Friday, June 7, 2013

Little Old Ladies

There has been a thread in the letters to the ACBL Bulletin (their monthly magazine) about the origin of the term LOL (Little Old Lady) for an opponent. Various people have mentioned hearing the term as far back as the sixties. I finally felt I had to write to the editor, because I'm pretty sure the term originated in England. I can't find any documentation now, but I remember reading that it originated with Richard Lederer back in the 1930s, when he was conducting post mortems with the likes of Skid Simon. If anyone can confirm this, I would be pleased to hear from them.

This strikes a chord because I have a client (just occasionally) who is the absolute epitome of the LOL. She is not too tall, ninety-something years old, with snowy white hair. And her bridge is pretty unique. A few years ago, she was a normal intermediate player, not very good, but fitting in well with the crowd. Now, well, she's starting to lose it, to be blunt. All artificial bids are now mysteries she can't grasp, and the play of the hand is weak (at best). This would probably be a significant problem in a lot of cases, but she gets by because she is also the sweetest, gentlest, just plain nicest person you will ever meet. Partners and opponents alike make huge allowances, because they don't want to upset her. Bidding without any artificial bids is hugely challenging, and basically unworkable for any sensible partnership. I mean, no Stayman, no transfers, no Blackwood, no strong 2C – nothing. I have largely given up opening 1NT, because she typically only has two possible replies – pass or 3NT (regardless of distribution). But once you get used to her style, you can occasionally get to a good contract. Some powers of visualization are required.

 

From past experience, I took the raise to 4H to be based on a pretty good hand with four trumps. Not really a hand worth such a raise, but pretty good, which was indeed accurate. (Of course, you have to get used to occasionally playing game with 17 opposite 6). Then it's a question of evaluating that East hand. It's only 12 points, but it's also only 5 losers. The club suit might be a source of tricks, or perhaps partner has a decent diamond suit. So I went for it, and was immediately terrified when the defence started with two rounds of clubs. But when the feared ruff didn't happen, I could draw trumps and claim, getting a pleased smile from the LOL.

Jump raises of my openings seem to be pretty strong.

 

The club raise seems to be about 11-15, as far as I can tell. I figured 3NT was automatic with my hand, but then the retreat to 4C took me aback. Usually, when I say 3NT, the auction finishes in about two seconds flat. (The LOL is well aware of her limitations, and can sometimes even get quite cunning with “prepared” bids – prepared for me to be declarer.) I figured she must have something unusual, so I bid 5C despite my club suit. The diamond opening lead did no harm, and I quickly wrapped up 12 tricks (ruffed three diamonds and led a spade towards the king). Surprisingly, that was a cold top. Several pairs went down, but I don't know what contract they reached. Quite possibly, North was able to intervene with 2D and scare people away from 3NT, and then declarers failed to handle a seven-card major suit fit.

Every once in a while, she will surprise you in a good way.

 

As he bid 3NT, North commented that they had been getting bottoms all night, so why not. I thought perhaps spades would be our best shot, assuming partner had a diamond trick or two (with little hope if she didn't stop the diamonds). I decided to lead the 8S, to make sure she put up the A or K if she had it. Well, that was a success in a surprising way. The LOL did indeed play the KS. Declarer should grab his nine tricks now, as five other declarers did. But ours ducked – and the LOL switched to a club. Oops. Down three.

This hand has no redeeming qualities, but I have to write it down because it's just so funny.

 

Declarer started with three aces in her hand, and finished with only two tricks. Awesome.

No comments: