[pbleighton]

jb:

Take this advice for what it costs you

If you continue to open 1NT with a singleton 10% of the time
with pickup partners, you will continue to get complaints from
opponents, and probably from partners as well.

Is this worth it to you?

I think you are better off greatly reducing the frequency of
this practice with pickup partners, perhaps only doing it with
a stiff ace. If you want to do it more frequently, do it with
a regular partner and alert it.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on Mar 21 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

Take this advice for what it costs you

Great advice it is.

My last words will be, when you do something unexpected like that, you're going to throw people off-balance. Holding a grudge because somebody was peeved about it...well, you may end up having a lot of grudges, regardless of who is "right".

[helene_t]

jtfanclub, on Mar 21 2007, 07:34 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 21 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

It wouldn't matter if 100 % of richards 1N openers contain a stiff if he plays with a new partner every time he opens 1N that doesn't know about this tendency.

Really? So I can....

-knowingly fill out an improper convention card,
-play a system different from my partner's, and possibly,
-play a system banned by the sponsoring organization

as long as my partner is sufficiently ignorant?

Yes.

The convention card says what agreements you have with pd. It doesn't say what you actually bid with what hands. What may be banned by the SO is, again, agreements. Under a BSC ban you cannot agree to open a weak two with 3+ cards in that suit, but you can bid whatever you like, the only exception being a ban on psyching of conventional calls in some jurisdictions.

If you deviate too much, you may be accused for dumping or for undisclosed agreements. But the deviation itself (except for dumping) is not an offense.

[geofspa]

jillybean2, on Mar 19 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

I find I'm looking for opportunities to open 1nt more and more 

Maybe you should look at variable NT opening 10-12 non vul

[pbleighton]

"Maybe you should look at variable NT opening 10-12 non vul"

10-13 all vuls

Peter

[redbird97]

As a frequent on line partner of jillybean, I know she loves to open 1nt with a stiff. The only thing she might like more is rebidding 1 or 2NT with a stiff. I never allow for her to have done it.

On a serious note, the problem becomes when one partner does it and the other partner NEVER does it. She should probably be alerting her NT openers, but since I always have a doubleton, my shouldn't have to be. The problem I mentioned was that it was my understanding that both partners are supposed to play the same system.

[helene_t]

redbird97, on May 21 2007, 07:50 AM, said:

The problem I mentioned was that it was my understanding that both partners are supposed to play the same system.

That must depend on the jurisdiction. FWIW, Dutch laws say nothing about this but I've heard roumours that some TDs don't tollerate machos who force their female partners to play transfers while playing natural responses themselves.

But even if such rules apply, you cannot force both partners to play the same style. One of my pds frequently lead an ace without having the king, I rarely do that. Another pd of mine never preempt with a side 4-card major, I frequently do that.

Off-shape 1NT openings are in the same cathegory. Of course if they also play different follow-ups so that Kathryn's pd can check for a singleton while Kathryn can't do that, it's a different story.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on May 20 2007, 11:09 PM, said:

That must depend on the jurisdiction. FWIW, Dutch laws say nothing about this but I've heard roumours that some TDs don't tollerate machos who force their female partners to play transfers while playing natural responses themselves.

Haha

And now that the cat is out of the bag let me add that I do announce 'offshape 1nt openings' when playing with regular partners.

[redbird97]

jillybean2, on Mar 19 2007, 12:37 AM, said:

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?
Is it so difficult to open 1c? I know Jilly loves those NT's with stiffs, but on this hand you have no excuse as you have NO rebid problem.

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?
Is it so difficult to open 1c? I know Jilly loves those NT's with stiffs, but on this hand you have no excuse as you have NO rebid problem.

[the hog]

[quote name='redbird97' date='May 23 2007, 02:07 PM'] [quote name='jillybean2' date='Mar 19 2007, 12:37 AM']

Scoring: IMP

?

---

What do you do here?
Is it so difficult to open 1c? I know Jilly loves those NT's with stiffs, but on this hand you have no excuse as you have NO rebid problem. [/quote]
If she thinks 1NT is a superior opening, then what does that have to do with having a rebid problem or not? Why should she not make the bid she thinks is superior?
Give her KQxx K QJxx KQxx and I see nothing wrong with 1NT and might consider it.
Give her K QJxx KQxx KQxx and I would open 1NT

[Gerben42]

It's not the point who would and who wouldn't open 1NT with this hand. It doesn't matter if the bid was bad, good, brilliant, stupid, boring, exciting or whatever.

Point 1: If you open 1NT with a singleton often, that is alertable.
Point 2: As long as partner did not think this is possible, there is no damage.
Point 3: You cannot force partners to play exactly the same style, although the system must be the same.
Point 4: Why are we still continuing this thread?

[inquiry]

1NT is a bad bid with this hand, but you are freely allowed to make bad bids. To bid 1NT with singleton is acceptible in my book (announce all 1NT opening that you may have singleton if you do this frequently). But to do so when other alternative exist is not a great idea. The alternative problem is where you ahve no easy rebid. Here if you open 1♣, you have an easy, descriptive reibd over all normal responses. Over 1♦ you bid 1♥, over 1M you raise to 2M, over 1NT you pass, etc.

The complainer was eating too many sour grapes.

[foo]

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 24 2007, 08:15 PM, said:

Here's why:
1= NT openings preempt Our auction so it's harder for Us to find fits. You are 44 in S+H, the most dangerous holding to have when opening 1N in terms of risking playing in NT when We belong in a Major.

2= The DQ could be "waste paper".
it's not likely to take a trick,
it creates a communication problem between your hand and dummy in a NT contract,
it increases the chances that the D suit is wide open.

3= Sometimes GOP has a =good= hand.
Then an off-shape 1N opening by you may "hang" GOP.
Just imagine what happens if GOP pushes to 6D with their A rich 15 count and exactly 6D's because they "know" you have 2+D... ...and goes down in the 6-1 "fit" because slam had no play while you can take 10-11 tricks in NT.
If this happens, it will be a very bad board at any form of scoring.


While I don't think the complainer had a leg to stand on in an isolated incident (you Operated, effectively you psyched, and you got lucky. *shrug*), there is a serious potential problem if you keep doing this sort of thing and it happens often enough that GOP expects it or gets used to it.

No matter how careful they are, under such circumstances GOP =will= change their thinking and bidding ATT because of their expectations or familiarity with your foibles.
Once that happens,
a= your partnership bidding accuracy is hurt
b= your partnership has entered into questionable territory in bridge ethics if you don't pre-warn the opponents.


...Oh BTW, 3N by S is -2 on a H or the DK lead

For what its worth, I'm actually one of Jillybean's bridge partners.

Personally, I don't particularly like her choice of openings on this hand, though this has nothing to do with any of the reasons that you suggest. For me, the issue is one of hand evaluation, rather than shape. From my perspective,

♠ KQ94
♥ KQT8
♦ Q
♣ K962

is too weak for a 1NT opening. Change the hand slightly to

♠ KQ94
♥ KQT8
♦ K
♣ A962

and I would argue that that the 1NT opening is near mandatory. So, before you start lecturing from on high about partnership trust and all that rot, you might want to consider some of her partners believe much the same as she does.

Over the last few decades we've seen some truly remarkable changes in the requirements for a NT opening bid. Go back long enough and a 1NT opening required stoppers in all 4 suits. At various times, 1NT openings denied a 5 card or a six card minor or two doubletons, or what have you.

These days, folks are opening 1NT more and more. From my perspective, the purpose of a 1NT opening is shifting significantly. The primary purpose of the opening is less about having the perfect descriptive auction with your balanced 16 count and more about disciplining other parts of the constructive opening structure.

[mike777]

"... perfect descriptive auction with your balanced 16 count and more about disciplining other parts of the constructive opening structure..."


Agree strongly, esp. if you open light. Opening 1nt with these unbalanced hands helps make the rest of your one level bids more constructive.

[jdonn]

foo, on May 24 2007, 12:15 PM, said:

To be frank: You got lucky. 
The odds do not favor opening  ♠KQxx♥KQxx♦Q♣Kxxx 1N showing 15-17 balanced.

Here's why:
1= NT openings preempt Our auction so it's harder for Us to find fits.  You are 44 in S+H, the most dangerous holding to have when opening 1N in terms of risking playing in NT when We belong in a Major.

This is actually quite a good point and completely true.

Quote

2= The DQ could be "waste paper".
1:it's not likely to take a trick,
2:it creates a communication problem between your hand and dummy in a NT contract,
3:it increases the chances that the D suit is wide open.

(I changed your quote merely by adding numbers to the points so I could easily respond to them.)
1: That is more than debatable, see my response to 3
2: This is pretty much true so again I agree with you.
3: Completely disagree. There are a number of holdings where singleton Q is better than xx both for running the suit
AKJxx
KJTx
or where it creates an extra stopper/trick
AKx
JTx
Kx
or where they may lead away from the ace or king, giving you an extra trick and stopper from nowhere
Axx
Kxx

Quote

3= Sometimes GOP has a =good= hand. 
Then an off-shape 1N opening by you may "hang" GOP.
Just imagine what happens if GOP pushes to 6D with their A rich 15 count and exactly 6D's because they "know" you have 2+D... ...and goes down in the 6-1 "fit" because slam had no play while you can take 10-11 tricks in NT.
If this happens, it will be a very bad board at any form of scoring.

This essentially doesn't seem worth worrying about. Any decent system will give opener a chance to discourage all along once responder shows them. If responder still pushes on to slam in diamonds then his suit and hand will be excellent and I won't mind the stiff Q as support at all. It's like I was already saying, if partner insists on the suit is Q really worse support than xx?

Quote

...No matter how careful they are, under such circumstances GOP =will= change their thinking and bidding ATT because of their expectations or familiarity with your foibles.

I can tell you from experience this isn't true. One partner of mine is quite famous for his bidding 'flights of fancy' among which is opening 1NT on a number of hands with a singleton where other people wouldn't consider it. I both warned him ahead of time and made a point of following through that I would never cater to that, and indeed I always made it a point to transfer to any 5 card major and so on. I suppose you could construct a time it might matter on defense, but none ever occured.

Quote

...Oh BTW, 3N by S is -2 on a H or the DK lead

This is a point FOR opening 1NT, not against. The defense had no information on which to find the right lead. A slower auction could clue them into your diamond shortness and help them tremendously.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on May 24 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

Change the hand slightly to

♠ KQ94
♥ KQT8
♦ K
♣ A962

and I would argue that that the 1NT opening is near mandatory.

I can't think of anything nicer to say about that argument than that it would be completely ludicrous.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on May 24 2007, 02:06 PM, said:

foo, on May 24 2007, 12:15 PM, said:

To be frank: You got lucky. 
The odds do not favor opening  ♠KQxx♥KQxx♦Q♣Kxxx 1N showing 15-17 balanced.

Here's why:
1= NT openings preempt Our auction so it's harder for Us to find fits.  You are 44 in S+H, the most dangerous holding to have when opening 1N in terms of risking playing in NT when We belong in a Major.

This is actually quite a good point and completely true.

The given hand isn't close to a 1NT opener for this reason and in my view on playing strength.

KQx KQx Q KJxxxx is a better opportunity to open an offshape 1NT

[foo]

jdonn, on May 24 2007, 01:07 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 24 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

Change the hand slightly to

♠ KQ94 ♥ KQT8 ♦ K ♣ A962

and I would argue that that the 1NT opening is near mandatory.

I can't think of anything nicer to say about that argument than that it would be completely ludicrous.

Richard has a non-mainstream view about bids involving hands that are 44 in the Majors...