Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 183 184 185 186
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
18 boards in 3 hours would be torture chamber to me. I run a night game (admittedly for more than social players) 6 4 board rounds, 26 min a round. Game time <3 hours.

Fast play is a big draw.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was going to do a subsequent poll. Actually over (1) 2 (P) P (x) . . . .
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The comments on this thread are conclusive evidence of the fact that bracketed KOs were the end of bridge as we knew it (players getting excited about playing the best, rather than nervously wondering how few MasterPoints they will get for their tournament dollar).
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rohit: It's negotiable.

Jack: Not so easy.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am so amazed that for all the . . . complaining . . . about Gold Rush on this site, no one sees that bracketed KOs were the beginning of the end of a bright line divide between even marginally competitive players and purely social players.

I am sure that no one will be surprised to hear me say this. . . . One huge KO. Remember when Sectionals were week long events?
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge. Where it's OK to have multiple partners.

The Post Moretems offered in this room are of dubious utility (anyway). (From my directors' announcements joke book, to try and speed the game along)

SHHHHH! I know this doesn't apply to you, but some players are thinking.

(named the “Perkins Principle” by a relatively prolific author) Only overbid your hand once in any given auction.

Make the play that works out best in the post mortem.

Lead your partner's suit. Then it's her fault.

For the Ladies: Meet me at table 9. (Read Jerry Machlin's book for context)
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I sort of like Down 9, in that case.

From a BW report of a compare: We were +650. We were minus 450. They were vulnerable. We weren't.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or anything, Rebecca.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Linda: It's there already. Not often enabled.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So I felt 3 was compelled when I “knew” this was a 20/20 hand and likely no singletons anywhere either.

But maybe not.

Perhaps my judgment was clouded by my desire to double when considering the unauthorized information as well as the authorized.
July 13
$20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow. I may have to rethink this.

So we don't play Precision, but we do play both minors as nebulous and we bid or rebid NT to show our range at our first or second turn with all balanced hands (that is 1 - 1 - 1 promises 9+ cards in the suits unless 4-4-4-1 or 4-1-4-4 and out of range for 2 (mini-roman, any shortness, 10/11-13 or a really awful 14) opener).

We play 2 way nmf over 1min - 1any - 1NT showing in order of preference 4 of unbid MAJ, 3 card support, 5 card minor if available at 2 level or 2NT catchall. Going through 2 to get to 2NT does not indicate (or deny) anything about opener's minor (which may or may not be a suit longer than 2 anyway).
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Ken: But what if I left poker for the library atmosphere? As director and trying to speed play along, I like to point out that “post mortems in this room are of dubious utility anyway.”
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's also something to be said for summoning the director in a nonthreatening tone. Not, “DIRECTOR!” but “maybe we should have the director come and help us straighten this out,” or at least (using both the first and last name) “director, please.”
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Online pair showed up to sample the live game today. I encouraged everyone to introduce themselves to our new NS pair at table 4.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And what about all the players that have more to offer us than just bridge? Or $$$.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I never said your definition of psyche was wrong for one thing. I said if I and my partner agree to open 1NT 0-4, and I open 1 NT with 1 point I am not grossly misstating my values. I am accurately stating them in accord with a secret and illegal agreement.

And since EW told me a) that this bid was absolutely not a psyche in any way shape or form (while misquoting the definition n that Mike accurately quoted above), and b) insisted that it was an opening bid for 100% of players I can only interpret that opening this hand is a part of their agreements and system.
July 9
Jim Perkins edited this comment July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am saying that this pair agrees to open this hand in third seat. That is not a psyche it is an agreement to open hands that are not near average strength.

If partner thinks I open 10-12 point NT and I open a 1 point hand that is a psyche. If we agree to open 1 point hands 1nt that is an illegal agreement.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not a psyche if it is an agreement. If they agree to open hands that intentionally and grossly misstate the strength and/or suit length of their hands, that is an illegal agreement, not a psyche.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I specifically called it a psyche. E (W was the opener) vehemently denied it, misquoting the definition of a psyche.

Again, I don't care. I wouldn't do it. And I have a little less respect for the pair that did it. But I wouldn't use the C word regarding them or anything like that.

And, in general, I have been advised to think more carefully about taking action that is favorable to my pair even though there may be some UI issue lurking about. I am not the police of others and I am trying to retreat (a little) from overpolicing myself.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because they claim it is not a psyche. But rather a standard 3rd seat opening bid.
July 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 183 184 185 186
.

Bottom Home Top