Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Cornelia Yoder
1 2 3 4 ... 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ... 56 57 58 59
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree totally with Kit on this, except I would add
2-2-2N-4
(any response other than 2, NOT G).
and it's worth mentioning that 3N (strong)-4 is Stayman, not Gerber.
July 1, 2016
Cornelia Yoder edited this comment July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the director knew all that happened and didn't give a PP to the LHO, then I'd report the DIRECTOR to the Head TD or to the ACBL.
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have another option I'd like to vote for … play electronically so you don't have to deal with this kind of c**p. :)
June 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it really annoying when people get annoyed at me when I'm thinking before making my guess. Sometimes my guess can take a long time to think about.

If thinking in bridge bothers you so much, perhaps there are other games you might try where so much thinking isn't required :)
June 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I think it's more like a reply to a confrontational approach by someone else. I don't need to say it unless someone bugs me about thinking :)
June 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think whenever I want, which is whenever I have anything to think about.

If anyone accuses me of looking for a tell, of thinking too long, or of thinking unnecessarily, I just say …

“Bridge is a game in which you are SUPPOSED to think, and I shall do so when I wish for exactly as long as I wish.”
June 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course I read it, Peg, and nowhere in there does it say that any of the physical differences translate to lower intelligence, poorer ability to concentrate, or inability to focus well. All it says is that they measured some physical differences and put their own interpretation on the results.

What you may not have noticed is that most of the so-called differences are developmental, meaning that they are not innate, but develop as the children grow – how genders are treated differently as children – not by sexual genetics.

What else you may not have noticed is that one paper that supports your biased view does not make scientific reality.

As a professional scientist myself, I can easily see how this paper took carefully selected traits and used them to justify their own view.

It's amazing to me to see a woman post what I normally expect from the most die-hard male chauvinists.

I had a similar discussion a couple years ago with a very fine (male) bridge player who informed me that the reason women couldn't play bridge well was because they had evolved to stay home in the cave and raise children, whereas men had evolved the higher intelligence needed for hunting. That was about the same level of scientific understanding as your post.

So you are entitled to your prejudices just like he was, but I've had my say and I don't think I want to dignify this thread any further by pretending it has any real scientific basis.
June 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
<rant on>

Peg, I can't tell you how completely totally wrong you are. Physiological differences do NOT mean intelligence differences, do NOT mean logical or reasoning ability differences, do NOT mean focus differences, do NOT mean concentration differences, do NOT mean spacial relationship understanding differences.

Generalizing by gender for attributes like these is exactly what the sexist men do.

Maybe YOU can't reason as well as men, aren't as intelligent as men, can't focus as well as men, can't concentrate as well as men, but how dare you class all women that way?

The fewer numbers of top women players has absolutely nothing to do with lack of innate ability. It's very well known that it has to do with social and economic differences, such as more women who stay home to raise children, or who simply can't afford to compete at the high (and expensive) levels required.

Women who say the kind of things you said here are precisely the women who would still be wishing they could vote if not for the rest of us who refused to accept this prejudiced view.

<rant off>
June 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wish I could “Like” this post 147 times.

I spent many vugraph sessions arguing with fellow commentators (mostly privately) about them calling the women players “girls”, about referring to the “men's” and “girl's” events, and generally sarcastic or insulting comments about a woman's play.

I never play women's events and I consider their existence insulting.
June 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since the diamond stoppers are likely with RHO, I'm keeping the king.
June 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It IMPROVES the game, of course. The only people who want to keep revokes and out-of-turn leads and etc are the ones who think they can gain an advantage that way. I think that's a poor way to look at any game … hoping to win because an opponent accidently drops a card.
June 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's very interesting how people think that giving up a benefit from an opponent's infraction deserves kudos, when in other threads here on BW, top players objected to the idea of electronic bridge specifically because they wanted to have the opponents able to revoke or lead out of turn or the like so they could benefit from that.
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can tell you what I did in the only case where I was faced with such a decision. It was a regional pairs event and at the end of the first hand, opponents at the table we were moving to made a clear statement “Making 7 is cold”. I didn't know which board it was, nor which way it was, but I noted the board numbers on my card and played the rest of the event hoping not to reach that set of boards.

The last round, sure enough, there they were. So I called the director, took him away from the table and told him what I had overheard. He looked at his hand records, told me to try to play the board normally, but he stood by the table.

Sure enough, we had the slam and after blackwood for all the aces and kings, I was the one faced with the decision to bid 7 or to pass 6.

I remember thinking for a long time, about things like what I would have done without the UI, what I would do if I'd heard 7 was hopeless, and the decision was just impossible. I believe I would have bid 7, but at the time I could not be sure that it wasn't influenced by the UI. Plus I knew if I bid 7 and not everyone had, neither the director nor I would ever be sure it was honest.

Finally I turned to the director and said, “I just can't do it. The decision is too close and I simply truly don't know what I would have done without the UI”.

He cancelled the board, gave both sides an A+, and to this day, I think that was a better solution than deliberately bidding (or playing) something you know would succeed (or fail) because someone else messed up.
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So does this mean that doing something counter to the Laws or simply not taking advantage of your rights under the Laws should be a feel-good act?
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When someone accidently shows me cards, I tell them to hold their hand back. The second time, I say, “I only warn twice, after that I look”. It's fairly effective.
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The biggest problem is that it wasn't a golden opportunity. It was a terrible time to psyche. Don't psyche before you're sure the level of your partner's hand.

If you psyche in first seat with hands like these, you occasionally find partner with a monster and land in 6 or 7 hearts when a simple game was easy.

The best time to psyche is after partner has passed or the auction suggests that it is the opponents' hand.

Psyches destroy partnership trust. Your partner will be uncomfortable every time you open 1 for the next few months now.

And once you do psyche, just Pass smoothly for the rest of the auction.
June 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that 4 in north can be set on either a diamond lead, or a club lead. North simply doesn't have enough tricks with both black kings offside. It does require some very careful defense though.
June 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correct, Dave, a jump cuebid asks partner to bid 3N with a stopper (direct or balance). A non-jump, assuming you play this in the balance seat as well as direct, would be Michaels.

Mike, you can certainly make such an agreement with a partner, but it's probably a good idea to discuss before you play it the way you described..
June 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same as it would in the direct seat … asks partner to bid 3N with a club stopper.

If you want to show a club suit, double, then bid clubs after they run.
June 9, 2016
Cornelia Yoder edited this comment June 9, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ... 56 57 58 59
.

Bottom Home Top