Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to be clear, no accusation was being leveled here. :-)
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Offender’s LHO Does Not Call before Rectification
When A above does not apply <WHICH IT DOES NOT HERE>:

1. any double or redouble not permitted by Law 19 is canceled.

2. the offender must substitute a legal call <PASS or any BID>, the auction continues and the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call.

I also point out that “jobbing” the rules to create a result that cannot be lawfully created is itself a violation. See Law 72B1.

B. Infraction of Law
1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The true challenge would be to repeat given those restrictions. Bridge put the X in at least one of my X's.
Nov. 3, 2015
Jim Perkins edited this comment Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am convinced that it can be done. I am not the person to do it. But I may be the person to put the people who can do it together with the people who can make it get done.

If you have suggestions for the format, post them here. I'm following.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would strongly lobby for a Gentile Pairs. As the token Goy in my home as well as every where else I seem to find myself, I would like a fair chance to compete against my own someday. I might even make above average.

<the above is all mostly tongue in cheek people - it all started in law school . . . where I learned bridge and where a friend asked me where I ranked in my class and I told him and his response, “Not bad for a Gentile.” From there to a life in finance and . . . you see where I am going.>

Somebody showed me a article headline along the lines of “Top Bridge Players Show Striking Genetic Similarities.” “Yeah, they're all Jewish.”

OK. It's probably past the point of stopping before I get myself in trouble.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So an editor of the BW sits down behind me and says, “I hope I get to see some good bridge today.” Our OPPs are good, and married, and to each other – the rare triple.

I am in a contract and cannot now reconstruct the whole hand. However, the suit is KTx in dummy and Qx in hand. LHO has bid and is marked with the A. If LHO takes her A I get to pitch a from my hand, and I make an extra over. If I get to dummy in (without losing a trick), I can ruff a to set up a for a pitch of the Q.

I am in the tank forever. And emerge with the Q. In the PM, BW editor remarks, “That was the most interesting hand of the day.” And I immediately ask, “Did I miss a Morton's Fork?”

Perhaps not my worst mistake ever (see above regarding 3 ex-wives). But a true blown opportunity nonetheless.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am thinking about hiring a coach. Not for the purposes discussed above. Right now I feel like I need help with two or three things:

1) Probably close to a dozen times in the last 10 sessions, I have evaluated a bid, analyzed it, been convinced that it was fairly certain to succeed . . . and then fell back on “bid with the room, play better.” Incorrectly.

2) I seem to be making more than my fair share of “inattention” to detail mistakes. Why can't I analyze more carefully at the table. Why do I rush so? (Not just at bridge either. Going too fast is a character flaw in multiple areas.)

3) Fancy play syndrome. For example, missed my once in a decade shot to pull off a Morton's Fork because I was trying to “Chinese Finesse” LHO when I had split honors. Had read about the play I made in “The Rodwell Files” but it didn't apply to my situation as I did not need to force an entry to the table. There were plenty there already.

I certainly have access to one of the great bridge minds on the planet right in my own club. May have to get a real job (not just directing club duplicates) to pay him, though.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding story 2: As a fairly new director (first 10 sessions) I was called to the table of one of my sometimes partner and better player at the club. He was dummy and his T had been overruffed at trick 10 by the T.

I discovered that my sometimes partner had (innocently, he has vision problems) managed to get the extra card into his current hand. I ruled them at fault and assigned 40% giving 60% to the OPPs.

Then I instructed our club helper to re-assign the decks so that the two red decks did not follow each other directly.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding gendered events: (More from the world of poker) A friend who is known widely as the first lady of poker says that the reason there are women's events is because women enter them. In large numbers. And the reason for the large number of entries is because <some> men are such . . . jerks <another word was used> at the table.

Not certain that the arguments apply with such force in bridge.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Live stream is definitely a thrill for those in the know. I watched the 2014 Spingold VuGraph on BBO and found it thrilling (less so, now that I strongly suspect I was watching cheats most of the time). The product I am thinking of would be a more edited and less “screen shot” version of the game. Perhaps some kind of extended team match or limited league among the 4 or 8 top teams. With only crucial swing hands shown, player interviews spliced in, expert commentary, beautiful spokesmodel, etc.

Maybe we could even land AARP as a sponsor.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Copied from separate article/thread at suggestion of Paul Weinstock:

The Does Bridge Need Gambling thread got me thinking about the success of the World Poker Tour TV program started by, among others, my friends Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson. And trying to apply some of the secrets to the success of that program to bridge.

1) TV is out. At least to start. And it is likely not needed. Youtube, Netflix and other streamers can reach major audiences and would certainly be more appropriate to the world-wide audience that a bridge “program” would draw.

2) Gambling may or may not be needed as a draw. The poker boom was definitely fueled by the real dream of many college-aged males (in particular, not that females were completely excluded) to make it as a “professional card player.” Bridge probably offers a better vehicle than poker for going pro for the expert card player. On the other hand, the luck factor in bridge is so low that there will be very few to no “accidental pros” (known in the poker world as the Moneymaker effect, named for 2003 World Series of Poker champion, Chris Moneymaker). Gambling and huge prize pools may be an separate channel of promotion of the game.

3) Rather than showing a live or even edited competition, a different presentation format or formats (think, newspaper daily bridge column or ACBL coverage of major events, etc.) may draw more viewers. Just putting some of our beloved basic texts (Watson on the Play of the Hand) into streaming video format would go far toward attracting new and younger players to the game.

4) Even so, showing players at the table as they work out who holds the missing Queen or whether the squeeze offers superior odds to the finesse – or even making uncharacteristic errors, could, especially with the right audio overlay could be made interesting and exciting.

5) I repeat from my comments to the gambling thread. A series of “how to play” videos with a 1-2 minute duration are crucial. Not how to play well, or even how to cover every possible situation that might arise. But how can 4 high school pals, none of whom has ever played before shuffle, deal, bid, play and score a few quick hands of bridge. Then you can follow up with more short videos on how to play better.

6) Putting a human face on bridge Gods, if done well, will draw more players to bridge. To me, this was one of the big secrets of the success of the World Poker Tour series. Whereas ESPN up to that point had mostly focused on the play at the table when televising poker, the WPT made it feel more like a cocktail party or honors dinner where the viewer “got to know” the various personalities. (Comments about be a bridge player or have a personality, choose one and only one anticipated so spare us.) In addition to showing the hole cards innovation, WPT's other big secret was to let us get to know the personalities behind the plays. Audiences picked favorites and began to root for, and more importantly, follow them. It would also be great if rights to old bridge programming could be acquired.

7) I don't think it's a fair challenge to say “Who's going to put up the money?” without having a product or at least a clearly defined idea of what the product will look like. So Lyle Berman bankrolled the World Poker Tour because he had a fair amount of money and he plays and loves poker. There are people who play bridge multiple times a week that make Berman look like a pauper. Build the product first. Or at least have a clear “treatment.” Then pitch it to our patrons. Of whom we have many. And keep in mind that the term is “Show Business” not “Show Show.” Figure out how to monetize the eyeballs that we do get.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And add to that, Jim's rule (of bidding NT), Leo. “First, they have to have it. Second, they have to lead it.”

Plus 2NT is quasi forcing - any partner that had full values for her 1 over 1 will carry on here, as you say, offering alternative strains.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brad:

Population figures
The number of intersex people depends on the definition used. ISNA suggest that 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity. Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to assign them to a given sex category (i.e., male or female). According to Blackless, Fausto-Sterling et al., on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.

According to Leonard Sax intersex should be “restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female”, around 0.018%. This definition excludes Klinefelter Syndrome and many other variations.

Given that many conditions excluded from Sax's analysis are termed Disorders of Sex Development, such individuals may be subjected to sex “normalizing” interventions, and so they meet current definitions of intersex in use by UN and other bodies, the statistical analyses by Blackless and Fausto-Sterling have become widely quoted, including by clinicians.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In MPs yes. In IMPs, good slam bidding and in particular learning to bid Grands (or not, when that's right) is critical to long term success.
Nov. 1, 2015
Jim Perkins edited this comment Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's one: How to score +1430 while losing 3 tricks?

My partner at the local MP duplicate match is a grizzled old rubber bridge player. On the first board the opponent's make an ill-advised foray into our auction and +800 for a top for us is the result.

Then, with us Vulnerable, my partner opens 1. Followed by a X. I XX with around 11 points and 4-4-3-2 distribution (doubleton s, 4-4 in the MAJs) everyone passes and partner makes 4 (the defense slipped a trick). We score it up, +1430 and the OPPs leave.

“We should be playing those guys for money, partner.”
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So here is a recent one from an ACBL Regional Open Pairs: I hold KQ, KQx, ATxxx AKx. After an aggressive auction with an aggressive partner I land in the unmakeable 6. LHO is feeling generous and leads A. Dummy tables AJT9xx, xx, Qx, QTx. LHO then switches to a .

Sensing absolutely no danger, I win in hand and cash K, Q and cross to dummy with a . Which is ruffed.

Perhaps not my worst. But stings the worst right now.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When the World Poker Tour first started airing they would explain how to play Texas Hold ‘Em on every friggin’ episode until I wanted to strangle Mike Sexton. But not only did it sell the show, it drove people to poker rooms. In droves. And I was happy about that. While it lasted.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not a defense.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We had a (1) 2 (3) 4 auction in which I was the 4 bidder this month. Opener deadpanned, “Your lead, partner.”
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opposite an opening hand (true opener, or 2/1 responder) a player holding 18+ HCP (or 5 or fewer losers if a fit exists) is responsible to make some sort of non-ambiguous slam try at a minimum.
Oct. 31, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top