[the hog]

Jinksy, on 2014-December-21, 19:32, said:

Seriously? The guy who can't go two posts without abusing his peers gets upset if they depart from Queen's English?

So you think "Christ" is acceptable? Why am I not surprised?

[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2014-December-21, 22:36, said:

So you think "Christ" is acceptable? Why am I not surprised?

The recent comments are certainly fitting the thread title.

I will add a less fitting comment:

Season's greetings and the best for 2015 to everyone on BBF,

Rik

[eagles123]

this happened at the club last night, Vampyr and Hog you will be pleased I made no comment to the opps!!

---

hopeless comment afterwards:

a frustrated South to North - "you're far too weak to bid 3 diamonds partner".

[barmar]

eagles123, on 2014-December-23, 04:51, said:

hopeless comment afterwards:

a frustrated South to North - "you're far too weak to bid 3 diamonds partner".

It's not so clueless. Balancing actions are often made with weak hands -- you're bidding partner's expected values. North had about what he's expected to have (South was probably expecting even more, because East had more than enough to invite with 2NT), so he had no business raising.

However, South isn't totally blameless. Balancing is pretty dangerous when the opponents haven't found a fit -- there's no reason to expect that your side has a fit, either. And 4333 is the worst shape a hand can have, especially when it's weak in high cards.

[Jinksy]

Yeah, N's raise is dubious. But nowhere near as bad as S's call (and S's complaint wasn't that N wasn't shapely enough, which IMO would have made more sense, since it looks like a competitive raise).

[eagles123]

I have to report one from tonight - although I made a bad bid imo my partner had a stinker

---

in fairness this was the last round but I couldn't believe it

my partner said afterwards that she thought my "3d bid was negative and the X was penalty"

oops

[blackshoe]

West made a game forcing opening bid. Whatever double means, West has little or no defense against 4♠, and if 3♦ is negative, neither does East. So clearly West should bid 5♦, or she shouldn't have bid 2♣ in the first place.

Either way, this partnership needs to nail down what calls means after a 2♣ start and interference. Might take a while, but it's a necessary discussion, IMO. Of course, if your partner is like one of mine, any discussion of any bidding is "a waste of time" and not to be borne.

[manudude03]

Admittedly, it's hard to believe partner is making a natural positive when you are holding AKQJT98 in the suit.

[GreenMan]

The good news is that giving a ruff-and-sluff at trick 1 doesn't (directly) cause any damage.

[Kungsgeten]

I had this one yesterday, being dealer and playing a team game at the local club:

P-(Dbl*)

LHO is clearly confused and wonder what to do, puts a double on the table and honestly wonder if that is allowed. We tell her it isn't. "Well... I guess I have to start with a club then..." (this is a pair playing 4 card openings). The corrected bidding comtinues.

P-(1C)-Dbl-(P);
P-(1NT*)-P-(P);
Dbl-AP

Before bidding 1NT:

LHO: "If I pass now, will I have to play 1C doubled?"
We: "Yes"
LHO: "Well, that's no good..."
RHO: "You could try bidding something else."
LHO: *sigh* "I think i'll try 1NT"

I held a 9-count with five decent clubs. After partner's lead declarer asks which contract she's playing. 1NT doubled, we reply.

During the play declarer helps me to establish my club suit, my partner has to discard and goes in for a tank. After 20 seconds declarer says:

"I'm thinking about calling the director, you're not allowed to think that long."

[Fluffy]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-January-23, 00:53, said:

I had this one yesterday, being dealer and playing a team game at the local club:

P-(Dbl*)

LHO is clearly confused and wonder what to do, puts a double on the table and honestly wonder if that is allowed. We tell her it isn't. "Well... I guess I have to start with a club then..." (this is a pair playing 4 card openings). The corrected bidding comtinues.

P-(1C)-Dbl-(P);
P-(1NT*)-P-(P);
Dbl-AP

Before bidding 1NT:

LHO: "If I pass now, will I have to play 1C doubled?"
We: "Yes"
LHO: "Well, that's no good..."
RHO: "You could try bidding something else."
LHO: *sigh* "I think i'll try 1NT"

I held a 9-count with five decent clubs. After partner's lead declarer asks which contract she's playing. 1NT doubled, we reply.

During the play declarer helps me to establish my club suit, my partner has to discard and goes in for a tank. After 20 seconds declarer says:

"I'm thinking about calling the director, you're not allowed to think that long."

Obviously thinking is not forbidden, but if you had done something against it, like reviewing the last trick, with the current rules she would be legally right

[Kungsgeten]

Yeah, it puts partner in a though spot when tanking and I'm afraid that at least two of my partners (and I guess me too sometimes) think for too long. I just thought it was rather funny that she mentioned this after their side (she, mostly) so obviously violating the rules. RHO is a beginner, LHO is not (she has been playing regulary longer than me, I started in autumn 2011). I figured that it would do no good to call the TD, since I want to encourage less experienced players (and most of all beginners) to play at the non-beginner events at the club -- especially team games which are rather scarce at our club.

[Zelandakh]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-January-23, 04:27, said:

RHO is a beginner, LHO is not

She may not be in the BBO sense (played >1 year) but she certainly is in the normal parlance unless she was putting on a good act.

[nige1]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-January-23, 00:53, said:

I had this one yesterday, being dealer and playing a team game at the local club:
P-(Dbl*)
LHO is clearly confused and wonder what to do, puts a double on the table and honestly wonder if that is allowed. We tell her it isn't. "Well... I guess I have to start with a club then..." (this is a pair playing 4 card openings). The corrected bidding comtinues.
P-(1C)-Dbl-(P);
P-(1NT*)-P-(P);
Dbl-AP
Before bidding 1NT:
LHO: "If I pass now, will I have to play 1C doubled?"
We: "Yes"
LHO: "Well, that's no good..."
RHO: "You could try bidding something else."
LHO: *sigh* "I think i'll try 1NT"
I held a 9-count with five decent clubs. After partner's lead declarer asks which contract she's playing. 1NT doubled, we reply.
During the play declarer helps me to establish my club suit, my partner has to discard and goes in for a tank. After 20 seconds declarer says:
"I'm thinking about calling the director, you're not allowed to think that long."

After declarer has drawn attention to the alleged irregularity by Kungsgeten's partner, perhaps Kungsgeten should be polite and helpful by law-abidingly calling the director himself

[Vampyr]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-January-23, 04:27, said:

Yeah, it puts partner in a though spot when tanking and I'm afraid that at least two of my partners (and I guess me too sometimes) think for too long. I just thought it was rather funny that she mentioned this after their side (she, mostly) so obviously violating the rules. RHO is a beginner, LHO is not (she has been playing regulary longer than me, I started in autumn 2011). I figured that it would do no good to call the TD, since I want to encourage less experienced players (and most of all beginners) to play at the non-beginner events at the club -- especially team games which are rather scarce at our club.

One thing that less experienced players need to learn is that calling the director is not a bad thing.

[mikeh]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-January-23, 00:53, said:

I had this one yesterday, being dealer and playing a team game at the local club:

P-(Dbl*)

LHO is clearly confused and wonder what to do, puts a double on the table and honestly wonder if that is allowed. We tell her it isn't. "Well... I guess I have to start with a club then..." (this is a pair playing 4 card openings). The corrected bidding comtinues.

P-(1C)-Dbl-(P);
P-(1NT*)-P-(P);
Dbl-AP

Before bidding 1NT:

LHO: "If I pass now, will I have to play 1C doubled?"
We: "Yes"
LHO: "Well, that's no good..."
RHO: "You could try bidding something else."
LHO: *sigh* "I think i'll try 1NT"

I held a 9-count with five decent clubs. After partner's lead declarer asks which contract she's playing. 1NT doubled, we reply.

During the play declarer helps me to establish my club suit, my partner has to discard and goes in for a tank. After 20 seconds declarer says:

"I'm thinking about calling the director, you're not allowed to think that long."

It can be tough to remain calm in the face of this sort of behaviour, but my suggestion would have been that you should politely say that she should feel free to call the director if she wants.

My less-inhibited response, which I have made several times in situations where an opponent makes a snide comment about my going into the tank is that her comment has interrupted my thinking and now I have to start all over again.

The truth is that most bad players literally don't have any concept of what a more thoughtful player will be thinking about. They genuinely think that you are wasting time, and some of them have complained that the reason I or my partner are doing it is to make them forget what has happened so far.

[Kungsgeten]

I agree with you on the TD matter, it would be great if less experienced players could accept a TD call. I know its not correct, but I always feel a bit guilty when I have an option of summoning the TD against inexperienced players. It feels "cheap" so to speak and I know that many of them get stressed and intimidated if the TD is summoned. Most feel fine if the TD is summoned if they revole, bid out of turn or make an insufficient bid, but other than that (possibly not including playing the wrong card and correcting themselves) it is a very delicate matter. This may perhaps have to do with my relativly young age and me having (too much?) respect for my elders, I'm not sure.

[Kungsgeten]

Not quite sure that this qualifies as a clueless/hopeless comment, but I came to thinl of it writing about TDs

We're playing a team match against the best team at our club, possibly the best in the district, and are underdogs. We've played a couple of boards and the opponents has studied our convention card. This sequence comes up, partner being dealer:

1D*-(P)-1NT-(2H);
P-(P**)-Dbl-(Rdbl);
3C-(P***)-P-(3H);
P-(3S)-AP

* Alerted

** RHO looks at our convention card, asks me about 1D, I reply "12-14 NT or an unbalanced hand 11-15 hcp with a four card major and at least four cards in a minor". RHO asks some more followmup questions (the bid is a bit hard to explain so I try to explain that our 2m openings are natural 11-15 with 5+ minor and no major).

*** RHO thinks a good ammount of time, then asks some more questions about 1D, then thinks and passes

Before my final pass I ask what LHO has shown: redouble shows strength and 3H shows extra heart length, so far so good. I think the auction is very fishy, but decide to lead to see what dummy holds. I have something like 2-2-5-4 if I remember correctly and perhaps 10 hcp.

Dummy has 7 hearts, 3 spades, 2-1 minors and 10 hcp. I call the TD, tell him about the bidding, the pauses and the explanations of Rdbl, where LHO claims that it does not promise extra strength but simply that he "had enough for his bid". TD asks me to clarify the problem and I say that I think pass is a reasonable alternative and that RHO's pauses may have influenced LHO, I also question if the hand is worth three free bids when partner haven't bid anything.

TD: "I think he has enough for his call."

Declarer makes 3S and at the other table they bid and make 3NT on our cards due to lucky honour placement in the heart suit. We lose the match by one IMP. It was a knockout match.

[BunnyGo]

A non-bridge clueless comment story:

I taught a math class last semester, and at the end of summer break I get an e-mail from a student asking what the book will be. I respond, and get another e-mail with a link to a pdf asking if this is the book. I again respond (without clicking the link) what the book's identifying information is (including an amazon link).

Student responds again: "mm, yes. I got that far. But I want to confirm that that pdf book I found is indeed that book. I don't see it indicated in the pdf itself and, for instance, the pdf has 520 pages yet the amazon or ebay description of the book says it has 590 pages, and that's inconsistent. So I was wondering, if you have the book, if you can look at the pdf and look at the book and confirm to me that the pdf is indeed that 7th edition of the book. ?"

To which I finally come out and say: "I'm not comfortable advising a student on how to get an illegal copy of a textbook. Sorry, but you'll have to do the legwork comparing with copies in the library."

Holding my tongue from telling him what I really think of a student who would ask a professor to help him do this.

The conversation continues: "Oh okay. I understand. Although that was straight from Google so I don't know if that's illegal... I see now that it was put up by some University where they speak Arabic, I think."

Me: "I think we can safely assume that downloading pdfs of copyrighted material is breaking the law."

And the final clueless comment from this kid: "Well I didn't download it. A google search of [book title] yields that "pdf website", or whatever you call it, as the first thing on the list. I go to that "pdf website" and then click save at the bottom.

So I saved it, didn't download it, right?"

Sigh....then I had to teach this kid for a semester...

[diana_eva]

mikeh, on 2015-January-23, 15:53, said:

They genuinely think that you are wasting time, and some of them have complained that the reason I or my partner are doing it is to make them forget what has happened so far.

It is a pretty common tactic, at least here. I've had this happening to me at least on two occasions and I can count on my fingers the number of times I've played live bridge. Tanking breaks a weaker player's tempo and train of thought and it does make them forget what they wanted to do.