[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

?

---

I'm coming under a little flak as a playing TD and 'my rules', here's a hand where I was questioned about my disclosure and told it was "a highly unorthodox bid"

What do you do here?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Assuming you play a system similar to
standard american, 1C is the system bid.
You may instead try 1NT, but if you do,
you wont have a lot of company.
Exchange the Queen of diamonds with
the King, and there would be more.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

1C.

If you are directing in the ACBL (?) you will get flak for opening 1NT with a stiff, especially if not a K or an A.

Peter

[sceptic]

as the Q is worthless (IMHO) you have a weak NT range so 12-14 or even 13-15 I suppose, but as I think you play strong NT (I hope I am right) this is more likely to play havoc with your partnership than be classed as a good bid (I am prepared for any flax that comes my way if my assessment is wrong)

also, all playing TD's deserve some flax LOL

[Mr. Dodgy]

sceptic, on Mar 19 2007, 05:39 AM, said:

also, all playing TD's deserve some flax LOL

While I would generally agree wholeheartedly, JB is a great TD and limits her PlayTD tourneys to just a few tables which is quite manageable.

JB: it's your tourney and they're your rules. I assume you opened 1NT. Nothing wrong with that IMO, but I suppose if you're playing with a regular partner you should consider alerting it henceforth as "may be 4441".


Regards,

MrD

[helene_t]

Open 1♣ of course. If partner responds 1NT, you may pass or try 2♣ depeding on the range of the 1NT response. If partner responds 1♦ and you play Walsh, I think 1♥ is the orthodox rebid, while 1NT would be my choice.

If you open 1NT I have no problems with this, but some get upset with such funny 1NT openings. Btw, this hand is too weak for a 15-17 1NT opening.

As for disclosure, you know that whether you have a singleton is irelevant. ACBL procedures require you to alert your 1NT openings if you have the agreement with p that it can contain a singleton which is not an ace or a king.

[jillybean]

pbleighton, on Mar 19 2007, 01:02 AM, said:

1C.

If you are directing in the ACBL (?) you will get flak for opening 1NT with a stiff, especially if not a K or an A.

Peter

No I do not direct ACBL tourneys this was my own 'playing TD' 5 table event, its easier to get a tourney started than a team match.

sceptic said:

as the Q is worthless (IMHO) you have a weak NT range so 12-14 or even 13-15 I suppose, but as I think you play strong NT (I hope I am right) this is more likely to play havoc with your partnership than be classed as a good bid (I am prepared for any flax that comes my way if my assessment is wrong)

The fact that you think it’s a good bid or not is irrelevant, this partnership is tolerant of straying from the 'rules'

sceptic said:

also, all playing TD's deserve some flax LOL

Perhaps people should take their attention off TD’s and focus on the behavior of the players.

[pbleighton]

jb

What did you do, and what was the complaint?

Peter

[jillybean]

Well I opened 1nt of course and played 3nt for a top board. Im not sure if it was the ‘good’ bidding or more the poor defense that was to blame. After the tournament ended my RHO suggested that I can only bid 1nt because Im the TD and that I must announce my 1nt openings. I beg to differ, my partner expects a balanced hand. Maybe just sour grapes, we came first and I can't see how an alert would change the result of this board. Perhaps in future I should alert my 1nt openings with this partner, I find I'm looking for opportunities to open 1nt more and more

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1NT
 Pass  3NT   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

♥7

[hrothgar]

Hey there

I think that there are two separate issues that need to be considered

1. Is there anything wrong with opening 1NT with a singleton

2. Is is appropriate to open 1NT with this particular hand

As most of you are well aware, I have no problem with occasional offshape 1NT openings. I happily open 1N holding 4441 and 5431 patterns where I anticipate a rebid problem.

However, I think that this hand is a little light for a 15-17 NT. Change the stiff queen to a stiff king and I would almost certainly make the same opening.

[goobers]

Does ACBL land really forbid opening 1NT with a stiff that's not K or A? That seems extremely stringent.

[jtfanclub]

goobers, on Mar 19 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

Does ACBL land really forbid opening 1NT with a stiff that's not K or A? That seems extremely stringent.

Technically, all it says is "(generally no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)"

Generally, this is interpreted as opening 1NT with a singleton is OK if...

1) You do it rarely, and

2) You don't have any systemic way for opener to show a singleton later.

This hand is extreme enough (weak, no rebid problems), that it would certainly raise eyebrows. Doesn't mean it's illegal.

[sceptic]

Quote

The fact that you think it’s a good bid or not is irrelevant, this partnership is tolerant of straying from the 'rules'

Then if it is what I would consider an agreement you should alert it? (IMHO)

[jillybean]

sceptic, on Mar 19 2007, 10:07 AM, said:

Quote

The fact that you think it’s a good bid or not is irrelevant, this partnership is tolerant of straying from the 'rules'

Then if it is what I would consider an agreement you should alert it? (IMHO)

Not at all, I said "my partner expects a balanced hand" our agreement of 1nt is 15-17 balanced and I open 1nt with this type hand so infrequently I would say that we don’t have an implicit agreement either.
When I said we are tolerant of straying from the rules I meant that we are free to use our discretion (good or bad) these helps our learning rather than erodes partnership trust.

If you’re saying I should alert or preannounce that I don’t always adhere to the exact specified limits of bidding then maybe my opps were justified in their criticism.

[1eyedjack]

jb the oppo's comments only have a modicum of justification if you have developed a reputation for ruling against other players who do similar stuff. Otherwise, it all seems normal-ish. The bid may be a bit off-centre, but it got you into a contract that should be defeated by 2 tricks.

[jillybean]

1eyedjack, on Mar 19 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

jb the oppo's comments only have a modicum of justification if you have developed a reputation for ruling against other players who do similar stuff. Otherwise, it all seems normal-ish. The bid may be a bit off-centre, but it got you into a contract that should be defeated by 2 tricks.

Im quite sure I dont have a reputation for ruling against players who stray from partnership agreements or open 1nt with a stiff.

[sceptic]

Quote

our agreement of 1nt is 15-17 balanced and I open 1nt with this type hand so infrequently I would say that we don’t have an implicit agreement either

infrequent to me is once you have done it more than twice in a regular partnership, it will always be in the back of your pards mind and hence it is then an implicit agreement, I think you should alert that it could contain a singleton, I am not 100% sure I would be in a minority of one in my thinking either

[Elianna]

Players like bitching about things. You just need to let it roll off. If there wasn't this, I'm sure that they'd find something. The one thing that ALL bridge players seem to be good at is finding something to complain about.

They then greatly enjoy making snide comments, and it's your fault if you get mad at them. It's really a diversionary tactic from something they did wrong. Get to be around enough teenagers, you learn how to deal with it (or to choose which ONES need to be dealt with:)).

[DWM]

Does it really matter what you actually have when you make a natural bid, or should that be a bid that your partner expects to show something natural?

As far as I understand you only have to highlight the possibility of a singleton if you make such bids frequently enough. What is frequently enough to make it note worthy is another question, but once or twice per year is hardly frequently.

[gwnn]

Even if there were a certain rule (and I'm not saying there is one) that makes it mandatory for you to alert your 1NT as "could have 0 aces and more than 0 singletons", which they appear to state, they still don't have a case. They need to demonstrate why the lack of such an explanation mislead them into the losing defense. In my humble opinion, both of these points are very very inadequately supported and virtually impossible to hold. So, well bid, congrats (although I wouldn't bid 1nt).