Most hopeless / clueless comment?

[barmar]

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.

I hope you did that after the auction was over, as it would be illegal to indicate that you have a specific card during the auction.

 

And this auction isn't really so outrageous. It's common to treat extra length in the trump suit as equivalent to the queen. If you have a 10-card fit and at least one of the top 2 honors, you won't usually lose to the Q.

[Cyberyeti]

This is genuine, name changed to protect the guilty, two old ladies playing at the club, declarer on seeing dummy.

 

"Oh Edie, I don't think you had your hesitation"

[Jinksy]

Had she acted on the strength of the hesitation? Otherwise it seems kind of a normal thing to hear, albeit usually laced with a dash of sarcasm.

[manudude03]

One from years back.

 

My partner and I have this something along the lines of this auction

1C-1H

1NT(0)-2D(1)

2H-2S(2)

3C(2)-3S(2)

4C(2)-4D(2)

4H-4NT

5S-7H-(X).

 

0. 12-14

1. GF checkback.

2. Cues

 

This goes 3 down when we're off 3 cashing aces. Before bidding 7H, partner said I (the opener) must have all 5 key cards for this bidding(this was a social bridge evening).

[Jinksy]

*Someone* had to for all that bidding. Clearly not him. Therefore you ;)

[HighLow21]

One from years back.

 

My partner and I have this something along the lines of this auction

1C-1H

1NT(0)-2D(1)

2H-2S(2)

3C(2)-3S(2)

4C(2)-4D(2)

4H-4NT

5S-7H-(X).

 

0. 12-14

1. GF checkback.

2. Cues

 

This goes 3 down when we're off 3 cashing aces. Before bidding 7H, partner said I (the opener) must have all 5 key cards for this bidding(this was a social bridge evening).

Proof that cue-bidding leads to terrible results when in the wrong hands. How on earth could someone drive to slam, let alone grand slam, opposite this bidding from partner? He's limited. He's signed off in 4H. And while I have no idea what the 5S bid is, I don't understand how an reasonable person could get to a slam with 3 aces missing on this auction.

[Zelandakh]

Proof that cue-bidding leads to terrible results when in the wrong hands. How on earth could someone drive to slam, let alone grand slam, opposite this bidding from partner? He's limited. He's signed off in 4H. And while I have no idea what the 5S bid is, I don't understand how an reasonable person could get to a slam with 3 aces missing on this auction.

That was the point and why the comment was fit for this thread. They assumed that 2 or 5 must be 5 after we had shown 12-14 balanced. Now go back and count the points...

[ArtK78]

One from years back.

 

My partner and I have this something along the lines of this auction

1C-1H

1NT(0)-2D(1)

2H-2S(2)

3C(2)-3S(2)

4C(2)-4D(2)

4H-4NT

5S-7H-(X).

 

0. 12-14

1. GF checkback.

2. Cues

 

This goes 3 down when we're off 3 cashing aces. Before bidding 7H, partner said I (the opener) must have all 5 key cards for this bidding(this was a social bridge evening).

When did we change the numbering system so that footnotes started with 0?

 

[i am risking that this is a hopeless/clueless comment]

[Mbodell]

When did we change the numbering system so that footnotes started with 0?

 

[i am risking that this is a hopeless/clueless comment]

 

Computer scientists 0-index most things. See Dijkstra's argument and wikipedia article.

[eagles123]

My Parnter picked up

 

AKT

KQJ742

A

AKQ

 

in 4th seat after p p p

 

she opened 2C (8 playing tricks or 23-24 bal) rather than the game forcing 2D. and then proceeded to underbid even more by jumping to 4H when I myself made a GF bid meaning we missed an easy slam. I asked aftewards why she didn't open 2D

 

"you might have had a weak hand".

[kenberg]

Some years back my partner opened 1♣ and after a competitive auction my left hand opponent became declarer. Partner led a club and ruffed the third round. This surprised me because our club openings promised three, and she was a rather rigid person. So after the hand I asked. She explained that while she knew that she could open 1♦ holding three diamonds and two clubs, this time she only had two cards in each minor. She had never encountered this before and just did the best that she could. I asked if it did not strike her as a bit odd that she had neither a three card minor nor a five card major and she allowed that it did, but she just didn't know what to do about it.

 

If you are wondering, it turned out she found a third diamond in her hand partway through the play.

[manudude03]

When did we change the numbering system so that footnotes started with 0?

 

[i am risking that this is a hopeless/clueless comment]

 

I wasn't going to include it as a footnote, but decided to include it after incase anyone thinks we play a 20-22 1NT rebid, and couldn't be bothered changing the rest of the numbers. Besides, I work as a web developer, used to array indexes starting at 0 :P

[RMB1]

My Parnter picked up

 

AKT

KQJ742

A

AKQ

 

in 4th seat after p p p

she opened 2C (8 playing tricks or 23-24 bal) rather than the game forcing 2D. and then proceeded to underbid even more by jumping to 4H when I myself made a GF bid meaning we missed an easy slam. I asked aftewards why she didn't open 2D

"you might have had a weak hand"

 

"and I didn't want the weak and to make a 2♥ negative and declare ♥ contracts" would be a reasonable follow-up

[broze]

This has happened to me several times as declarer in national tournaments:

 

I am declarer in what appears to everyone at the table to be a tricky contract. I lead a suit and both opps follow.

 

Me: What is your carding here?

LHO: Oh, we don't play any.

Me: Okay. (Inspects convention card) It says here you play standard count on declarer's lead?

LHO: Yes, but we don't do it when we think it will help declarer.

Me: No, of course not.

 

Lo and behold, every single time they have given honest count!

[ggwhiz]

Lo and behold, every single time they have given honest count!

 

A very fine local player (GLM) who is a retired auditor insists on count signals 99.9% of the time to the exclusion of everything else.

 

We call them accounting signals and there is an audit trail. You can take them to the bank but she will beat you anyway.

[ahydra]

Sextuple combo post!

 

ahydra

[ggwhiz]

Whoa! a new record. Kept telling me the gateway timed out

[Cyberyeti]

Whoa! a new record. Kept telling me the gateway timed out

 

When it tells you it timed out 90% of the time it eventually arrives

[Antrax]

You can just open a new tab and check the thread. Often your post is there.

[EricK]

Partner leads a singleton ♣. I get in early and give him a ruff. At the end of the hand, partner, who started with four trumps, says "if I didn't have to ruff it might have been better". "So why did you lead a ♣?" I innocently ask. "Well, it was a singleton" he says.

[lamford]

The most hopeless or clueless comment I have experienced is when a TD, after a claim, classed best play by the non-claimers as "not a normal line", and therefore allowed the claim!

[WellSpyder]

[..] "So why did you lead a ♣?" I innocently ask. "Well, it was a singleton" he says.

Reminds me of a hand I had at the weekend. I had a pretty shapely hand and was about to lead my singleton when it occurred to me that with a void in trumps it wouldn't do me much good if partner did manage to get in and return the suit.....

[CSGibson]

Setting: A loudmouth who has an inability to shut up, and who just got done criticizing your previous day's partner for giving lessons to his new partner for the day. He is playing in a partnership where he is a much weaker player.

 

Partner and I are playing 2/1, and have the auction as follows (at teams, unfavorable vulnerability)

 

(P)-1♠-(P)-2♦

(X)-P-(3♣)-P

(P)-X all pass.

 

Dummy comes down with:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=s852h742dkj42c852]133|100[/hv]

 

After this goes for 1700 (declarer making no clear errors), the doubler asks his partner why she bid 3♣ after all he had done was make a lead directing double, saying that it was a horrible bid on her part, and blaming her for the result.

 

The other table was in 3N making 6 for 690 (takes two of three finesses to make 6N on 30 combined HCP).

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj9hdjt74cajt9543&w=skq72hkt974da62c2&n=st653hj632dq53c76&e=sa84haq85dk98ckq8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp2cdp2s3h3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

A bbo 'advanced' had this shocker just now, firstly with a totally inexplicable double, and then for whatever reason raising his partners 2s bid. in the post mortem however he gave 100% blame to his partner

Mr. Advanced→Table: my p has to pass

Mr. Advanced→Table: I have to double!!!!!

Mr. Advanced→Table: didn't you my hand??

Mr. Advanced→Table: you p without points have to pass

Mr. Advanced→Table: 2 cl pass no problem for us

[Lord Molyb]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj9hdjt74cajt9543&w=skq72hkt974da62c2&n=st653hj632dq53c76&e=sa84haq85dk98ckq8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp2cdp2s3h3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

A bbo 'advanced' had this shocker just now, firstly with a totally inexplicable double, and then for whatever reason raising his partners 2s bid. in the post mortem however he gave 100% blame to his partner

Mr. Advanced→Table: my p has to pass

Mr. Advanced→Table: I have to double!!!!!

Mr. Advanced→Table: didn't you my hand??

Mr. Advanced→Table: you p without points have to pass

Mr. Advanced→Table: 2 cl pass no problem for us

Perhaps he meant the double as lead-directing and thought his partner had 6 decent spades (which is impossible). Still clueless though.