Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On a similar note, there is a complaint in the Bulletin that a team is a team is a team . . . and why charge the 6 man team 150% of what a 4 man team is charged?
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once upon a time districts paid all expenses for their GNT reps. Alas the fat money days of bridge are over.
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess the good news is that with it working this time, we can expect W to keep bidding like this. <filed>

These kind of hands, by the way, are where Bridge starts to resemble poker. (“I can bid 3NT with another suit wide open, because I know opener will lead her suit”; “Declarer is expecting me to lead my suit so I should lead, or at least seriously consider, another suit.”; “It's OK to bid NT with no stopper or a questionable stopper because opening leader, won't lead her suit if I bid NT because I ‘showed’ a stopper.”; etc. And the leveling* continues.

*Leveling is a poker term for taking an anti-percentage action that might even look foolish against a different (worse or better) player, because you are (or believe yourself to be) following this particular opponent's thinking so clearly that you are able to think one level past them to a strategy that will work this one time against this one opponent.
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't we play neg xs through 3? WTP? I will know more after P's re-bid, but I am expecting to be in 6s. Only thing that keeps me from leaping immediately is that 3-3 fits don't play well at the slam level.
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just cannot bring myself to open a 3 loser hand 1 and play there opposite Qx, JTxx, xx, xxxxx.

I am not sure that 2 to start solves your problem here. Especially if the opponents are the sort to have figured out that pre-empting the 2 bid is in some ways even more profitable than pre-empting the strong 1. But it's what I am going to do with 3 or fewer losers and 16+ HCP.
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a story about a woman who stopped going to the bridge club after being yelled at by a regular. 30 years later, she showed me her paper slips with her .59 masterpoints on them that she had preserved.

She now has Alzheimer's, although not as bad as some I see at the club I frequent. And because she didn't play through the years, she doesn't play now. And her life is the less for it.

I'm so sorry we were such . . . well I guess BW will edit that word out . . . Mom. Thank you for introducing me to bridge. As much as I love the game, I feel tremendous pain that you were chased away by some unthinking or even worse uncaring person.

Therefore, I remember that at every table I am first and foremost an ambassador of the game. I pride myself on maintaining even demeanor, being fair, being polite and friendly. I really believe that my presence and example has inspired others to clean up their acts and improved the atmosphere at my regular club.

And recently, when I found myself being snippy with opponents and partners (“Director! We are still playing the hand and she is talking about what is in her hand. AGAIN.”), I examined the situation, saw that I was trying to play too much bridge, while running a business, preparing for a long-distance backcountry hike and directing a few times a month to boot. I cut back drastically on my regularly scheduled games, invited most of my partners to fill my slot with someone else and, in general, feel much more relaxed about my game and am having fun once again.
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Yu: I have to say that I am glad we played them and not you.

The general consensus on our team was that the top 3 were very close and on “any given day . . . .”

But will your partner continue s looking at that dummy, or try and thread through declarer's (presumed) broken honor sequence?
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see the harm in K.

On the upside, we build a trick immediately. And opener cannot re-build a second trick for herself except by letting us clear the suit while we still hold the K.

No need to get fancy.
May 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I, too, have given up on the “I don't like the auction” X.
May 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may be resultifying, but I think 3 describes this hand perfectly. Neither weak nor strong but oriented. If the s are running let's go to 3NT, otherwise, I have 2 5 card suits and 3s and 2NT, what's the difference? Undertricks score the same in both.
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a person who was actually at the table, I can report that speculation on what a good W would do is irrelevant, if not counter-productive.
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again, this is not what the OP stated. “A of Hearts, King of Hearts . . . .” specifies an order. And is consistent with “giving up a Spade” when the losing Heart is led and a Spade discarded. But again, we don't have to make a winning argument here. To introduce ambiguity into the question is the fault of the claimer, and any question that follows from the ambiguity (and the length of this thread is evidence enough of ambiguity) must be resolved against the claimer per the laws.
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here I would rebid 1NT, not 1. But others disagree.
April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See below. Also, if anyone here is a director, they should bring their rule book to the table when summoned. And by analogy, to the message board.

And for all who are not directors, do not attempt to make your own rulings at the table. If there is any irregularity, summon the director.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION
A. General Objective
In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but ANY DOUBTFUL POINT AS TO A CLAIM SHALL BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE CLAIMER . The Director proceeds as follows.

B. Clarification Statement Repeated

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.
2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).
3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. . . .

LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED
A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:
1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.
The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Taking longer is stronger. I don't think anyone here is the rescue by bidding a third suit sort. {edit: or maybe they are. I have a great new system to show a weak hand. It's called PASS.}
April 25, 2016
Jim Perkins edited this comment April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I put the call I made at the table. But the arguments for 1NT are convincing. There was a little, “look left, look right” in my 2NT bid.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 3 (or 3 anything, and maybe even 4 . . . I mean all by R) is unconditionally GF in this auction, but maybe not.

Partner had 3 available for GF at her second bid, so it seems 3 can be passed. To bid on accepts and forces. IMO.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, as usual, you caught me not counting carefully. But the big development (to me, at least, and we have already seen that I am neither careful nor good) is that we now have a chance to draw trump, test diamonds for a favorable lie, and then if necessary decide about hooking for the J.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because some part of the time, the K is single on your left, clearly not a false card. Plus, I am not sure but I think Kit's “obviously finessing” may have been tongue in cheek since a trick with the T does not seem to me to add much to the mix.

The lead was actually a trump (). Laying down the A at trick 2 draws the K from LHO. Now I believe that everyone here, at least, would play for the 3-2 splits in both minors. (You can actually handle Qxxx with RHO.)

That would work this time. But when I started this thread, I was simply interested in playing the suit for 5 tricks without losing the lead and really without thinking much about the possibility that the Q could be an entry.
April 22, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top