from cheek>

Multi is a good convention and everyone should learn it as a matter of course, just like they learn Stayman, and Jacoby transfers, and Blackwood, and all the rest. One by one by one, no problem.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why limit 199's from learning it? It should be allowed in ALL games.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Multi should be allowed in ANY event, period. Americans just need to learn it.

It's no harder to remember and use than Jacoby transfers, and no harder to defend against either.

After all, the rest of the world plays it even at grandma's kitchen table without problems, so why are the ACBL people so terrified of it??
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Jim, of course. But if asked for an explanation, that explanation should include that it can contain a singleton or void. That is simply full disclosure, given that the usual common meaning for the 2N bid denies that.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Peg, Jacoby 2N “tends” to show no shortness, worded that way because of the more recent corruption of the original meaning of J2N.

Knowing that you bid 2N with shortness when the meaning of Jacoby 2N includes “tends to show no shortness” is information your opponents are entitled to know.

I believe you are a pretty ethical player, so if you make that bid with shortnesses, I suggest you start including that fact in any explanation of your 2N forcing raises.
Sept. 9
Cornelia Yoder edited this comment Sept. 9
.

Bottom Home Top