Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like x 100 Phil.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am thinking more along the lines of when they accidentally/randomly do something that is perfect for the situation to seize upon that and make it the lesson of the day. Also, I am talking about one on one play not classroom setting.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff what you call muscle memory I call brute force repetition. Some are willing to do this and some are not (they want to play bridge, not work bridge).

But regardless of method, what I am talking about is something different.

Right now it seems like my instinct or impulse is to remark, “You did that wrong.” They acknowledge it retain it for a couple of hands, then do something else wrong, and something else, then eventually forget the first lesson and repeat the error. In the meantime, they are doing many things right that could be commented upon . . . But aren't.

Since they are going to forget in a couple of days or weeks anyway, why not work on trying to get them to repeat things done well? And why is it so hard for me to flip my mindset?
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My sympathies. A great reminder to tell those we appreciate that . . . well, we appreciate them.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A player that after a decade or more of playing bridge does not have a regular list of partners . . . there is generally a reason.

And it is not bad bridge which most of our players wouldn't recognize if they committed it. Their partners however . . . .

As I say when trying to move the games along . . . the post mortems in this room are not worth the time or breath required.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess the LA “entitlement” culture is not spreading.

Good to hear.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have had it happen more than twice and really don't even try very hard anymore.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
USA experience with Swiss Pairs has been fairly awful. If it's different over there would love to hear about it.

Here resorting the movement takes too long.

And the IMP scoring in a short match is extremely high variance (too much luck/randomness).
Aug. 4
Jim Perkins edited this comment Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
15-20 days, give or take. With every day a charity special.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a former author of that column, I can tell you that mine were banged out in about 20 minutes, generally after receiving a prodding email from the newsletter's editor, and while edited a bit after that . . . I was generally not that cooperative with the editing process.

Not sure what Brian's situation is, but I came to the conclusion that I simply lacked the time required to produce even a passable product.

In other words, I vote with Dan. If we were computers we could justify responding to what was said rather than what was meant. But we are humans.
Aug. 3
Jim Perkins edited this comment Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The caption sounds like a desperate poker tournament player's predicament.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My favorite system is “Client.” Client bids his suits shortest to longest (rebids are singleton or void and second rebid confirms void) and is prohibited from bidding any number of NT ever. Pro bids her suits longest to shortest, as is more or less standard these days.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Holding the hand you hold and playing the systems you mistakenly thought you were playing what is your second bid after the auction starts (OPPs PASSing) 2 - 2NT. If Ogust, then Ogust responses. If Feature, then Feature responses. And if natural and invitational, then natural and invitational responses.

Flannery has nothing to do with your response because you are assuming, in either case (either accurately or inaccurately) that your partnership is playing 2 weak.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Simply because we cannot say what would have happened but for the illegality.

I am pretty much in favor of bright lines in bridge (see my thoughts on slow play penalties, I am not going to look them up) wherever possible.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think this is right, and I definitely don't think that directors should have to reconstruct anything.

“Illegal convention?” “Yes.” Average minus/Average plus. Next board.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose I am barred from offering a snarky reply to a rhetorical question. But you know you are all thinking it.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is a practical, on the fly, meta-defense that is workable for approximately 95% of all players against approximately 95% of any system that can be dreamt up.

X of any artificial bid = strong and balanced (think 15+ NT) or GF and unbalanced. Responder plays standard NT systems (x-fers, etc.) over this.
Cue bid of shown suit = TO of that suit.
Other suit bids are natural and to some extent limited but still can be quite wide-ranging.
PASS and come back in later = whatever your bid would have meant if the OPPs had skipped the artificial initial sequence and just shown the current known information (suits and strength) with the current bid. Note that this will require you to reach some meta agreements about competing over 2 suited bids. What horror!

As to Peg's comment about an expert deliberately using a complex system to thwart OPPs that won't prepare, I think that is not allowed (or at the very least, not to be encouraged) in bridge and I tell my partners as much. However, I suppose it would be hard to challenge anyone that asserts, for example, that 1NT (10-12) is superior to other ranges because of its preemptive value even if they actually believe that 1NT (10-12) is superior because most OPPs are too lazy to work out defenses.
Aug. 3
Jim Perkins edited this comment Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bharat: All that needs to be done is to take care of two sets of user problems. ACBL and its members. If they can screw anything up, between the two of them they will. Also, this conversation reminds me of the true problems with the ACBL.

Volunteers don't usually do good work.

I suppose the app could be funded by advertising revenues from the various dining establishments, although that might impede accurate reviews. Or the accurate reviews might impede funding.

The app could likely be built for under thousand of dollars. But I am sure that coders don't want marks like the ACBL to know that.
Aug. 3
Jim Perkins edited this comment Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand exposes a flaw in the “poll” process.

I would guess-timate that the poll will return far (and maybe far, far) fewer 3 calls than actual table results.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Dale: “But what if someone sues?”

LOL.
Aug. 3
.

Bottom Home Top