Reminds me of a hand played by Kenneth Konstam, a British player from many years ago, at high stakes rubber bridge; it was reported by Jeremy Flint I think. He was missing just KQx of trumps (S) with SAxxx on table and RHO helpfully said “This is one slam you’re not going to make, Konnie”. Sure enough he managed the required elimination, reducing to SJ109 opposite SAxx after 10 tricks, lead the J on which West showed out and ran it.
Without the comment, he wouldn’t have risked the various trump promotions and other accidents possible and would simply have led the trump J at T2 and quietly cursed his bad luck. “Loose lips sink ships” as they say.
Regards,
Iain
bobbywolffJuly 29th, 2023 at 1:58 pm
Hi Iain,
Yes, an excellent learning experience for defenders to glean. Just waiting to have only one or two trumps, but to say the same thing and hope that information will be blessed (for me) with partner having the right hand to trump in, when declarer played the hand, shall we say different and, of course then defeated the slam, because of it.
No doubt, our appeals guru will be hard pressed to rule on such a matter when the declarer
called the bridge police. What do you think? I would rule FOUL if for no other reason, but to protect our game for what I deem a totally unethical comment, unless, of course, it was done by the same player who, by his bravado, gave away his holding since he was entitled, by the bridge gods an opportunity for redemption.
Only just kidding, since “better be quiet and thought a fool, but then open it and con your opponents, right on” will work, if, and only, if, you had the opposite happen to you. And another, only still kidding!!!!!
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Bobby,
Reminds me of a hand played by Kenneth Konstam, a British player from many years ago, at high stakes rubber bridge; it was reported by Jeremy Flint I think. He was missing just KQx of trumps (S) with SAxxx on table and RHO helpfully said “This is one slam you’re not going to make, Konnie”. Sure enough he managed the required elimination, reducing to SJ109 opposite SAxx after 10 tricks, lead the J on which West showed out and ran it.
Without the comment, he wouldn’t have risked the various trump promotions and other accidents possible and would simply have led the trump J at T2 and quietly cursed his bad luck. “Loose lips sink ships” as they say.
Regards,
Iain
Hi Iain,
Yes, an excellent learning experience for defenders to glean. Just waiting to have only one or two trumps, but to say the same thing and hope that information will be blessed (for me) with partner having the right hand to trump in, when declarer played the hand, shall we say different and, of course then defeated the slam, because of it.
No doubt, our appeals guru will be hard pressed to rule on such a matter when the declarer
called the bridge police. What do you think? I would rule FOUL if for no other reason, but to protect our game for what I deem a totally unethical comment, unless, of course, it was done by the same player who, by his bravado, gave away his holding since he was entitled, by the bridge gods an opportunity for redemption.
Only just kidding, since “better be quiet and thought a fool, but then open it and con your opponents, right on” will work, if, and only, if, you had the opposite happen to you. And another, only still kidding!!!!!