Most hopeless / clueless comment?

[Gerardo]

If this took place in Vancouver, it's no longer required to alert 3♣. But 3NT should be alerted as denying a 4-card major.

 

Maybe the reason they got rid of the 3♣ alert was precisely to avoid the above situation.

 

Aren't you required to alert 3♦?

[jillybean]

If this took place in Vancouver, it's no longer required to alert 3♣. But 3NT should be alerted as denying a 4-card major.

 

Maybe the reason they got rid of the 3♣ alert was precisely to avoid the above situation.

Yep

 

Aren't you required to alert 3♦?

Yes, but not the 3♣ puppet unless it is a jump 1N 3♣

[nige1]

Playing at the club the other night, in a supposedly premier grade room, this auction came about, with me dealer :

2♣ - pass - 2♦ - 3♠

4♣ - pass - 4♦ - pass

4NT - pass - 5♣ - pass

6♦

Neither opponent bothered to ask a question about our bidding beyond the 2C opener (despite the fact that it was the weak hand who ended up as declarer).

Slam duly made, we had a couple of minutes to discuss the hand.

LHO : "I thought your partner told you he had no aces?"

Me : "Oh no. 4NT was key-card, and 5♣ showed 1 or 4 key card. Since I had the king of diamonds, I knew he had an ace."

LHO : "No. You bid 4C, and he replied 4D."

Me : "ummmmmmmm"

Anyone have any other gems to share?

IMO this kind of amusing incident is unlikely to occur in the UK, because the declaring side would offer to explain their conventional bids before the opening lead :)

[barmar]

Aren't you required to alert 3♦?

Yes, but the player who was presumed to have forgotten was the one who bid 3♦, not the one who failed to alert it. So either opener forgot they were playing Puppet, or he remembered that he wasn't supposed to alert it.

 

Or maybe this took place before the alert change at the beginning of this year.

[Vampyr]

IMO this kind of amusing incident is unlikely to occur in the UK, because the declaring side would offer to explain their conventional bids before the opening lead :)

 

Even if they don't ask? I have not found this to be the case usually.

[Antrax]

After an auction where we raise spades and they outbid us in clubs, partner leads a high diamond. In a five card ending, with me on play, LHO suddenly turns to me and asks me: "do you guys play in a league or anything?". I'm flattered, as I expect he's trying to say we're defending well or something. However, when we tell him no, he tells me "you really should avoid signalling to each other like this, it's not right, in a real game you'll be expelled". My reply is the expected "DIRECTOR", but after the hand and after LHO apologizes profusely for his allegation, I try and figure out what he was on about. It's true my partner twitches a lot, and I guess if you don't know him you might think there's some pattern to it or something. Instead, LHO explains "your side's suit is spades, yet somehow your partner doesn't lead them and hits YOUR best suit. If he had AQ of spades okay, I can see, but he had Qxx and he chooses a diamond?".

It's at that point I realize I've been too harsh - if he can't figure out he has two diamond losers no matter how he plays or what is led, or that he hadn't noticed that partner had a doubleton diamond to go with his Axx of trumps, then probably many things look like cheating to him.

[RunemPard]

For some reason the Swedish bridge site is not loading...but the bidding goes something like...

 

ME - PARD

1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - PASS

 

Dummy comes down...partner is sitting on 14 HCP after my opening with the Ax of ♠. His 14 points nicely distributed among C/H/S and the 98 of ♦. When I ask him, why he passed, his reply to me was that he did not like his diamonds...

[RunemPard]

I could probably take up 5 pages on this post if I thought enough...another one...

 

I chose to open a 14 HCP 1NT, one that I had posted in another post before. Something like xx xxx KJx AKQJx. Opening this as 1NT is debatable, but I like the bid. My partner...jumps to 4NT for aces...yes he plays only blackwood. I reply, and partner goes on to 6NT. The dummy drops showing a 13 HCP 5341 count. I smile and say..."Thanks partner". We finish the hand playing 6NTx-2 for an obvious bottom. Playing 3NT+1 would have been a 90%+ board. This is when my partner gets defensive.

 

"Why would you open 1NT there?"

[barmar]

I could probably take up 5 pages on this post if I thought enough...another one...

 

I chose to open a 14 HCP 1NT, one that I had posted in another post before. Something like xx xxx AJx AKQJx.

But probably not exactly like, since that's 15 HCP. :)

[RunemPard]

Yes lol...let me edit! ;) It was KJ

[gwnn]

1D-p-1H-1S

2C-...

 

Opps end up playing 3 diamonds, and opener turns out to have 3-3-6-1. "2C is fourth suit forcing pard, how can you not know this? I am showing a spade stop and asking for a club stop". Of course declarer didn't "correct" the "misinformation" but we were laughing inside too hard to call the director.

[Zelandakh]

We had a laugh last night on one of these too. Auction started (BBO) 1♦ - (1♠) - 2♦ - (3♦); P - 3♥ (alert). On asking what 3♥ was, the explanation michaels appeared. Strange I thought, then realisation dawned when I realised this player had alerted their 2♥ bid in the auction 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ as Stayman. They were alerting partner's 3♦ as Michaels! Eventually their partner played in 4♠X (down 2) and the whole table had a chuckle after they left. The best part was that this was an "Advanced" player with a convention line-up as long as anything you will see...and an IMP average of -2.25IMPs/bd against low level opps.

 

Then again, I have some gems of my own to share too. For example, the first time my partner and I played in the local club we had the auction begin 2♦(GF) - 2♥; 4♦, eventually reaching an untouchable 7♠ in a 4-3 fit. How? Well one of us thought 4♦ agreed diamonds and the other thought it was a self-splinter.

[PeterAlan]

I know...this sounds impossible but this is the same club at which I won 3 tricks by strength with 8642 in dummy opposite QJ5 in hand in a notrump contract, after they led the suit at trick one ...

These things can happen, can't they? A year or so ago I was allowed to make 2 tricks from Q 10 opposite xx and just last weekend 3 from K Q opposite 10 x x, in both cases at NT and when the suit was led at trick 1.

[Lord Molyb]

LHO opens 1 spade, RHO responds 4 hearts, and without thinking I ask,

"Is 4 hearts a game forcing bid?"

[ash1968]

A few years ago playing with my wife against another married couple we had an auction that went something like...

 

1C-(X)-1S-(2D after a hestitiation); 2S-(3D after a hestitation)-All Pass.

 

I lead the SA to which dummy tracks with JT9x and partner follows with the Q. After I give partner a ruff the dummy screams (and I mean screams) "Director!" The director wanders over and says "who called?" - the entire room starts to laugh.

 

Dummy says "I did" and starts to launch into his spiel. Of which the director informs him that dummy is unable to call the director during the play. After we complete our cross ruff and the contract goes several down dummy now calls the director (no less loudly). The director with a straight face repeated his question "who called?"

 

Dummy accused me of fielding the psyche so the director asked me if I knew partner had psyched. I said I did as there were three clues. (1) Partner following with the Q suggested a singleton. (2) RHO's hesitiation over 1S which showed spades (3) and LHO's hestitiation over 2S which also showed spades. Dummy called me a cheat but I was laughing so much that I failed to get offended.

 

Cheers, Stephen

[blackshoe]

It strikes me that more than one meaning of "dummy" applies to the dummy in your story, Stephen. B-)

[SteveMoe]

Ever have partner play A then K then x, asking you (Dummy) to ruff low, when playing some level of NT? :blink:

[Trinidad]

Ever have partner play A then K then x, asking you (Dummy) to ruff low, when playing some level of NT? :blink:

Yes.

 

The following exchange followed:

"Ruff please"

- "With what?"

"SMALL!"

- "Which small one?"

"Stop messing! Play the ♣3!"

 

After the ♣3 had been played and the opponent won the trick, the opponent led a card back immediately.

 

Declarer: "That was mine."

Opponent: "My 9 tops your 6." ;)

Declarer: "But I ruffed in dummy."

Opponent: "I don't think so."

Declarer: "?!?. Oh Sh-t! Sorry, partner. ... errr... sorry opponents." (Yes, this was in the USA, and the quote is accurate.)

 

Laughter all around.

 

BTW, I don't think this situation really fits the bill of hopeless/clueless. It is more lack of concentration by declarer... and by me. Since this happened, I have never put a potential trump suit to my right as dummy in a NT contract.

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

interesting, maybe when declarer asks to ruff the legal card to play should be the lowest in the suit put to the right of dummy.

[blackshoe]

interesting, maybe when declarer asks to ruff the legal card to play should be the lowest in the suit put to the right of dummy.

Maybe so, but it would require a change in the laws.

[gwnn]

Also opps should place their cards horizontally for that particular trick.

[Trinidad]

I witnessed this clueless comment while kibitzing the Bermuda Bowl(!) last year. The auction had started 1NT-Pass-2♠.

 

The 2♠ bid was alerted, an explanation was asked and the explanation written down was: "MSS". The opponent asked what that meant and the player wrote out: "Minor suit Stayman". Then the following whispering conversation started.

"Does it promise a four card major?"

- "No, it is minor suit Stayman. I can be weak with diamonds, weak with both minors or GF with both minors."

"But does it promise a major?"

- "No, it doesn't. It is minor suit Stayman. It asks for the minors."

"So it doesn't ask for the majors?"

- "No, it asks for the minors."

Then visibly offended and not so much whispering anymore:

"Then you shouldn't call it Stayman. It is very misleading to call it Stayman. Stayman asks for majors, not for minors."

 

The explainer looked at me, didn't say anything, but I interpreted his facial expression as: "I thought I had seen it all.". Then he shrugged his shoulders, seemingly concluding that there was no hope for this opponent.

 

I think this shows that there is clueless/hopeless at every level.

 

Rik

[Lord Molyb]

--- Edited October 2, 2014 by Lord Molyb

[Vampyr]

I witnessed this clueless comment while kibitzing the Bermuda Bowl(!) last year. The auction had started 1NT-Pass-2♠.

I think that the problem was that this:

The 2♠ bid was alerted, an explanation was asked and the explanation written down was: "MSS". The opponent asked what that meant and the player wrote out: "Minor suit Stayman".

 

Instead of this:

 

I can be weak with diamonds, weak with both minors or GF with both minors."

 

 

was given in explanation. Especially when the opponent, from a different country, may well, and apparently had not, heard the word "Stayman" used for a convention that does not ask for major-suit holdings.

[blackshoe]

I was told once that if our 2/1 response to an opening 1 bid is GF, we must call our system "2/1 GF". "Any other name (on the system card) is misleading."