What (if anything) do you say to an opponent . . . .

[S2000magic]

I recently played a hand in 3NT (poorly, I admit), making 4 when (as I played it) I should have been down 1 (but if I'd played it correctly I would have made 5).

 

After losing a club finesse I shouldn't have taken, LHO was on lead with ♠ K 8 5 on the board; she led the ♠ 3 (from ♠ 10 6 3), I covered with the ♠ 5, RHO won with the ♠ J (from ♠ A Q J 9); I held ♠ 7 4 2. I won the return, rattled off the rest of my 10 tricks, and that was that.

 

After the hand, RHO asked if there were any way they could have set me. I said that if LHO had led the ♠ 10, they'd have taken 4 spade tricks plus the club.

 

LHO said that she would never lead the 10 from 10 6 3. (Emphasis hers.)

 

I hate criticizing players at the table - well, except for myself - so I didn't say anything. But it seems that in the proper circumstances someone ought to point out that there are times - this was one - when leading the 10 from 10 6 3 is not merely correct, it's imperative.

 

(I haven't played against her much, so I don't know how good a player she is.)

 

What do you say in that sort of circumstance?

[jjbrr]

nothing.

 

she would never lead the 10 from that holding. that's the end of the discussion.

[Bbradley62]

After the hand, RHO asked if there were any way they could have set me. I said that if LHO had led the ♠ 10, they'd have taken 4 spade tricks plus the club.

 

LHO said that she would never lead the 10 from 10 6 3. (Emphasis hers.)

"Then no, you can never set it."

[S2000magic]

After the hand, RHO asked if there were any way they could have set me. I said that if LHO had led the ♠ 10, they'd have taken 4 spade tricks plus the club.

 

LHO said that she would never lead the 10 from 10 6 3. (Emphasis hers.)

"Then no, there was no way you could set it."

To RHO.

[jeffford76]

I think it's tricky when one opponent asks for advice, and the fault is with their partner. In general you wouldn't point out an opponent's mistake unprompted, but it's difficult to be polite to the questioner without doing so. If you can manage it, I think it's better to say, "I don't think you could have done anything" preferably without any undue emphasis on "you". I might answer more completely away from the table later if the opportunity arises.

 

In your situation I can't see why you need any response to the person who would never make the right play.

[S2000magic]

In your situation I can't see why you need any response to the person who would never make the right play.

You're right, of course, but as someone who's been teaching for over 30 years, my heart breaks when I hear someone say, in essence, that they won't try to learn.

[wyman]

I would say nothing.

 

But if you made me, I'd say "LHO needs to lead spades thru twice. Since you're holding all of the high ones, the only way this can happen is if the S10 is led and allowed to hold the trick."

 

This doesn't suggest that they _should_ have done anything, but it shows the mechanics of what needed to happen in order for the set to be achieved. They can worry about ATB and whether or not it's reasonable to find the right line after the fact. But pointing out the mechanism is instructive enough, and I'd feel like I'd have done my duty.

 

I'd also point out that I'd really blown it by taking the practice finesse in clubs and mention that the game is brutal sometimes.

[S2000magic]

I'd also point out that I'd really blown it by taking the practice finesse in clubs . . . .

I did do that.

[kenberg]

This may depend a bit on your assessment of both people. I have had people ask my advice who really want it. Here, I'm not so sure that this is the case.

 

If I were on good terms with both opponents and believe they are both in interested in my thoughts on bridge, I possibly might try "I never should have let you in with that club play, but once I did then if you (addressing lho, who hasn't asked))lead the ten of spades it's true that I would go down."

 

Really, if either wants to learn, the good question would be "How should I have thought this through in order to find the play of the ten of spades?". But this would be from the lady who has not asked anything. Her silence need not mean she is uninterested in learning, it may mean that she simply does not, at the moment, want advice.

 

Recently a partner commented on a play I made. I think he was right. But it was time to play the next hand and I didn't want to think about it. Happens.

 

But unless I am confident of my footing, I duck such questions.

[jillybean]

Is this online or r/l ?

[Phil]

After the hand, RHO asked if there were any way they could have set me.

 

"yes"

[EricK]

After LHO's comment I would say something like "I never said it's the best play, just that it would have led to my defeat". It's a true enough comment, as I am unlikely to be able to quickly work out exactly what LHO should have known at the time of the play.

[gwnn]

If RHO asks me specifically, I would say something like "yes, if your pd shifts to the ♠T, but yea maybe that's tricky to find from Txx". I would not lie to them.

 

If RHO asks LHO, or my partner, or God, then I would never say anything (unless we are good friends and I know nobody would be embarrassed).

[S2000magic]

Is this online or r/l?

Live.

[Zelandakh]

Live.

In that case: "Oh, we'll have to look at the hand records later. Perhaps the spades could have gone differently."

[Vampyr]

In that case: "Oh, we'll have to look at the hand records later. Perhaps the spades could have gone differently."

 

This may well be ACBL where many clubs do not have pre-dealt hands or hand records. I am not making this up.

[S2000magic]

In that case: "Oh, we'll have to look at the hand records later. Perhaps the spades could have gone differently."

This may well be ACBL where many clubs do not have pre-dealt hands or hand records.

It was ACBL.

 

I am not making this up.

I know.

 

Double dummy (as the hand record shows), I make three notrump. The opening lead would be . . . you guessed it! . . . the ♠ 10, so they get their four spade tricks, but I drop the doubleton ♣ Q offside.

[barmar]

I'd say something like "It's a difficult defense to find". Depending on the hand, I might even concede that it's a double dummy defense.

[Phil]

By the way, do you know the entire hand? I wonder if there is a one-suit squeeze.

[S2000magic]

I'd say something like "It's a difficult defense to find". Depending on the hand, I might even concede that it's a double dummy defense.

That'a a good response in general. (Here, it's a lie, alas: the ♠ 10 stands out.)

[S2000magic]

By the way, do you know the entire hand? I wonder if there is a one-suit squeeze.

I do. When I get back to my apartment tonight I'll post it.

 

(I don't know how to use the really cool hand display gadget here. If you do, I'd appreciate a PM with a primer. Thanks!)

[barmar]

That'a a good response in general. (Here, it's a lie, alas: the ♠ 10 stands out.)

If the person who needed to find the play were the one asking, I would consider it a request for a lesson, and explain to them how to recognize the situation.

 

But in this case, since it was their partner you have to be diplomatic. Which may entail a white lie.

[S2000magic]

That'a a good response in general. (Here, it's a lie, alas: the ♠ 10 stands out.)

If the person who needed to find the play were the one asking, I would consider it a request for a lesson, and explain to them how to recognize the situation.

 

But in this case, since it was their partner you have to be diplomatic. Which may entail a white lie.

Excellent points all around.

[gwnn]

That'a a good response in general. (Here, it's a lie, alas: the ♠ 10 stands out.)

By using modifiers such as 'maybe', 'sometimes', etc you can make it a non-lie in practice. ;)

[Phil]

Sorry, I was thinking Txx of spades was in declarer's hand. Nix that.