Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe. There is contact fatigue. As much as I love bridge, getting email from 5 or 6 different units, 3 different districts and horn lake plus the Alzheimer's association is a bit much.

And this is from someone that regularly contributes to bridge spam by promoting my games and emailing results.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When it happened to us (using suction in a 0-2500 event) last year in Atlanta, the hands immediately went back in the slots and the OPPs got 60 and we 40.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we cannot afford the floor space to run tournaments (or for that matter club games), raise card fees or shut them down.

By the way, hotels are not the only floor space in town.
Aug. 2
Jim Perkins edited this comment Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is actually battery to strike. Presumably preceded by assault to threaten (by actions or words) to strike (along with a few other elements).
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I made reasonable and beyond efforts.

My job is to schedule and run the games.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Last evening pairs I ran: 6 4 board rounds, by stand and relay. I moved all the boards and started rounds early if all pairs were ready. Announced that I was giving players 26 minutes per round instead of the usual 28.

One round I had to give back 3 minutes. One pair had problems finishing on time in 3 rounds (including the round that prompted me to add time).

Players started at 7 pm and were finished by 9:50. The building people lock us in at 10 so if we don't finish by then we have to unlock ourselves to let the players out.

Last nights evening teams: 3 tables (sad, I know). 2 12 board matches. Start at 7, finished by 9:40. I put 84 minutes on the clock at the start of round 1 and started round 2 with the clock at 4 minutes. The later it gets, the faster this group plays.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking of Law 76 and spectators being under the control of the director . . . .

My wife (non-player) was kibbing her friend one day . . . .

I was directing . . . .

I hauled out the laws book . . . .

<howls of laughter>
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But what about me? I don't really care if dinner is “nice.” I prefer something that will not clog arteries, or increase blood pressure, or launch me into orbit with a sugar rush, or sit heavily in my stomach for the second session and costs less than $15 and preferably less than $10.

Absent that, give me a refrigerator to store my Sprouts purchased raw fruits and vegetables in.

The Standard American Diet is . . . indeed, SAD.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a simple solution to time issues that works. Every p pair gets a set amount of time (15 min for example) to finish a round. On top of that N they get me a penalty and warning free extra minute. If they go over that minute, warning for first offense. 1/3 board penalty for second and subsequent offenses.

Strict liability. No rights of appeal.

If you are not a chronically slow player, you should not be penalized under this system. Perhaps warned but not penalized.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ RF: I don't understand the relationship between “potential” and “always” in the quoted regulation.
July 31
.

Bottom Home Top