Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Cornelia Yoder
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, the “joke” is not about belittling women, the “joke” is about a stupid person, no gender needed. The problem is that to set up the “joke” requires belittling someone, and for some reason you maybe can explain, it's funnier (at least to some people, Kantar comes to mind) if the belittled someone is a woman. THAT is the heart of the problem.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brian, there are a lot of definitions of “sexist”, and that is not one of them. Now the so-called “joke”, THAT is sexist.

Perhaps you should learn a bit more about it before you try to make ad hominem attacks. Those are the last resort of someone losing an argument, and you are not even good at them :)
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Miohael is 1000% correct. He said it better than I could.

As a joke, it's not even funny. As a joke about bridge players, it's not funny. As a joke about men, it's not funny. As a story demeaning women, it's decidedly not funny.

Curious to me that a woman bridge player is not getting this.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keep in mind, also, that having a void makes a hand stronger in general, so it could still just be a strength signal.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd wager that Scotish women are a lot smarter than you seem to think, but just in case YOU don't know what a chickadee is: https://heartofthewestcoast.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ce-img_5910.jpg

Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you automatically assumed a sexual meaning to my name without any reason to do so.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So even a screen name that is actually short for Chickadee (a bird and a childhood nickname) takes your mind straight to the gutter? Don't know about Scotland, but in English a “girl” is a child, not an adult woman deserving of respect.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why are we posting misogynist humor here?
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are of course many times when you need to play a second card in a suit to complete the count signal, but what's absurd is to make comments suggesting that what I described for ONE session of bridge in my life was intended as a full signal system.

EVERY CARD IS A SIGNAL. Whether you are following suit, trying to win the trick, discarding, or leading, the card you play needs to say SOMETHING. That doesn't mean it needs to give count, only that it needs to convey some new information to partner, as I clearly stated.

Having my friend force me to play nothing but count for one session of bridge taught me in just one session to start counting the hand. There was nothing absurd about it, it worked. And it will work for Margaret and her partner if they try it for a few sessions. That doesn't mean it has to be a lifetime commitment, Christopher, and it's definitely not wasted if it helps them count.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brian, I don't agree with that. Every card you play should be a signal of some sort. You may or may not need to play a second card as part of a count signal, but after giving count there are more things to communicate to partner. Any card you play (lead, follow suit, win, discard) should say something.
Oct. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that was my first intro to count signals, and he simply forced me to do it. It really opened my eyes to counting a hand.

I don't suggest you adopt that as a permanent method though, just as a means to get used to counting a hand well.
Oct. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://www.bridgebase.com/vugraph_archives/vugraph_archives.php Then type in EBTC and the name of the country in the search box.
Oct. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you really think about it, FS were doing their thing for years, under suspicion, without anyone actually noticing the board positioning, the coughing, the peeking at screenmates hand and then elbows, all that stuff. Not sophisticated at all, yet unnoticed.

FN were positioning opening leads in two specific ways, never randomly tossing out a card, for years, under suspicion and yet no one noticed it.

BZ (well at least B) has been touching the dummy cards, and making all kinds of hand movements for years, in fact he's almost famous for it, without anyone noticing how it conveyed information.

None of these things are sophisticated, none are switching codes, none are invisible. They are all obvious, clear, consistent, open movements, and yet no one noticed. No one saw any of this in pairs that were quietly believed to be cheating. Why not?
Oct. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perfect choice! The unsung hero of this whole mess finally gets his own song! :)
Oct. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might be on the right track. I've been looking at a lot of these and it seems to me that most of the time, they are signaling about an obvious suit (led, touched, etc), but in a couple of sessions, they seemed to be signaling hearts always. It could be my imagination, or just coincidence, too.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Has B ever made those fist-on-table or spread-fingers gestures at any other moment than just after the opening lead? ”

Spread fingers: Not in any of the 11 videos from EBTC that I have watched, not once. Only at the start of the hand when on defense.

And it's a very clear, firm move, and lasts less than a second, each time. It was so deliberate and yet so fast … that was what initially caught my attention.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing I have noticed is that when the 5 open fingers flat on the table is a fast gesture, usually well under 1 second duration, it's very clearcut and also clear to tie to the number of cards he has in a suit.

Some of the others are slower and more natural, not flat on the table, so I'm thinking the relevant signals are the fast / flat on the table / fast removal ones.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here are my observations from EBTC Poland-Latvia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBzUNnzfU0M

All Balicki

Bd 4 at 40:56
Leads spade, somewhat open hand 4/5 fingers (unclear and not a distinct gesture) (has 5 spades)


Bd 7 at 58:43
Leads diamond, makes a clearcut 5 open figures gesture (has 5 hearts, but only 4 diamonds)


Bd 13 at 1:42:19
4/5 open fingers (unclear) (pard has led spade, he has 3 spades, but also 5 hearts)

No dummy touching, nothing from Z.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz, it's not necessary to show that he does (or not) every time he has (or not) a 5 card suit. That would be stupid, because it would become too obvious right at the table.

Same with touching the dummy cards all the time. Totally suicidal to do it every hand.

No, I think it is enough to show that when he does use the gesture, he does have 5 card suit that can be related to something (touching dummy suit, dummy suit hits the table, partner leads, he leads), AND there is no instance of making that same gesture when he does not have a 5 card suit.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken, you just made my day .. if only I were that good (statistics, bridge, and probably a lot of things more)! Thank you for the best compliment I could want :)
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, Nicolas, done. I was thinking of this as more like a 3rd hypothesis (the finger spreads), but this case does include some dummy-touching as well.
Oct. 4, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top