Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Jim Perkins

Jim Perkins
Jim Perkins
  • 15
  • 24
  • 259
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
March 16, 2015
Last Seen
an hour ago
Member Type
Bridge Director
about me

Off and on bridge player since mid-80s. Really serious again (as of 2013). Took 10 years off to play serious poker.


Current Partners: (Regulars) Jonathan Holmes, Yehudit Hasin-Brumshten, Basant Shah.


"Bridge is a game and is meant to be fun."


"In the entire history of poker, more money has been lost than won via the slowplay."

United States of America

Bridge Information

Favorite Bridge Memory
Partner making +1430 while losing 3 tricks (Vul 1Dxx making 4). This after they went down 3 x'd and Vul prior hand. "We should be playing rubber, P." Repeating Vul 1Dxx making 4. Making +920 while losing 4 tricks. NV 1Sxx making 3. Seems my partners are always declaring these. Going minus 2720 on Valentines Day 2019 to nice ladies and sometimes teammates. ("Best Valentine's gift ever.")
Bridge Accomplishments
Winning 2016 Grand National Teams, Flight B; Besting 2 different teams headed by Billy Miller and Josh Donn in the same compact KO (but not winning anyway). Wining flight B in Friday Open Stratified Pairs with Yehudit Hasin-Brumshten at LA Long Beach Regional, July 1, 2016. Repeating with Yu at the Orange Co. Regional, winning flight B on Saturday Open Pairs. Winning over 100 MasterPoints in the month of July 2016.
Regular Bridge Partners
Jonathan Holmes; Yehudit Hasin-Brumshten; Basant Shah.
Member of Bridge Club(s)
Barrington Bridge Club (West Los Angeles), Beverly Hills Bridge Club
Favorite Tournaments
any NABC; Palm Springs Regional; Ventura Regional
Favorite Conventions
Strong Club with transfer positives, Meckwell Structure over our 1NT, Celebration (10-12 NTs and Barron NT overcalls), Transfers wherever and whenever legal; intermediate jump shifts; next suit "mark time" asking for further description but not necessarily showing anything in particular other than interest
BBO Username
ACBL Ranking
Ruby Life Master
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
A general approach to "playing strength" openings
The reason I use DTs in both cases is because I estimate partner's trick taking ability in defense for purposes of an aggressive doubling policy based on the opening bid that was chosen. Where partner knows that I have significantly over estimated cashing defensive tricks, he is allowed to ...
Implicit private understanding?
Well, I say let them make bad imitations of what they see. And then let them learn that their imitations are bad. I think far too many players never get started because they somehow feel that they have to be perfect before they can even play. Back to imitation, yesterday ...
Rate mY Idiocy
I overtly asked LHO what she was thinking about with Qx when I led low toward KJTxx. The implications were lost on her. Up more than several dozen boards for life. But annoying still.
Implicit private understanding?
OK -- but this is what I am trying to understand. Are you concerned that Mom and Pop's poor imitations will somehow impair the games of the expert players and chase them away too? Do you not ever learn anything new ever in your life? Because I definitely believe in ...
A general approach to "playing strength" openings
@ Allen: In short, yes. The term Defensive Trick is being used differently in the two contexts and if it confused you, I apologize. In the case of determining our own hand strength, I use DT to refer to cards that will win based on power, rank or strength (whatever term ...
Implicit private understanding?
Well, Barry what I find is that Mom and Pop want to win. And when they don't, some of them tend to lose interest. There's always canasta and maj jonng. But guess what? I want to win too. I make what I believe to be the winning play ...
Implicit private understanding?
As I think I said in the thread on your poll, here I can PASS. But add a meaningless stray J and I would just be compelled to act and perhaps 1NT would prevail over x.
Implicit private understanding?
Don't do anything unorthodox that turns out to give you a better result. Your methods are, however, acceptable under that standard.
Implicit private understanding?
Barry: I find all of that not very appealing. Presumably "standard practices" are standard because they are best. Therefore randomness (or even variation) should produce inferior results. I don't think any player has the right to impose orthodoxy on her opponents in the name of eliminating guessing from the ...
Leo Lasota's bidding problem: AT84 A4 QJT KQT6
In all honesty, however, 4 does not seem right either. After 4 the typical way to express the controls feature(s) of this hand would be 4NT. Voting 4 as an unhappy and potentially misleading compromise on perhaps 2 counts, which is obviously troubling me.

Bottom Home Top