Yu18772

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif That the stereotype in the first place made her believe that she cant? Because if she thinks that, she admits to herself that she is not exceptional among women, and thats not because of the stereotype but a matter of self esteem. If one bases aspirations on a collective understanding about a group one belongs to, they admit and accept that they cant outcompete that group or be better than the best performing individual in that group, otherwise that collective understanding would have no bearing. When someone tells a woman "women cant play well" thats their problem, but if a woman thinks in response "oh, so I cant play well" that means she accepts the stereotype as true, and also thinks that there is no reason why she might beat it - and this what holds her back, not the existence of stereotype. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

1. - "What they call an 8 card suit? TRUMPS" - we have at least 11 clubs between us, Q is irrelevant - if anything i hope partner doesn't have it - its wasted values, and may be the opponent holding it will like his hand less :). 6♣ for me - I would bid 5♥ to keep grand in the picture, but that would make it very easy for opps to locate a 9 card fit in hearts and compete to 6, while the grand is very unlikely. 2. Sitting with similar hand once, I was thinking that the worst thing my p could open is 1♠, then she opened 2♠..... 4♠, and hope he makes it. 3. Will double ask ♠ lead? If yes I would dbl, if not pass. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

That's a paradox - as many people as possible means many that dont play to the highest standard. "With no artficial barriers" - there are plenty of other artificial barriers in bridge, e.g. should any bidding system be allowed at any event? What about master point cutoffs and flights? I mentioned age categories before.... Ladies only events are not at all a barrier, unless particular ladies choose to treat it as such. These do not preclude you from playing to the highest standards or participate in any other event. On the contrary. Women that prefer ladies events due to the stereotype, think they are more likely to win in that type of events. They are the type of players that would prefer to win in a weaker field rather than try, but probably loose at a stronger one (wether the weaker field is ladies, or C flight or seniors or juniors bears nor relevance). Unfortunately this is a very common human quality, and pertains to men and women alike - we all like to win, more than being objectively better. Imo this is also one single quality that will never allow such player to reach top level game, regardless of gender, age or education. To get better you must get used to loosing (unless you are Capablanca playing chess). So if by your definition best interest of bridge is as many players as possible, it is in the best interest of bridge to create as many opportunities of winning for the weaker players (again never mind if these are women, C flight...etc). Abolishing ladies event will certainly defy that purpose. There is a huge difference between saying that on average man are better than women, to saying that every woman doesn't play well. First may very well be true, not due to initial tallent, but to circumstance, second is just plain stupid. Moreover, the believe that women play worse is mostly held by men, women do not usually believe that they are inferior, or if they do - they believe that other women are inferior. If someone believes that she can not be a great player because she is a woman - she can not be a great player, and not because of the stereotype, but because in her mind she classified herself as the average.....If on the other hand she doesn't get an equal opportunity because of being a woman that is something to be fixed, but ladies event certainly dont deny equal opportunity for women. About getting best people - "Best people" is an extremely subjective definition, which personally I dont like to use. We always get the best people according to our measuring scale.... objectivity of measuring scale or its relevance or inclusiveness are debatable. We define"best people" as those who rose to the top of that scale, so by definition we do get them. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Natural: 2♣-2♦ 2♥-3♣ 4♣*-4♥ 4NT-5♣ 6♣ North can count on cross ruff, so may be 7? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Yes, EVERY learning process (doesn't matter what you are learning) is like that. On a long time scale you are progressing, however if you examine short time periods its two steps up one down. The fact that you are aware of this is the best indication you are becoming better...... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

+1

Yes at least in Israel, and some players that I met from Europe. It is not as openly discussed here (US), but my impression is that the opinion is there, just not vocalized. I have to say that in my personal experience, on average men are more focused on the game than women, and that brings better results. Obviously, there are excellent female players, just as there are poor male players, but if we are talking about a majority or average that opinion should not necessarily be based on the top 100 ranking.... What is much more harmful imo, is that this steryotype creates a situation where it is more difficult to find a good partner for a rising female player than for a male. How many mixed pairs have you seen in open events? It almost never happens in top level bridge. Define interest of bridge - as many players as possible? Better top few players? As many events as possible? I dont see ladies only events as the reason for the stereotype - if anything the better women players will always play in the open events as well, it is just another practicing opportunity. Its no different than asking why are there junior events? What might help is promoting mixed pairs events and grooming of young players.... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

I thought it was obvious -why should the bot put partner in absolutely hopeless contract having Kxxxx in the ops likely 4-3 trump fit.....I mean i think that even GIB is able to understand that "+" is always better score than a "-".... I am not sure though that 2♠ make, but this is irrelevant to the bid. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Close, but I dont see a lot of extras. Bad suit, we are vul and A in their suit is not worth full value.....I understand the dbl, but would need a bit more (switch the colors/move the A♦ to ♠ or ♣ /add a Q♠). As is I would try to pass as smoothly as possible. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

3♦ http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

http://tinyurl.com/82vc7bf Just a few questions on bot logic: A. Why does the robot come in a 3 level with this hand? Its insane if opposite every 1 level t/o x he bids 4 card 6HCP junk in freebid at 3 level. B. 4♣ showed strong hand with clubs - this should mean that the doubler does not necessarily has 3 card ♦ or 4 card ♠ for that matter!!! All he promises is very strong hand with his suit being 5+, It can be any distribution once the doubler showed a big hand. C. Why doesnt GIB support with support ??? he has 3 clubs, south definitely promised more than 4 of them.....(this comes up in lots of cases - GIB refuses to support your suit, insisting on some low quality suit) D. How can 5♣ be a cuebid on this auction? if doubler insists on his suit - thats what they want to play. There at least 3 other bids after 4♦ that can be used to drive to slam. To summarize this auction - AAAAAAAAA http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

tx :)

hmm...I think partner is 5224 and declarer 3631 - AK♦ and switch to ♠. Partner holds 5-7 HCP, none are in ♦ and at most Q♣, so I hope he either has the A♠ in which case I will get an immediate ruff, or Kx of ♥ in which case I will get it 2 tricks later.... dont want to make partner ruff from Kx and loose his entry. Was he Ax♥ and I get the blame? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

http://tinyurl.com/czo6ro7.... Really - WHY? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Probably I dont understand something here, but I pass. 2♥ is not 100% forcing - it shows a decent 16-17-19 HCP with 5+ hearts, which means we dont have game..... If partner has a stronger hand he should X again or bid 3♣ or bid 3♥ - all would be 100% forcing. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

+1 I would not consider overcalling 2♠ red with these cards over a preempt, but may be its wrong? White vs red many would open 1♥ - West overcalls spades (imo this is not 2 suited 2♥ vulnerable with such poor clubs) - I know some that would overcall 2♠ and some that would overcall 1♠. So I can imagine 2 auctions: 1H - 1S - 2S - 3H/3S/X (whatever they play for invitational values and support) P - P(3S) - 4H - P P - 4S or 1H - 2S - 4H - P? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

Ditto There is not enough blame to give both north and south what they deserve.... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Pass http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Hi Quantumcat :) I am not scared of doubling....(actually most people I played with consider me pretty aggressive bidder) and yes partner has to have the 10 HCP...but at IMP vul I also risk more than just +-100 each way. Partner is almost sure to have 4 spades, them having an 8 card fit does not guarantee one for us - 4234 is a very possible shape for him. A one that likely to convert +100 into a serious minus. Actually I would be more inclined to dbl against bad opponents than good ones, good ones will choose wisely between doubling us or competing to 3♠ or passing. Bad ones will not doube us. At MP I would dbl without a question, non vulnerable also, but -500 is a very expensive price for -110, and -100 versus +100 is also not pretty. At IMP vulnerable I dont risk a balanced few IMPs result of a partscore, just as at IMPs I dont double vulnerable partscores unless they surely go for -2 or more - the math makes it not worth it. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

At any form of scoring, if i balance it would be a dbl. At IMP vulnerable I seriously consider pass. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Without any system I voted 3♣, and considered 1♠. Like the GGG idea, but never played it http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

1. 2c - I play (and was sure it is pretty standard?) that 2c followed by 2/3/4♠ shows 3 card spade and 3+ clubs.....(diamonds are always 4+). 2. In standard 2/1 1♠-1NT shows any hand that is short of forcing game. Personally I prefer smei-forcing 1NT..... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

I dont think this particularly pertains to 2/1, lots of problems arise when partner answers something much less encouraging than a gf 2/1.....lets say 1NT. I agree with awm that opening these hands with 9-10 counts is not necessarily a good thing. For intermediate hands my rule of thumb is that if I cant reverse I start with the higher suit and show 5-5+ (not showing one card looks to me a lesser evil than potentially hiding a 5 card major). If I can reverse than I dont need to distort the shape and can open the longer suit, however I dont reverse into poor quality suits. So imo Hand A - 1♥ planning to rebid 2♦ over partners 1♠ or 1NT, Hand B - 1♦ planning to reverse. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

I think that "Minor suit stayman" is about minor..... http://tinyurl.com/6p2tcxc http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

http://tinyurl.com/7uzal7p