Fishy?

[arrows]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=saj8632hq84datc94&w=s5hkj9732dq92c872&e=skt974htd7653ckj6&s=sqha65dkj84caqt53]399|300|Scoring: MP

the bidding went:

E S W N

p 1N p 2♥

p 2♠ p 3N

p p p

 

[/hv]

 

West leads singlton ♠, ducked to East's King, East returns a ♥, ducked again to the King. South wins the ♥ continuation in dummy and cash another ♠, then shift to ♣ and got all of the rest tricks.

 

West calls director, saying South should have alerted his 1NT opening bid and questioning North's 3NT bid, which is in west's opinion, not a normal choice.

 

N-S's convention card reads standard 15-17 1NT. and both claim they made their bids following their judgement.

 

What do you think?

[pbleighton]

My decision would have been to admonish West for wasting my time.

 

Opening 1NT with a singleton honor is not alertable. As to North's 3N bid, it was a judgment call to play in 3NT if pd only has 3. He has a mediocre suit and semibalanced shape.

 

As to the title of your post, any suggestion of cheating (if that is what is implied) is unsupported by the facts.

 

Peter

[shoeless]

Well you are all over this one PB - please leave something for the rest of us to say occassionally B)))

[arrows]

My decision would have been to admonish West for wasting my time.

 

Opening 1NT with a singleton honor is not alertable. As to North's 3N bid, it was a judgment call to play in 3NT if pd only has 3. He has a mediocre suit and semibalanced shape.

 

As to the title of your post, any suggestion of cheating (if that is what is implied) is unsupported by the facts.

 

 

cannot agree more. because I was the South :D

 

But the TD adjust our score to avg- B)

 

The reason is "you can't open 1NT with singlton".

[han]

There are some tournaments that state in the rules that it is not allowed to open 1NT with a singleton. While most real bridge players regret this, this is allowed. When you play in such a tournament you should either not open 1NT or not complain when the score gets adjusted.

[flytoox]

If N-S are familiar pd, adjusting the score is not unreasonable. Ｉcertainly would bid 4S with north' s hand. 4M usually scores better than 3N.

[Cascade]

There are some tournaments that state in the rules that it is not allowed to open 1NT with a singleton. While most real bridge players regret this, this is allowed. When you play in such a tournament you should either not open 1NT or not complain when the score gets adjusted.

Under the current laws the SO has no right to restrict 1NT openings just because they have a singleton. They are only entitled to regulate conventions and light opening bids. If you are offering to play in NTs then 1NT is not conventional by definition and therefore not subject to regulation.

[pigpenz]

wait a minute East looking at his hand and dummy knows what is going on. south cant have but one spade!

[hrothgar]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=saj8632hq84datc94&w=s5hkj9732dq92c872&e=skt974htd7653ckj6&s=sqha65dkj84caqt53]399|300|Scoring: MP

the bidding went:

E S W N

p 1N p 2♥

p 2♠ p 3N

p p p

 

[/hv]

 

West leads singlton ♠, ducked to East's King, East returns a ♥, ducked again to the King. South wins the ♥ continuation in dummy and cash another ♠, then shift to ♣ and got all of the rest tricks.

 

West calls director, saying South should have alerted his 1NT opening bid and questioning North's 3NT bid, which is in west's opinion, not a normal choice.

 

N-S's convention card reads standard 15-17 1NT. and both claim they made their bids following their judgement.

 

What do you think?

Comment the first: I have no issue with the choice to open 1N with the South hand. Playing standard there aren't many good alternatives.

 

The hand is too weak to reverse.

The hand is too strong to rebid 1NT after 1♣ - 1♠

The hand is too strong to raise to 2♥ after 1♣ - 1♥

Opening 1♦ and rebiding 2♣ seems to mis-describe virtually everything about the hand

 

Comment the second: I don't think that I would ever find a 3NT rebid at the table. The Aces suggest a suit contract. You don't have lots of slow tricks. You don't have a running Spade suit. The club suit is wide open.

 

Comment the third: The director's ruling was based on the "Law" that you aren't allowed to open 1NT with a singleton... Enough said.

 

Personally, I see no reason for an adjustment. I do consider the 3NT rebid "noteworthy". It might be amusing to use Bridge Browser to pull all of the hands where North had game forcing values with six Hearts or six Spades opposite a 1NT opening and seeing how these hands are typically bid

[coyot]

TD ruling is insane. Unless the tournament rules specifically prohibit 1NT opening on singleton, it is perfectly OK to bid 1NT on this hand, because the opener then takes the risk of playing 4M on 6-1 fit.

 

On the other hand, North's judgement smells fishy. I see absolutely no logic in wanting to play 3NT with guaranteed fit and two doubletons. The sad thing is that unless bridgebrowser can extract enough data to find a few similar north hands where he bid 4♠ instead, there is absolutely no way to prove that they were cheating.

 

I would personally swallow the bitter pill and put both guys on my enemylist :) - because where for accusation of cheating you need a proof, marking someone as enemy has no requirements.

 

My enemy list is populated both by rude morons and by folks that play strange bridge - and not bidding obvious 4♠ here is either strange or cheating.

[helene_t]

EW were not damaged by the failure to alert the off-shape 1NT opening. So even if the TD thinks that such an opening is alertable, it's immaterial. Results stand.

[Free]

Opening 1NT on this is about the only decent opening available. It's MP's, so 3NT is perfectly acceptable. So without any specific rules disallowing you to open 1NT with a singleton or void, the result should stand and there's no immediate reason to think of cheating.

[hotShot]

1) There is nothing wrong with opening 1NT with a singleton. But if it is partnership agreement to do so, it needs to be alerted.

 

2) North 3NT bid, with a 6card suit that is not a trick source in NT and 2 doubetons is unusual. Most players would bid 4♠. But scoring is MP and often there is 3NT+1 and 4♠. So bidding 3NT is no surprise, even if it is unusual. But it could be revealing a partnership agreement or partnership experience with opening NT with singletons.

 

As TD i will ask NS what 3♠ instead of 2♠ would have shown, and ask N why he bid 3NT. I will add a note to both players profile, about this action, so that i know next time.

 

This time i can't proof partnership agreement/experience, so i will ask them to alert their 1NT bid in future, explaning opps that a single is possible. Because now they have a partnership experience about it.

 

3) Adjustment

a ) It's not sure there is an infriction, because it is only there if there is a (implicit) partnership agreement.

b ) I don't see damage.

c ) So there is no damage caused by the missing alert.

=> no adjustment

[Brandal]

Opening 1NT with a singleton honor is not alertable.

 

Peter

This I know....

 

but is it alertable IF by partnership agreement you

open 1NT on 15/17 ANY shape only count?

 

Not debating how smart or daft it is,just if it's alertable?

 

:) thx in advance

[coyot]

Opening 1NT with a singleton honor is not alertable.

 

Peter

This I know....

 

but is it alertable IF by partnership agreement you

open 1NT on 15/17 ANY shape only count?

 

Not debating how smart or daft it is,just if it's alertable?

 

:) thx in advance

Of course it is. ANY unexpected partnership agreement is alertable.

[david_c]

Under the current laws the SO has no right to restrict 1NT openings just because they have a singleton.  They are only entitled to regulate conventions and light opening bids.  If you are offering to play in NTs then 1NT is not conventional by definition and therefore not subject to regulation.

Interesting - you might be amused by the way the authorities in England have interpreted this. (bottom of p2 here) It's creative, to say the least.

[Cascade]

Under the current laws the SO has no right to restrict 1NT openings just because they have a singleton.  They are only entitled to regulate conventions and light opening bids.  If you are offering to play in NTs then 1NT is not conventional by definition and therefore not subject to regulation.

Interesting - you might be amused by the way the authorities in England have interpreted this. (bottom of p2 here) It's creative, to say the least.

"the wording of the definition of convention in the Laws, and in particular the use of the words “willingness to play”, provides sufficient latitude that an opening bid of 1NT, made by agreement on a hand which is neither balanced nor semi-balanced, may be judged to fall within the definition of a conventional call;" EBU Law and Ethics Committee July 2005

 

Interpreting the definition of Convention from the Law Book in this way makes any bid a convention on the same loophole.

 

". A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." Lawbook definition of Convention.

[helene_t]

"Willingness to play" is a strange expression. With what kind of hand would you not be willing to play in notrumps?

[pbleighton]

"But scoring is MP and often there is 3NT+1 and 4♠."

 

This is an important point (I have to admit that I paid no attention to scoring in my first post). I know a number of players who are no trump hogs at matchpoints, going for the extra 10 points in an anti-field contract.

 

While the bid is somewhat unusual at IMPs, it is much less so at matchpoints. In any event, it's just a judgment call, in spite of the fact that none of the posters, myself included, would have made that call.

 

Peter

[jdeegan]

<_<

I find the very idea of awarding an adjusted score repugnant. Indeed, it would violate the laws of the game, and any tournament director doing so would be subject to repremand.

 

The only excuse for calling the director would be to build a file on this particular pair. If they keep doing this kind of thing AND win every time, then a case can be made they are cheats.

 

The idea of the game is to have fun, and whiners like you detract from the experience. Maybe you should bar yourself until you get an attitude change.

[LH2650]

Fishy. Very fishy. Your judgement is a little too good for your own good. There is no basis for an adjustment on the facts presented, but in the ACBL, the auction would certainly be referred to the Recorder. Of course, no one would never say that you are under suspicion of cheating, but a few Recorder memos would get you intense scrutiny.

 

Once you start Alerting your notrump as possibly containing a singleton, you will get a score adjustment (ACBL) because that agreement is illegal.

 

I would have bid the hands 1D - 1S - 2C - 2S - 2N - 3N. Some may not like it, but at least I would not find myself dealing with directors, committees, and recorders.

[mcphee]

Some players just can't see the need to open a hand containing a singleton 1NT. You can offer viable reasons, but, like a old car the reasonable aspect of the bid just doesn't start every day.

 

The TD should be punished is one of the ratings the poster forgot to include.

 

It's interesting to note that when a person makes a reverse for example with 12 or 13 HCP it is sluffed off as, "they do not know what they are doing" and a result that ends up favorable to them is not reversed. I wonder if the fact they have nothing that resembles the bid would fnd this director reversing the score? Best is just not to play in this directors game.

[inquiry]

Once you start Alerting your notrump as possibly containing a singleton, you will get a score adjustment (ACBL) because that agreement is illegal.

Really? Are you certain of this. Let me quote the very first item on the General Convention chart (last part of Definition 1).

 

"A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons"

 

Now Generally here is meant to modify the "requirement" of no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons. This suggest that it is possible to open or overcall a natural notrump with not only a singleton but also a void as long as this is not your "general" practice. Surely it is standard these days for some 4441 patterns to be opened 1NT, and some 5431's as in this case. Many of have witnessed top players doing this in ACBL events without adjustment.

 

So what are you suggesting. You can "pick out" the occassional hand to do this on and not alert it with impunity, or you can alter that your agreement is that some 5422 and some 4441 and 4531 hands can be opened 1NT. In the first case (no warning to opponents), no harm no foul, in the second case "automatic" adjustment.

 

What is wrong with this picture? Anyway, could you please quote chapter and verse where "semi-balanced hands" unsuited for a different opening bid can not be opened 1NT, or if you do this (by solid agreement or just by history), you will be automatically adjusted if you do?

[Finch]

There are a whole range of different issues here, each of which could lead to a different final result.

 

1. Were the tourney rules clearly stated, and did they say that opening 1NT with a singleton was not allowed? If so, then ave+/ave- is the correct ruling (in so far as one can say what a "correct" ruling is for a game that isn't bridge), and if you don't like playing with these rules, don't play in this tournament.

 

2. Did you and your partner have an agreement that opening 1NT on a singleton was permitted? If so, is that alertable under whatever alerting regulations the tournament was being played? (It is in England, for example). If so, your opponents have been misinformed. Have they been damaged? I don't think so. The spade lead is insane anyway, but it is more tempting rather than less tempting if declarer could have a singleton spade. You could be given a procedural penalty for not alerting, but the score on the actual board stands.

 

3. Whatever you say under (2) the TD may suspect that bidding 3NT rather than 4S suggested that your partner thought you could have a singleton spade, or that your partner already knew the hand. But so what? Suspicion isn't proof. All the TD can do is make a note of who you are, and perhaps see if you have a record e.g. of bidding 3NT opposite a singleton spade but 4S when partner has more support. But this looks a bit obscure to me: if your partner knew you had a singleton, why not just raise 1NT to 3NT? Anyway, the table result still stands.

[Al_U_Card]

Judgement is a two-edged sword. (Like luck, it can be good and bad.) Even if there was collusion, (seems unlikely unless they took 2 minutes to evaluate how the hand might play during the bidding, or could see all 4 hands) this time their judgement and play won. <_< Next time, who knows. :D

 

I like playing against the "creative" types, as it sharpens my acumen as well as getting you better results over the long term. :)