Were we robbed?

[ochinko]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s8632hk973d82cq32&w=sk95hjdkq965ckt64&e=saj4hat8654d4c987&s=sqt7hq2dajt73caj5]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1NT* - P - 2♦* - 3♦

Dbl - PPP[/hv]

 

At a recent tourney I opened with West 1NT alerted as 12-14. We haven't had a case with opening with a singleton before but since it was some kind of an honor, it seemed a good idea to bid it. Alas, I didn't alert that I could have a singleton. Too much to type, and since partner didn't know that either, I didn't consider it as a cheat.

 

Partner made a transfer to hearts (alerted properly), then all of a sudden South decided to relieve me from wondering what to do next, by appearing at the 3rd level. I doubled, all passed, we scored 13.4 imps for down 4. Later, however, opps complained that we didn't alert properly, and TD adjusted our score to average, thus moving us from 1st to 4th place.

 

I pointed out politely to the TD that I could've been 5332, and opps could still get the same result. Why should they be protected against their own mistakes?

 

Anyway, I could be wrong, so please advise how to compress the explanation in the alert box.

 

Many thanks,

 

Petko

[david_c]

At a recent tourney I opened with West 1NT alerted as 12-14. We haven't had a case with opening with a singleton before but since it was some kind of an honor, it seemed a good idea to bid it.

It sounds like you don't have any agreement about whether 1NT can have a singletion. In which case, you shouldn't alert it.

 

If you have discussed the possibility of a singleton with your partner, and you have agreed that it's sometimes OK, then you should alert it something like, "12-14, occasional singleton". Of course, you then need to make sure that you alert all your 1NT opening bids this way, including the ones that do not have a singleton. This will be much easier once FD gets going.

 

As for whether you were "robbed", that depends on what the tournament rules were.

[candybar]

There is no Law or rule against opening 1N with a singleton. Even the ACBL doesn't forbid it, they only forbid an agreement to do it, and as far as I know they are the only ones who even do that.

 

The only BBO tournament I know of that was making such a "rule" was Sky Club, as discussed in the Sky Club thread in Tournaments section, and Zmey said he would put a stop to it. If this tournament was Sky Club, I suggest you send the name of the TD to Zmey and let him take care of it.

 

Yes, you were robbed! Stop playing in any tournament run by that organization, host, or TD, and send me a private message and tell me who it was so I can avoid them also. :)

[ochinko]

Thanks for the support, candybar :)

 

I don't know if it would be proper to reveal the tourney or the TD but it should be ok to say that it wasn't Sky Club.

 

Petko

[Brandal]

Thanks for the support, candybar :)

 

I don't know if it would be proper to reveal the tourney or the TD but it should be ok to say that it wasn't Sky Club.

 

Petko

You were robbed

 

I hope you didn't have to pay for it :P

[pigpenz]

there are no rules for opening 1nt with a singleton or even a void for that matter, now if you do it regularly and partner knows that then it would fall under full disclosure, and the opps would be entitled to that info.

 

I would not play in an event like that :)

[epeeist]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s8632hk973d82cq32&w=sk95hjdkq965ckt64&e=saj4hat8654d4c987&s=sqt7hq2dajt73caj5]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1NT* - P - 2♦* - 3♦

Dbl - PPP[/hv]

 

At a recent tourney I opened with West 1NT alerted as 12-14. We haven't had a case with opening with a singleton before but since it was some kind of an honor, it seemed a good idea to bid it. Alas, I didn't alert that I could have a singleton. Too much to type, and since partner didn't know that either, I didn't consider it as a cheat.

I agree the adjustment against you was unfair.

 

I once kibitzed Fred Gitelman playing in one of BBO's online ACBL tournaments. He opened 1NT with a singleton honour in one suit. Opponent called the TD when he found out. TD correctly, in my view, ruled against the opponent. And not simply because of who was involved... :)

[Guest Jlall]

I think people are not bringing up the main point.

 

It doesn't even MATTER in this case whether you had the agreement that you can open 1N or not with a singleton. If you could, would that affect souths bid? I don't think so, it makes it more likely you have a singleton diamond and is thus safer. This is silly. What actually happened: south got a bad board for making a bad bid, called the TD and actually got away with this! If I ran tourneys I would ask south never to play in one run by me again, it is just sore losing known as "a doubleshot."

 

As for the secondary issue, you can bid whatever you want. If you open 1N with 0-0-0-13 that is legal. If it is not a partnership agreement, you dont have to alert.

[inquiry]

 

                                         Yes!!!

[ochinko]

Thanks, Justin. But I am still not clear about this, and you are the second person to mention it:

 

If it is not a partnership agreement, you dont have to alert.

We could say that it isn't in our agreement, but only before the first time it happens. After that it seems to me that it will be an implicit agreement even though we may never bother to discuss it.

 

So, am I allowed to do it only once in a partnership, or what?

 

I have the nagging feeling that this issue has been beaten to death, but I am still ignorant about it.

 

Petko

[pclayton]

Foolish ruling. South's 3♦ created the disaster. And I'd keep the deposit too.

 

Nevertheless in real life, I'd probably send the result to the recorder (no offense should ever be taken when something is sent to the recorder).

 

Pard's not pulling the double with a 6 bagger and a stiff ♦ is a little odd, but probably clear. Certainly the 2 bullets more than mitigate for the red suit holdings, especially with no likely game. I play a 12-14 NT too, and I'd pass hoping for +300.

 

Catching you with a stiff in his suit was very fortunate. Even without the stiff, 3♦ still goes for a #.

[pigpenz]

just out of curiosity how many imps would you have won if you had not doubled :)

[luke warm]

Later, however, opps complained that we didn't alert properly, and TD adjusted our score to average, thus moving us from 1st to 4th place.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

i guess now we'll hear from the 'TDs can do what they want in their tourneys, don't play if you don't like it' crowd... another horrible ruling

 

as for the next time you and this particular partner play, i think you need to alert 1nt as david suggested

[jillybean]

backspace

[McBruce]

I think robbed is too strong here. Certainly the decision is wrong. The problem is that I doubt the TD knows this. Robbed to me would have connotations of deliberate bias against one pair. A TD making a mistake through ignorance is just unfortunate.

[Rebound]

Thanks, Justin. But I am still not clear about this, and you are the second person to mention it:

 

If it is not a partnership agreement, you dont have to alert.

We could say that it isn't in our agreement, but only before the first time it happens. After that it seems to me that it will be an implicit agreement even though we may never bother to discuss it.

 

So, am I allowed to do it only once in a partnership, or what?

 

I have the nagging feeling that this issue has been beaten to death, but I am still ignorant about it.

 

Petko

The basic rule is this: you may make any bid you like, with any hand you like, without informing the opponents that you have deviated from your partnership agreement, provided your partner is as much in the dark as they are.

 

For example, let us say that subsequent to the given hand, you and your partner agree explicitly not to open nt with a singleton, then you do not need to include this possibility in your explanation of the call - even if one of you should elect to do it again many sessions later, since it woud be unexpected - thereafter I believe it should be included in the explanation. Any more frequently than that, it becomes a partnership agreement, and the opponents are entitled to know.

 

Note that this applies also to calls for which you have no agreement. You need not tell the opponents anything other than "no agreement".

 

Mind you, with such strictly defined calls such as 1NT, from an Active Ethics standpoint, I concur that it might as well be considered an agreement right now. It's a lot like trying not to think of an elephant.

 

I think you got boned. The Laws are there for all the online world to see at

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/index.html among other places, I'm sure.

 

Further, I agree with your assertion that it appears unlikely this information would have affected the outcome. Typically, no damage = no penalty.

[1eyedjack]

Yes

[candybar]

I think robbed is too strong here.  Certainly the decision is wrong.  The problem is that I doubt the TD knows this.  Robbed to me would have connotations of deliberate bias against one pair.  A TD making a mistake through ignorance is just unfortunate.

TDs can make mistakes through ignorance. I know because I made one once :)

 

Seriously though, any TD this ignorant should not be a TD. It's not right to make up your own rules and then penalize people for breaking them. Any TD who does THAT is much worse than ignorant.

 

Ignorance means that there is something that you haven't learned yet. This so-called TD most likely doesn't care and doesn't want to know the Laws, he just wants to enforce his own idea of how bidding should go.

[luke warm]

i (barely) understand the principle that there can't be too many TDs because of the service(?) they provide... however, if someone is going to run a tourney and make rulings, they need to have a clue about what they're doing... it's the ones who make up rules as they go, and their defenders, who chap me

 

now if someone (say me, for instance) ran a tourney knowing their limitations re: the rules, then simply have in the C of C "no rulings made, no adjustments, no nothing - if there are too many complaints against a player/pair they will be banned from future participation, and since this is my tourney i'll decide what constitutes 'too many'"

[Guest Jlall]

Thanks, Justin. But I am still not clear about this, and you are the second person to mention it:

 

If it is not a partnership agreement, you dont have to alert.

Right a partnership agreement does not have to be explicit. It can be based on common knowledge (like stayman, even if you haven't discussed or bid it yet before with that partner), previous bids by partner (like if your partner has psyched 1N in third seat twice in 1 session you should start alerting), etc etc. Opening 1N with a stiff I *believe* is ok if it happens less than 1 % of your 1N openers and you do not cater to it. If it happens more than 1 % you need to alert. I am not sure on this point.

[mycroft]

Right a partnership agreement does not have to be explicit. It can be based on common knowledge (like stayman, even if you haven't discussed or bid it yet before with that partner), previous bids by partner (like if your partner has psyched 1N in third seat twice in 1 session you should start alerting), etc etc. Opening 1N with a stiff I *believe* is ok if it happens less than 1 % of your 1N openers and you do not cater to it. If it happens more than 1 % you need to alert. I am not sure on this point.

 

Justin, you are channelling the ACBL (and not surprising, really). Different organizations have different rules about when a happening becomes disclosable.

 

From The ACBL web site:

 

"You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that:

 

"It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time), Your partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton."

 

In the WBF, things are different (they're talking specifically about psychic calls, but the rule, I would assume, applies to "significant undisclosed deviations" like unbalanced 1NTs):

 

"In its minute of 30th August 2000 the WBF Laws Committee ruled that a partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner of the player who makes the call to take his awareness of psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not;..."

 

I believe this one is too strict (after all, 100 NT openers would show up for a full-time bridge pair probably in one or two weeks; if 1% of 1NT openers were with a singleton, even 0.5 or 0.25%, they'd have a WBF "implicit partnership understanding" PDQ), but I'm not going to complain about it until I can write a better one.

 

Michael.

[luis]

Yes you were robbed.

Not only that I find the ruling insulting.

 

Let's assume you were indeed concealing a partnership agreement -I'm sure you were not-, even then the 3♦ bid is not a result of the concealed information and I would let the table result stand and maybe use a procedural penalty on your side for not properly alerting and disclosing your special agreement.

 

Take it easy anger management when the TD imposes an incredible ridiculous ruling is one of the skills you will need as a bridge player.

[Guest Jlall]

Justin, you are channelling the ACBL (and not surprising, really). Different organizations have different rules about when a happening becomes disclosable.

Yes you are right I was talking about ACBL rules. Sorry if the question was geared towards WBF rules.

[jillybean]

This is likely a new TD, remember all beginners are taught you CANNOT open 1nt with a singleton or even 2 doubletons and likely they don’t know the rules regarding alerts.

 

I agree this is a bad ruling but you can help by stating the facts and leaving the insults out.

 

jb