[dustinst22]

At a club game, the opponents had an auction 1S (P) 3S all pass. Dummy comes down with a limit raise.

Declarer says "partner, when you have a good hand like that, use the stop card. Since you didn't use the stop card, I assumed you were weak."

[Jinksy]

Quote

Declarer says "partner, when you have a good hand like that, use the stop card. Since you didn't use the stop card, I assumed you were weak."

This must be that principle of fast arrival people keep talking about.

[CSGibson]

 dustinst22, on 2014-January-02, 16:50, said:

At a club game, the opponents had an auction 1S (P) 3S all pass. Dummy comes down with a limit raise.

Declarer says "partner, when you have a good hand like that, use the stop card. Since you didn't use the stop card, I assumed you were weak."

I'm really excited about learning the upside-down stop card convention!

[Vampyr]

 CSGibson, on 2014-January-03, 18:08, said:

I'm really excited about learning the upside-down stop card convention!

Then you will also enjoy trying something my partner once encountered -- (positionally) revolving discards!

[awm]

This one's from a while back, and while it might not qualify as "hopeless" it was certainly funny.

LHO dealt, and we produced the following auction:

2♠ - 3♥ - Pass - 6♣
Pass - Pass

Before putting her pass card on the table to end the auction, RHO turned to partner and said "What is 6♣?"

Partner (who had already passed) replied, in tempo, "It's a splinter."

[kenberg]

Many years ago I was playing a two session Swiss. I had a drink or two during the break. We sat down to start the evening session.

As dealer I opened 1♣, lho came in with 1♥ and partner chose 1♠. I alerted and was asked to explain, so I did. "We are playing Flannery and so it shows five spades" I have since decided against drinks during the break.

[Vampyr]

 kenberg, on 2014-January-04, 11:12, said:

As dealer I opened 1♣, lho came in with 1♥ and partner chose 1♠. I alerted and was asked to explain, so I did. "We are playing Flannery and so it shows five spades" I have since decided against drinks during the break.

Many people around here do play that this shows five spades, though; if you do and also play Flannery, then your explanation was correct (if strange).

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-04, 16:33, said:

Many people around here do play that this shows five spades, though; if you do and also play Flannery, then your explanation was correct (if strange).

Don't most people play that it shows 5 spades? There are some pairs that swap the meanings of 1♠ and negative double, but that's unusual.

Did you miss that the spade bid was after an overcall, not in response to an opening? I thought the joke was that Flannery is irrelevant in this auction.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-January-04, 17:43, said:

Don't most people play that it shows 5 spades? There are some pairs that swap the meanings of 1♠ and negative double, but that's unusual.

Did you miss that the spade bid was after an overcall, not in response to an opening? I thought the joke was that Flannery is irrelevant in this auction.

I didn't miss it. Please retread my post.

[Siegmund]

I'll share a story about myself, from the very first sectional I ever played in.

Partner and I were playing SA and a few basic conventions. Partner was very new to duplicate. I was also very new to duplicate, but had read Root and Pavlicek's "Modern Bridge Conventions" cover to cover, tried out a few things with friends, played with ideas on paper, but had no experience with real-world good bridge players.

Opps had an auction.. something something 4NT 5S, some slam. I asked what kind of Blackwood. "Keycard," they said. Partner went to bed with her ace of something, because I had misdefended.

"What? Partner had an ace? But declarer said she had three key cards. How could I possibly play my partner for that ace?"
Declarer laughed. I was insulted. I called the director. I explained my opponent had lied to me about what kind of Blackwood she played. Director laughed. I was even more insulted.

You see, I had never played anything but regular Blackwood myself. But I had read and remembered Root and Pavlicek cover to cover. I knew that "Roman Blackwood" in the appendix was 0 or 3, 1 or 4, 2 touching, 2 nontouching - and this was something I wanted to try. I knew that "Keycard Blackwood" in the appendix treated the king of trumps as a fifth ace, but still used the standard 0 or 4, 1 (or 5), 2, 3 scale of responses, and I knew that "Roman Keycard Blackwood" in the main text treated the king of trumps as the ace AND used the 0 or 3, 1 or 4, 2-, 2+ responses. My opponent clearly stated "Keycard," NOT "Roman Keycard." The book clearly stated that 5S in "Keycard Blackwood" shows 3 key cards.

I had absolutely no hint that Keycard Blackwood was an obscure idea that hardly anybody ever used, while Roman Keycard was so common that it was the only kind of non-standard Blackwood anybody played. I came to the tournament prepared to face all four kinds of Blackwood I had read about. Neither the opponent nor the director had ever run into (non-Roman) Keycard and couldn't imagine I could have. Surely I was just misremembering! But I wasn't.

I still feel I was damaged. I at least know why I wasn't able to convince the director of it now, but it is burned into my memory forever.

[blackshoe]

 Siegmund, on 2014-January-04, 23:24, said:

I'll share a story about myself, from the very first sectional I ever played in.

Partner and I were playing SA and a few basic conventions. Partner was very new to duplicate. I was also very new to duplicate, but had read Root and Pavlicek's "Modern Bridge Conventions" cover to cover, tried out a few things with friends, played with ideas on paper, but had no experience with real-world good bridge players.

Opps had an auction.. something something 4NT 5S, some slam. I asked what kind of Blackwood. "Keycard," they said. Partner went to bed with her ace of something, because I had misdefended.

"What? Partner had an ace? But declarer said she had three key cards. How could I possibly play my partner for that ace?"
Declarer laughed. I was insulted. I called the director. I explained my opponent had lied to me about what kind of Blackwood she played. Director laughed. I was even more insulted.

You see, I had never played anything but regular Blackwood myself. But I had read and remembered Root and Pavlicek cover to cover. I knew that "Roman Blackwood" in the appendix was 0 or 3, 1 or 4, 2 touching, 2 nontouching - and this was something I wanted to try. I knew that "Keycard Blackwood" in the appendix treated the king of trumps as a fifth ace, but still used the standard 0 or 4, 1 (or 5), 2, 3 scale of responses, and I knew that "Roman Keycard Blackwood" in the main text treated the king of trumps as the ace AND used the 0 or 3, 1 or 4, 2-, 2+ responses. My opponent clearly stated "Keycard," NOT "Roman Keycard." The book clearly stated that 5S in "Keycard Blackwood" shows 3 key cards.

I had absolutely no hint that Keycard Blackwood was an obscure idea that hardly anybody ever used, while Roman Keycard was so common that it was the only kind of non-standard Blackwood anybody played. I came to the tournament prepared to face all four kinds of Blackwood I had read about. Neither the opponent nor the director had ever run into (non-Roman) Keycard and couldn't imagine I could have. Surely I was just misremembering! But I wasn't.

I still feel I was damaged. I at least know why I wasn't able to convince the director of it now, but it is burned into my memory forever.

This is why the regulations state that "explaining" a call by naming a convention is not adequate disclosure. Of course, the regs at the time may not have said that.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-05, 06:53, said:

This is why the regulations state that "explaining" a call by naming a convention is not adequate disclosure. Of course, the regs at the time may not have said that.

It is difficult, though, when the question is "what kind of Blackwood are you playing?" because that seems to ask for a name, the previous poster's mistake was asking that instead of asking what the response meant.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-05, 10:03, said:

It is difficult, though, when the question is "what kind of Blackwood are you playing?" because that seems to ask for a name, the previous poster's mistake was asking that instead of asking what the response meant.

Which is why the regulations also state that the form of the question is irrelevant, you must still give a full explanation.

These days, the answer to the question would probably be one of: "Regular", "3014", or "1430".

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-January-05, 11:21, said:

Which is why the regulations also state that the form of the question is irrelevant, you must still give a full explanation.

When did "the" become a synonym for "ACBL"?

[blackshoe]

When the person to whom the reply in which that construction was used is in North America, as are both Siegmund and I.

One of my regular partners kept insisting the other day that "we play 1430" and "1430 is not Roman Keycard Blackwood". The first of these is true. The real oddity is that the discussion followed this unopposed auction: 1♠-4NT-5♠-long pause, with very puzzled look, followed by 6♠. I was the opener. I bid 5NT 5♠ because I expected partner to have four spades, and so we have a ten card fit, and I should show the queen even though I don't have it. "Oh, no." says partner, that's not part of 1430, it's part of Roman Keycard Blackwood". 'Why did you bid 4NT directly anyway, with only 3 trump?" "No, no, no," she explains, "with four trump I'm always going through Jacoby 2NT first. So 4NT denies four spades." Logical, perhaps, but I'd never heard the idea before.

When she said that "show the queen when you have ten trumps" is not part of RKCB I offered to give her Eddie Kantar's book to read. She said "who's Eddie Kantar, and why should I care what he says?"

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2014-January-07, 17:15

[GreenMan]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-05, 12:49, said:

When did "the" become a synonym for "ACBL"?

1783.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-05, 13:37, said:

One of my regular partners kept insisting the other day that "we play 1430" and "1430 is not Roman Keycard Blackwood". The first of these is true. The real oddity is that the discussion followed this unopposed auction: 1♠-4NT-5♠-long pause, with very puzzled look, followed by 6♠. I was the opener. I bid 5NT because I expected partner to have four spades, and so we have a ten card fit, and I should show the queen even though I don't have it.

I don't see 5NT in the auction, do you mean 5♠? Or did you mistype the auction (but 5NT shows an even number of keycards and a void, says nothing about the queen or extra length).

Most experts recommend that 4NT should not ask for keycards in that auction, it should be traditional Blackwood. 4NT is RKC if you've already agreed on a suit or you've jumped to it in an auction where there was no other way to agree on the suit and establish a game force.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-January-07, 11:47, said:

I don't see 5NT in the auction, do you mean 5♠? Or did you mistype the auction (but 5NT shows an even number of keycards and a void, says nothing about the queen or extra length).

Most experts recommend that 4NT should not ask for keycards in that auction, it should be traditional Blackwood. 4NT is RKC if you've already agreed on a suit or you've jumped to it in an auction where there was no other way to agree on the suit and establish a game force.

Yes, it's your last chance, really, to bid regular Blackwood.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-07, 12:15, said:

Yes, it's your last chance, really, to bid regular Blackwood.

However, despite the fact that all the experts recommend it, I wouldn't spring it on a new partner without discussion.

The need for regular Blackwood like this is pretty rare -- the examples are hands where responder is long and/or solid in the other suits and a singleton in opener's, so he really doesn't care about that king. All he's missing are some aces, and he needs to know how many of them are opposite.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-January-07, 11:47, said:

I don't see 5NT in the auction, do you mean 5♠? Or did you mistype the auction (but 5NT shows an even number of keycards and a void, says nothing about the queen or extra length).

Most experts recommend that 4NT should not ask for keycards in that auction, it should be traditional Blackwood. 4NT is RKC if you've already agreed on a suit or you've jumped to it in an auction where there was no other way to agree on the suit and establish a game force.

It was 5♠. I'll correct the OP.

I am aware of that recommendation, although I confess I had forgotten it at the time. I would have been very surprised if my partner had made that argument though - especially considering that she intended 4NT to be read as 1430.