Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your OPPs themselves have sharp elbows and lots of experience, and your partner is the weak link at the table, fire away. If your OPPs are 199'ers I want them to feel like everyone in the room is bending over backwards to treat them fairly. Particularly me.

But that's just me. Believing that ethics should trump winning.
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amazing what a bit of editing can do, eh? Mr. Wetzel would do well to keep reading: “WHICH then form a part of the partnership's methods and MUST be disclosed to OPPs.” <my emphasis>

Above mentioned Law 40C1.
Dec. 18, 2015
Jim Perkins edited this comment Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There has been a lot of discussion about what constitutes an agreement upthread. Ray quoted the rule book and it's pretty clear. Do it more than once and the Laws consider it an agreement.

Whether you/they agree or not.

This is required to protect the OPPs and is just a part of active ethics.

However, as I am repeating myself, I am likely to unsubscribe this thread at this point.
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DIRECTOR! “He bid 1 over 1 with only 3s.” What should be my first question: a) “Do you have a concealed partnership understanding?” <with a predictable answer I venture> or b) “Has he ever done this before?”

By the way, once before constitutes “experience” in this director's book. However, I am only a lowly, fill-in at the club when others are out, director.

Your pre-alert would be fine but for GCC considerations.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't believe that this is the case. I think that the rules “presume knowledge” of unusual tendencies or methods if the situation arises more than once.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you bid in the same, non-systemic way more than once, an agreement is implied.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But it defines responding 1 MAJ without at least 4 cards in that MAJ as not natural; i.e., conventional.

In any event, to the extent that you are doing something unusual MORE THAN ONCE the OPPs are entitled to know either through a pre-alert or whatever.

At the very least it violates the spirit of fair play and certainly violates active ethics to be MORE THAN ONCE making a bid that you know will deceive the OPPs. Your partner gets to play many hands with you and has a chance to learn and adjust. The OPPs only a few.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Ray. Now we have a different problem. You cannot have a different system for each partner. Otherwise all the “teachers” would use Kleinman's “Client” (Teacher bids her longest suits, client bids her shortest until a fit is found or inferrable).
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not quite as impressive as these, but one days partner and I scored +1430 . . . while losing 3 tricks.

1 xx V making 4.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the Denver NABC recently concluded, I open 2, LHO, who had had a “slip of the mind” two hands earlier, inexplicably bids 2 on a balanced hand with 3 small s. Partner x's (Neg) and holding AKQJx in s, I naturally pass. Overcaller “rescues” himself into 3 again x'd from one side or the other. The -1400 swung the match.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they paid a publicist and that is what they got, then whether or not they are cheaters, they got cheated.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is analogous to an out and out psych. And the question is, “has he EVER done it before?” And if the answer is yes, the director has authority to adjust the score. I did not answer the poll, because no response applies. 3 is closest but it does not matter that the OPPs are aware of your . . . I would say methods rather than tendencies.

As MS noted (immediately above at this point), the method is not allowed in most club games.

I have discussed with a sometimes partner the usefulness of psyching a major suit overcall over the OPPs strong 2 bid and then retreating to a (real) long minor when x'd. As I said to him, I suppose now we are obligated to report this discussion to every OPP whenever the auction starts (2) 2MAJ.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was afraid of running s even before I saw the 2-suited TO convention in the comments. 6 running s and the A.
Dec. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partners who open 2 generally don't care what suits I hold. And with the OPPs bidding s (by x'ing) I am just marking time. Showing nothing. Asking if anything. But not asking either. Just telling partner, “You're on your own here.”

I doubt that 3NT is our last making game, but I would hate myself if it were.
Dec. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I too, selected 2 under the theory that we are forced to 2NT.
Dec. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Had they raised the issue someplace other than BW, do you suppose we would be under a blackout?
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not just declined to call, btw. Here we are, days later, over a hundred posts down the road, and still no comment. Confirming that my admiration of Alan is not solely the result of his being the first book on bridge that I ever read.

If anything, this thread points out the woeful inadequacy of Law 16.

However, as was once said about the US Dollar, “It is a horrible. Worse than any currency that can be imagined. Except all the others.”

I can't think of anything better than Law 16, but I dread the “break in tempo” calls more than any other aspect of directing.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW . . . Jim Perkins. The videos are more than helpful. With attention, editing and expert commentary they might be profitable.

This is the kind of discussion that should be had, but unfortunate that the C word was brought out. I don't consider UI situations to be worthy of that C word label and the rule itself puts everyone in an impossible situation. Players should not be expected to compete vigorously while at the same time being police, prosecutor and jury on close ethical questions that affect not just them but their teammates as well.

The “foul” analogy is apt and I think we should also consider dropping stigma from the “foul” of not properly navigating UI in close cases.

We have yet to hear from W.
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2. How else are we going to get x'd 3 times on our way to 2.

BTW - where are the abstentions because this is not a V x between two bidding OPPs?
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ovunc: Are you suggesting that a foul be assessed now? Here, Sontag and Berkowitz were at the table and did not then and, as far as I know, do not now ask for a revised result. Nor does at least one of their teammates.

It happened. It is worthy of discussion.

But “cheating” is the wrong word. And the UI rule is, without doubt, the most problematic rule in the whole book. Time and again, it drops players in impossible situations. Especially players who take pride in active ethics.

However, I am not sure what the solution/alternative is.
Dec. 11, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top