Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Cornelia Yoder
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Peg, but you're probably too young to remember Jacoby 2N as it really was invented. I'm completely aware that many people now play 2N differently, but nevertheless, it is still alertable and should be FULLY explained.


Just for reference, I looked up Jacoby 2N on some reputable websites, and here is what I found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacoby_2NT: “If the partnership plays splinter bids, the Jacoby 2NT response tends to deny the shape for a splinter (i.e., no singleton or void).”


https://www.bridgewebs.com/porthcawl/JACOBY%202NT%20RESPONSES%20TO%201%20MAJOR.htm: “It basically can be used as a flat game forcing hand in the major..”


http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/Commonly_Used_Conventions/jacoby2NT.pdf: “..many players prefer to use Jacoby 2NT with hands that do not have shortness (singletons or voids). This helps opener evaluate his hand better.”


Historically J2N and Splinters worked together. With 4 card support and GF values, you either bid a splinter with a shortness or J2N without. But once splinter bids got reduced to minimum game hands, thereby causing a terrible problem for strong hands with a shortness, people apparently decided they might as well screw up Jacoby 2N as well, so they started using 2N even with shortness. However that is NOT Jacoby 2N, it's a different forcing 2N bid and should be fully explained.


Even wikipedia notes this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacoby_2NT: “However, it might be the best alternative as prelude to possible slam exploration with unbalanced support in a holding stronger than the agreed range for a splinter bid.”


Personally, I find it much more useful to specifically deny a shortness, so I use the real Jacoby 2N as it was intended – I can always use a 2/1 bid for a very strong hand with a shortness.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jacoby 2N officially denies a singleton or void, so if they did not include the possibility of a void in the alert/explanation, they are concealing a private understanding.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I recommend you just drop this whole line of thinking and move on. Worrying about what people think of you is useless, just worry about what YOU think of you. The rest will fade into the past very quickly.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because of the general anonymity of the internet, people tend to be more of what they really are IRL.

If they are generally kind, they will be even more so online, because they don't have to worry about overdoing the kindness or being misinterpreted.

If they are generally nasty, they are usually more nasty online, because they don't ever expect to actually meet the person they are being nasty to IRL, so they feel free to indulge their mean nature.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both N and S are at fault for playing Goulash. Bridge is a much better game. :)
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After a 2/1 GF, 2N still shows 18-19, you don't need to jump to 3N. So 3N is a mistake by someone who doesn't know the previous sentence.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, you are completely right, but the crux of the problem is that whichever is YOUR preferred learning method is the method you tend (and sometimes can only) use teaching.

It is very difficult for someone who learns by repetition to teach someone intuitive, simply because they don't have any intuitive sense of the topic.

And conversely, it's very difficult for an intuitive person to teach without explaining the underlying theory to someone, even if that student has no interest in theory at all, just in knowing what actions they need to take.

And so on.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you should read a book on cognitive styles in learning. You'll find that there are several and none of them are wrong, just different.

The biggest problem in learning is when there is a mismatch between the cognitive style of the teacher and the student.

In your case, the teacher was an intuitive and thus he taught that way, whereas you are apparently a different cognitive style for which intuition isn't important but repetition is. Neither of your styles is bad or good, just different, but it's no surprise that you cannot relate to each other well.

No matter what part of bridge you try to teach, if you cannot teach in ways that adapt to all the different cognitive styles, there will be some students that you lose.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Peter, Drury was actually discussed as being an illegal convention, but enough people at high levels like to be able to field psyches that they lobbied for it to be allowed.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's like Christmas … opening a hand is like opening a present … it's an unexpected surprise or an interesting adventure, always new and always fun!
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Drury is the second-worst convention ever invented. Thank you, Randy, for enumerating many of its stupidities.
Aug. 29
.

Bottom Home Top