is 1N right?

[ksk2005]

3rd seat a star opened 1n with:

♠J105

♥KJ98

♦KQ1054

♣K

His pd bid 3N with 11HCP, with correct defence it would fail, after hand is finished I called the TD. No adjustments made since opps claimed their range is 14-17 and all bids were natural. Would you agree?

[ArtK78]

Yes, I would agree with the fact that no adjustments were to be made.

 

A player may make any bid that he chooses to make as long as his partner has no knowledge that the bid means anything other than what they have agreed as the meaning for the bid. Here, the opening bidder opened 1NT, promising 14-17 and a balanced or semi-balanced hand (typical NT distribution). His partner, with a normal raise to 3NT, bid 3NT. There is no problem. In fact, if responder bid anything other than 3NT with his 11 count that would be a problem, as 3NT is the normal call for an 11 count (I am assuming that responder's hand was suitable for NT and that there was no need to bid Stayman or anything else).

 

Saying that all of the bids were natural might not be quite right. It would be better to say that none of the bids was conventional. But this is quibbling. The fact that the meaning of the 1NT bid and the hand do not match is not an offense.

 

Had you found the "correct" defense, as you put it, no doubt you would have scored quite well. But the opener fooled you and he won. That is part of the game.

 

As to your original question in the heading "Is 1NT right?" That is an entirely different question. I suspect that very few players would open this hand with a 14-17 1NT opening. That doesn't mean that it is wrong to open 1NT with this hand, just that very few players would choose to do so. It is usually wrong to open 1NT with a singleton, and there is no doubt that this hand is light for a 14-17 HCP 1NT opening bid.

[billw55]

With the hcp out of range, a stiff honor, and a perfectly good alternative (1♦), I would consider this 1NT bid as a substantial distortion that almost, but not quite, reaches the level of a mild psyche. Either way, I don't see any basis for a score adjustment, unless there is more to the story.

 

Had you found the "correct" defense, as you put it, you would have no doubt scored quite well.

... and quite likely, would have had no complaint. The ball bounces both ways.

[lalldonn]

He has 13 with a good 5-card suit and good spot cards. There is nothing wrong with him wanting to call it 14. He also has a singleton king and a slightly awkward rebid after 1♦ - 1♠. There is nothing wrong with judging to open 1NT for those reasons. Frankly I don't see the problem here. His bidding would obviously not be a majority choice but who cares?

[Cyberyeti]

If they are allowed to open 1N with a singleton and have the agreement to do so, depending on jurisdiction they might have been supposed to declare it to you. If you might have found a better lead/defense if you knew that was a possibility is the only possible grounds for an adjustment. (unless they have no agreement to do so but plenty of previous for having done so, particularly if it's not legal). In the UK I'd get it recorded as a psyche if their convention card didn't say they opened 1N with a singleton to build up the body of evidence.

[trevahound]

If they are allowed to open 1N with a singleton and have the agreement to do so, depending on jurisdiction they might have been supposed to declare it to you. If you might have found a better lead/defense if you knew that was a possibility is the only possible grounds for an adjustment. (unless they have no agreement to do so but plenty of previous for having done so, particularly if it's not legal). In the UK I'd get it recorded as a psyche if their convention card didn't say they opened 1N with a singleton to build up the body of evidence.

 

How can this possibly be considered a psyche? If I play 5 card majors, and decide sometime to open a 4 card major instead, is that a psyche? I understand (and fully support) full disclosure of agreements (implicit or explicit), but I don't support calling something a psyche that is obviously just different bridge judgement than yours. Is there any evidence at all that they have the agreement to open 1nt with singleton high honors? Is there any evidence at all that they have a habit of doing this often enough to create an implicit agreement?

 

Slopes are not so slippery as some would wish them. A large part of bridge is judgement. I dearly wish the ACBL to allow a big red box on my woefully inadequate CC where I can check which states, "I don't always value my hand the same way you do. I don't always count my points the same way you do. I don't always follow the rule of ______ when evaluating my hand. On some hands, I'm going to be choosing amongst options that all look flawed. I falsecard on occasion -- I've been known to burn partner before. None of this is psyching. When I open 1h on a 4-1-4-4 2 count in third seat at favorable, that is a psyche (or 1nt on a 2-2-2-7 bust). "

[Cyberyeti]

How can this possibly be considered a psyche? If I play 5 card majors, and decide sometime to open a 4 card major instead, is that a psyche? I understand (and fully support) full disclosure of agreements (implicit or explicit), but I don't support calling something a psyche that is obviously just different bridge judgement than yours. Is there any evidence at all that they have the agreement to open 1nt with singleton high honors? Is there any evidence at all that they have a habit of doing this often enough to create an implicit agreement?

 

Slopes are not so slippery as some would wish them. A large part of bridge is judgement. I dearly wish the ACBL to allow a big red box on my woefully inadequate CC where I can check which states, "I don't always value my hand the same way you do. I don't always count my points the same way you do. I don't always follow the rule of ______ when evaluating my hand. On some hands, I'm going to be choosing amongst options that all look flawed. I falsecard on occasion -- I've been known to burn partner before. None of this is psyching. When I open 1h on a 4-1-4-4 2 count in third seat at favorable, that is a psyche (or 1nt on a 2-2-2-7 bust). "

As I said it's jurisdiction dependent. In some places I suspect it's still illegal to agree to open 1N with a singleton. If you and your partner would always open 1N in 3rd seat with this hand, then you have an illegal implicit agreement. How do you get caught ? well usually you don't, but opps reporting it as a psyche is the only way you ever will be caught.

 

Btw I'm not shy about bending definitions of bids or upgrading/downgrading, but I have a reasonably good idea when partner and I have something on our cards that we need to amend due to bending too often, hence why our weak 2s are listed on the card as 4+ cards rather than 5.

[Phil]

This is a classic NT hand these days (rebid problem and stiff K). Its marginally light.

 

Welcome to the big game.

[Bbradley62]

Weird... this hand appears to have been played in tournament #6611, which was a 23-table pairs game with 5 rounds of 3 boards each. All of the boards appear to have been completed, but the tournament results are nowhere to be found. What's up with that?

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=6611-1349456679-16868341&username=ksk2005

 

[hv=lin=pn|0cean555,expert33,ksk2005,baylind|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S379QH2345AD9AC45%2CS48KHQD678JC239JA%2CS26AH67TD23C678TQ%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%2012%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cmc%7C10%7C]360|270[/hv]

[Free]

1NT is a creative bid, but it's allowed. There's no reason for adjustment.

[rhm]

Weird... this hand appears to have been played in tournament #6611, which was a 23-table pairs game with 5 rounds of 3 boards each. All of the boards appear to have been completed, but the tournament results are nowhere to be found. What's up with that?

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=6611-1349456679-16868341&username=ksk2005

 

[hv=lin=pn|0cean555,expert33,ksk2005,baylind|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S379QH2345AD9AC45%2CS48KHQD678JC239JA%2CS26AH67TD23C678TQ%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%2012%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cmc%7C10%7C]360|270[/hv]

 

3NT can not be beaten. Star's hand evaluation (lots of intermediates) can not have been that bad, though he found a nice fitting dummy.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

North made a bizarre duck of the ♠A and wants some point back for no reason whatsoever.

[Cyberyeti]

3NT can not be beaten. Star's hand evaluation (lots of intermediates) can not have been that bad, though he found a nice fitting dummy.

 

Rainer Herrmann

When you get a favourable layout of the opposing hands, do you really fancy making it with either Q and A of spades swapped, or a third club in the south hand.

[rhm]

When you get a favourable layout of the opposing hands, do you really fancy making it with either Q and A of spades swapped, or a third club in the south hand.

I do.

I have a clear path to 9 tricks, (2 clubs, 4 diamonds, 2 hearts and one spade).

I am not claiming that there will never be a double dummy defense to defeat 3NT, but I like my chances opposite this dummy.

I doubt that the outcome would have been different single dummy with your proposed changes.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kenberg]

Perhaps suppose, just for supposing, the opening lead is a heart to the Q. I suppose the next play is a diamond to the king. Let's further suppose that North has managed to discourage a heart continuation either by his play at T1 or by a Smith card at T2. Perhaps S takes this first diamond and returns a diamond, letting declarer figure it out. With the ten of hearts falling, the hand can be made. But will it be? Seems to me that declarer has a choice of not very attractive plays. Playing even one more heart will not work well if S started with ATxxx and N has an entry.

 

Anyway, I am fine with the bidding. No objection if my partner does it, no objection if my opponents do it. It appears to me that the hand might be beaten if NS play double dummy and E just gets to look at his own cards and dummy's But that doesn't affect my view of the bidding. It's fine.

[Finch]

EW have a 9-card fit, a combined 24-count at at least 1.5 stops in every suit. Getting to 3NT is hardly a surprise, whatever opening bid is chosen by East.

[barmar]

With less "creative" bidding, the auction probably would have gone:

 

1♦ 2♦(inv)

2♥ 2NT

3NT AP

 

Or if South overcalls:

 

1♦ (1♥) 2♥ (P)

2NT or 3NT

[Zelandakh]

How can this possibly be considered a psyche? If I play 5 card majors, and decide sometime to open a 4 card major instead, is that a psyche?

Well yes, it might well be. Certainly if your partner would not consider it a psyche then they should disclose the possibility to the opponents.

 

 

I understand (and fully support) full disclosure of agreements (implicit or explicit), but I don't support calling something a psyche that is obviously just different bridge judgement than yours.

I honestly do not get this - it seems to come from the school that thinks psyching is something bad. If you make a bid it either falls within your agreements (normal); accidentally falls outside your agreements (misbid); deliberately falls outside your agreements (psyche); or falls within expectation but outside of [given] agreements (misinformation). Only the last of these is a problem.

 

 

Is there any evidence at all that they have the agreement to open 1nt with singleton high honors? Is there any evidence at all that they have a habit of doing this often enough to create an implicit agreement?

I do not know - surely it is the TD's job to ask the pair involved. Do you have any evidence that they do not have such an (implicit) agreement?

 

 

Slopes are not so slippery as some would wish them. A large part of bridge is judgement.

A large part of bridge is also disclosure.

 

 

I dearly wish the ACBL <snip>

What has the ACBL got to do with this?

[billw55]

This is a classic NT hand these days (rebid problem and stiff K). Its marginally light.

 

Welcome to the big game.

What's the big rebid problem? After 1♦ - 1♠, I can rebid 1NT, 2♠, or 2♦. None of these are perfect, but to me they seem like smaller distortions than opening 1NT. But perhaps this is normal in expert games these days, I would not know.

 

Anyway, I am fine with the bidding. No objection if my partner does it, no objection if my opponents do it.

Sure, no problem for me either. But I would definitely remember it, which leads to:

 

A large part of bridge is also disclosure.

If my partner (or these opponents) do this even once more, it is an undisclosed agreement.

[Trinidad]

I honestly do not get this - it seems to come from the school that thinks psyching is something bad. If you make a bid it either falls within your agreements (normal); accidentally falls outside your agreements (misbid); deliberately falls outside your agreements (psyche); or falls within expectation but outside of [given] agreements (misinformation). Only the last of these is a problem.

It may also come from the school that thinks that a psyche is a gross (and deliberate) misdescription of the hand. Opening 1♥ with a four card suit and otherwise opening values when you have agreed that 1♥ shows five is a deviation from system, but it is not a psyche because it is not a gross misdescription of the hand.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

This is a classic NT hand these days (rebid problem and stiff K). Its marginally light.

 

Welcome to the big game.

While I don't have any problem with the 1NT opening, to say that this is a classic NT hand would be an overbid.

 

And to suggest that this is how top-flight bridge is played is also an overbid. I am sure if this hand were presented in the finals of the Blue Ribbon Pairs or the Platinum Pairs, and the players were required to play 14-17 1NT openers, there would be many players who would not open 1NT.

[barmar]

While I don't have any problem with the 1NT opening, to say that this is a classic NT hand would be an overbid.

He said "classic NT hand these days", which is kind of an oxymoron.

And to suggest that this is how top-flight bridge is played is also an overbid. I am sure if this hand were presented in the finals of the Blue Ribbon Pairs or the Platinum Pairs, and the players were required to play 14-17 1NT openers, there would be many players who would not open 1NT.

Take a look at this month's Bridge World report on the Vanderbilt semi-finals, page 8. At two of the four tables, they opened 1NT holding KJT Q AQ952 QT74. The reporter (Kit Woolsey) referred to this as "the modern trend".

[Zelandakh]

Take a look at this month's Bridge World report on the Vanderbilt semi-finals, page 8. At two of the four tables, they opened 1NT holding KJT Q AQ952 QT74. The reporter (Kit Woolsey) referred to this as "the modern trend".

At how many of those 2 tables did they inform the opponents of the possibility? The problem is not opening 1NT with a singleton, it is opening 1NT with a singleton without telling the opponents that this is your style.

[barmar]

At how many of those 2 tables did they inform the opponents of the possibility? The problem is not opening 1NT with a singleton, it is opening 1NT with a singleton without telling the opponents that this is your style.

At this level, it's considered General Bridge Knowledge I think. I think it would be more appropriate for sticklers to tradition to alert "We never open with a singleton" in this event. :)

[Bbradley62]

At this level, it's considered General Bridge Knowledge I think. I think it would be more appropriate for sticklers to tradition to alert "We never open with a singleton" in this event. :)

There's a big difference in the level of the event between the Vanderbilt semi-finals and a BBO Fans game. OP probably played that hand against the one star player in the field.