Most hopeless / clueless comment?

[steve2005]

but partner I had 21 hcp I had to double (they were questioning my manhood lol)

[CamHenry]

This gem came from my F2F partner at our local club.

 

I was declarer in 3NT. When dummy hit the table, after a brief pause I claimed 11 tricks, surrendering the two red aces to the opponents. I had a flat hand opposite a flat hand in dummy. Then the gem: "Don't claim so quickly. Maybe they misdefend the hand." :P

 

He's right, though. I once ended up in 6NT on a similar layout, and I thought 11 tricks were at risk as well. I tried to lose the first ace, but it didn't work: I ended up with a singleton in dummy and none in hand, with just the ace out. I then switched and tried to lose the second ace, but that didn't appear either. Eventually they crashed together at trick 13.

[gwnn]

He's right, though. I once ended up in 6NT on a similar layout, and I thought 11 tricks were at risk as well. I tried to lose the first ace, but it didn't work: I ended up with a singleton in dummy and none in hand, with just the ace out. I then switched and tried to lose the second ace, but that didn't appear either. Eventually they crashed together at trick 13.

At least did one of them make the trick? :)

[GreenMan]

Which reminds me of a riddle:

 

"You hold ♦AKQJTxx and are on lead to 3NT. You lead a top diamond and partner shows out. What do you do next?"

 

Put that next high diamond on the table ASAP and establish the revoke!

 

 

There was a case like that some years ago, in a Spingold quarterfinal IIRC, where opening leader with AK vs. 6NT wasn't quick enough on the draw.

[CamHenry]

At least did one of them make the trick? :)

 

Yes, sadly I didn't make 6NT+1 missing two aces.

[mycroft]

There was a case like that some years ago, in a Spingold quarterfinal IIRC, where opening leader with AK vs. 6NT wasn't quick enough on the draw.

I would think you would need AKQ for that to matter, no?

[CamHenry]

I would think you would need AKQ for that to matter, no?

 

If partner leads out of turn when you have AK, then declarer can force you to lead a different suit (and then, presumably, cash his 12 top tricks elsewhere).

[Vampyr]

If partner leads out of turn when you have AK, then declarer can force you to lead a different suit (and then, presumably, cash his 12 top tricks elsewhere).

 

No, the matter under discussion was the correct opening leader leading, and partner revoking. And yes, of course you need AKQ.

 

One good reason to never establish a habit of saying "none of those, partner?"

[Fluffy]

he had led the Jack from AKQJxx(x)

[Antrax]

I think in the Watson book he advocates leading Q from AKQxxx so that's just taking it one step further.

[Zelandakh]

I think in the Watson book he advocates leading Q from AKQxxx so that's just taking it one step further.

I thought this was an idea from Kantar.

[Cyberyeti]

Partner made one of these moments at the weekend, eyes the bidding box cards in front of declarer after an uncontested auction, 1♥ and 1N, asks dummy "what did you bid ?"

[WellSpyder]

Partner made one of these moments at the weekend, eyes the bidding box cards in front of declarer after an uncontested auction, 1♥ and 1N, asks dummy "what did you bid ?"

One of my partners makes a habit before leading of always asking "my lead?". Since we play in England where the bidding cards are usually left on the table until the opening lead is made, I often feel like telling him to look at the auction and see whether it is his lead or not. Usually, though, I say nothing at all (I don't want anyone to think I am giving him UI!) and leave it to oppo to reply if they feel like it.

[mycroft]

If partner leads out of turn when you have AK, then declarer can force you to lead a different suit (and then, presumably, cash his 12 top tricks elsewhere).

Yes, that's the joke.

 

But remember that if we bang the other one on the table right away, establishing the revoke, declarer's going to take 11 tricks and you'll give him the 12th as a revoke penalty. That's why you need the Q as well.

[EricK]

Playing weak NT, partner opens 1♦. I have ♠ T9xx ♥AQxx ♦- ♣AQJxx. I bid 2♣. Partner passes(!).

 

A small ♠ is lead, and dummy comes down with ♠Axx ♥ Jx ♦AT9xx ♣Kxx.

 

Me:Why did you pass?

Him: I didn't know what to bid.

Me: That's why you should have opened a weak NT. Why didn't you?

Him: My hand was so weak

Me: All weak NT hands are weak; that's the point.

[Jinksy]

I’ve had some painful moments at the hands of BBO tournament directors. In the most memorable, holding something like AJTx x KJTx AKJx, fourth in, the bidding went P P 1♣ to me.

 

Rightly or wrongly, after a long tank, I bid 1N, which my P raised to three. I received the dreaded ♥ lead, and P revealed something like Kxx Jxx AQxxx xx. Two or three tricks into my hammering, RHO suddenly alerted 1♣ as Polish (either nat, weak NT, or 18+ any dist). I immediately called the director and said that had they actually disclosed their system, we might have bid the hand very differently.

 

She looked at the four hands, and observed that RHO in fact had some ♣s. Therefore, she said, ‘the bid was natural’ and there would be no adjustment.

 

I forget my exact reply, but I’m now banned from that tournament.

[olegru]

the bid was natural does not sound as a professional reply for alertable bid, but, out of curiosity, what would you do differently if they would properly explain 1 club as a Polish club right away?

[blackshoe]

The director was clueless, but like Olegru, i'm curious what might have been different with proper disclosure.

 

Proper procedure when you discover you've failed to make a proper alert is to call the director immediately when you realize this, and then explain to him and the table what the problem is. "I failed to alert 1♣ during the bidding". The director should then ask why the alert ("natural, weak NT, or any 18+ HCP"), and then of the other side what they might have done differently (perhaps they have a specific defense to Polish club). Then he should instruct the players to continue the play, and examine the hand afterwards to determine if the NOS were damaged, in which case he shall award an adjusted score (Law 40B4).

[Jinksy]

Honestly I'm not sure. Looking at it now, since a Polish Club is forcing I'd probably pass, though with little conviction it was the right call. The hand is a bit hazy, anyway - I remember a stiff Hx, inadequate side suits for an overcall, 16-17 points, the rest is guessing. I might have been 3145 or 4135.

 

I might stick it as a poll in one of the forums, anyway.

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqhqdc76&w=s2ht86dc&n=sh94d84c&e=s9hdqcqj]399|300[/hv]

 

My opponents were in 4♥ with declarer (south on lead)

 

She led ♠Q, and ruffed it on dummy not knowing that it was good, next came a diamond on which I had to underruff, and a heart where I 'underruffed' again and dummy won with ♥9, the last trick was a loser for declarer who went 1 down in 4♥.

 

 

Dummy said: if you don't ruff ♠Q you make it, declarer apologized...

[EricK]

I can probably get (at least) one of these a week from my Monday night Pairs game. Here's one from last Monday.

 

First a bidding problem: You hold ♠ATxxx ♥KJ ♦A ♣Axxxx, you are vulnerable, they are not. Partner opens 1♠ and 2nd hand bids 2NT (minors).What would you bid with a good partner? What do you bid with a partner who doesn't really understand bidding and whose main slam-bidding technique is to bid Blackwood too soon, and then not know what to do over the response?

 

Anyway, my choice was 6♠. Partner greets this with a look of bewilderment, and perhaps slight annoyance, and passes. The ♦K is lead, and partner cleverly takes the Ace. He has a little think and then plays a small ♠ from dummy to his K, and then looks really annoyed when his LHO shows out. He scrapes 12 tricks all the same.

 

After the hand I suggest he might have tried playing the trumps the other way given that LHO had shown 10 cards in the minors, and he says 'The problem was, I had KJ in my hand and you had AT, so it was a guess.'

[steve2005]

Playing weak NT, partner opens 1♦. I have ♠ T9xx ♥AQxx ♦- ♣AQJxx. I bid 2♣. Partner passes(!).

 

A small ♠ is lead, and dummy comes down with ♠Axx ♥ Jx ♦AT9xx ♣Kxx.

 

Me:Why did you pass?

Him: I didn't know what to bid.

Me: That's why you should have opened a weak NT. Why didn't you?

Him: My hand was so weak

Me: All weak NT hands are weak; that's the point.

 

ive had that same discussion with partner playing strong NT.

 

why didn't you open1N?

 

oh it wasn't the right sort of hand (16 hcp balanced no 5 card suit)

 

 

 

[ggwhiz]

Today it went

 

p - 1♣ - p - 1♠

1nt - double float for 1100

 

Declarer told their partner "That was a sandwich notrump. You MUST bid!" ..... holding a 3-3-3-4 11 count.

[manudude03]

I had 2 hopeless comments last night.

 

1. The opponents open 1NT and we play 2C for the majors* and 2D as any 6 card suit and 2M natural, though we would sometimes bid 2M with 6 of them for preemptive purposes. partner has QJxxx KT9x Qx Qx and decides to bid 2S. This is doubled just showing points and having no agreement on XX in this auction, I decided to bid 3D on void xxxx KT98x KJTx (ok, I admit 2NT is a lot better than 3D). Anyway, this is doubled and goes -3 after misguessing everything. After the hand, I ask why he hadn't bid 2C instead of 2S on a poor suit, he replies that he had to show the 5th spade.

 

2. The opponents are in 6C. Partner leads a heart and dummy hits with a flat 19. Declarer wins in hand and takes out trumps in 3 rounds, and then proceeds to play a line with very little chances of making (playing x opposite AQxx by going up with the ace and trying to run the queen when they had already lost a trick, and winds up -1. Declarer then tells her partner that they should have been in NT. 6C could have been made by ruffing out the king in the mentioned suit, 6NT requires that finesse to work, which it doesn't.

 

* edit: This isn't entirely true, he told me a few weeks ago he wanted to play 2C as asking for a 4 card major.

[McBruce]

Three decades of hopeless/clueless comments for you:

 

It must be about 30 years ago that I remember reading in our local newsletter about an auction at a tournament that began 1♥ - pass - 4♦. Opener was asked about the meaning of 4♦ and was having trouble remembering the name of the convention. "It's, um, uh, can't recall what it's called, um, oh yes, it's a SPINGLETON!" Opponents quickly pointed out that on this auction she was in fact playing a related convention called DINGLETONS.

 

It must be 20 years ago* that I had the following 3 board round against the type of married couple for whom strategy consists of driving 50 miles to play at the club where the entry fee is a dollar cheaper: Board 1, I play four spades and have four apparent losers, but trumps break 3-1, the player with the singleton following to the second but not to the first. +420. Board 2, the uncontested bidding begins with Mrs. RHO and goes 1♣ - 1♠, 2♣ - 2♥, 3♣ - 3♦, 4♣ - pass. I lead a trump from my doubleton and dummy has a singleton. Partner discards and I don't believe even on this auction that declarer has ten clubs, so I ask if he is out of clubs. The Director is called even before partner produces a club. "You can do that?" says declarer. Certainly, says the director. Dummy now pipes up with "why didn't you do that on the first hand then?", deftly accusing partner of failing to do something she was unaware was possible. Board 3, with two tops in the bank, starts with my 3♣ preempt. Mr. LHO passes and Mrs. RHO bids 3♦. Unfortunately, this happens ten seconds after partner has raised to 4♣. Trying our best to avoid a freakout, we courteously summon the director over (for the third time), who begins to explain options but is interrupted by Mrs. RHO, who says she has heard all this before and will simply change her call to 4NT. After the director explains the effect of this ploy, we cash seven clubs and an ace and leave quietly.

 

It must be about 10 years ago that an occasional partner decided RKC was the way to go. Playing at a club where defenders holding Yarboroughs just HAVE TO KNOW, a player asked me about partner's 5♠ response as we RKC'd our way to a spade slam. I answered that 5♠ "shows two key cards in spades," then placed a card from my hand face down on the table, pointed to it, and continued: "and in addition to the two key-cards he has, for some reason, partner also claims to hold THIS card." Partner immediately reinspected his hand. Why? Don't ask me.

 

And just last week, opponents conducted this uncontested auction: 2NT - 3♥(transfer), 3♠ - 4NT. Opener now stared at partner for a full minute, then convulsively grabbed a green card and slapped it down. Responder was mortified, but opener got in the first verbal shot: "ya can't do that to ask for aces. 4NT is quantitative." When the bickering stopped, he made ten tricks for a cold bottom by making a claim on a cross-ruff, forgetting that he had emphatically parked in 4NT. His spade holding was ♠KJx within a minimum 20 count for the 2NT opener, so he was more interested in passing to get the argument started, than in bidding 5♠, as his own system demanded!

 

 

*in fact, 20 years ago may be within the short period that the ACBL banned defenders from asking about each others revokes