'The most interesting questions from visitors to the Dutch sister site bridgevaria.nl'

Answer Ed Hoogenkamp (South)

Dearest Adriaan,

In my view there is nothing wrong with your pre-emptive opening. In principle you may bid as you like. If you venture to bid 3♦ third in hand on a doubleton in diamonds, the Laws won't stop you. The principle is simple: as long as your partner has no idea, you are allowed to diverge from your system.
An example:
Your convention card states '1NT opening 15-17'.
However, you decide to open 1NT on 10 HCP. There is nothing wrong with that (Laws-wise). Now suppose partner has 10 HCP (and no four-card major):
- If he standardly raises to 3NT, there is no problem.
- If he passes, however, you and he are in trouble. The reason is that you and he apparently have a secret agreement (1NT doesn't show 15-17, but for instance 10-12 HCP) and secret agreements are strictly forbidden in bridge.

So the opponents have reason to object to your three-opening only if:
1. It is non-systemic
...and:
2. It looks like your partner's bidding is consistent with him knowing about your deviation.
In your case #2 is hardly an issue after your opening third in hand, since partner has passed already. A passed hand is unlikely to stir into action over partner's pre-emptive opening. Therefore that opening may very well be a little a-typical. I have regularly opened pre-emptively third in hand on a twelve count and sometimes even (at this vulnerability) on a five-card suit.

My advice is to insert a general warning at your convention card: 'Opening bids third in hand may deviate.' This mostly to reassure yourself. After all, it's not really necessary: strange, non-systemic openings third in hand are in a way common sense, there's nothing wrong with your fair play!

By the way, someone who hasn't got a clue about fair play is that snowball from Orkanger. He keeps on accusing me of cheating. Probably it has something to do with this endless sequence of dishonourable defeats he suffers when meeting me at the bridge table.

Let's hear what he has to say.

Un saludo desde Barcelona

Answer Peter van der Linden (North)

Dear Adriaan,

I can only agree with Ed's comments (except of course the part about me).
You are expected to (a) hand your opponents your convention card and (b) usually (!) stick to it. If you occasionally deviate, that may not have been agreed with partner: he should be as ignorant as the opponents. Furthermore such deviations should not occur at specific situations, since if they would, partner would, having seen it before, be more or less prepared. In short: it's ok to deviate, as long as partner is equally surprised as the opponents (from this you can conclude that deviating regularly is not smart: partner will lose his confidence in you).

In your case I think there is hardly any deviation at all, since nothing suggests that your hand is seriously deviating from the description on your convention card. I assume here, that you indeed had about six playing tricks (in view of your statement 'down three when not vulnerable'), so that, apart from your five diamond tricks, you had one trick in another suit.

By the way, I think that your opponents – you state that they 'attacked you rather fanatically' – should have behaved more courteously. True, they have every right to question whether your bid is permitted or not. But they should do so by asking the director, not by showering you with criticism. Calling for the director is not an act of intimidation, as some seem to think. Neither is it bad sportsmanship. On the contrary: it is recommended to call the director as soon as you encounter any irregularity or suspect that an irregularity has happened. What you do is simply asking for professional help in allowing smooth bidding and play. Both sides should think that a good idea: 'Let's ask the director; after all, he knows about these things.' The director explains whether and why the bid in question is allowed (or not) and both sides can continue the game in harmony.

Now about 'this endless sequence of dishonourable defeats' I am supposed to have suffered when meeting Ed at the bridge table. To start with, I think a defeat at bridge usually is not 'dishonourable'. Furthermore, when I read Ed's statement, I think he is suffering from an extreme case of selective memory. I will not digress on this any further; it will have to suffice when I say that Ed didn't like playing against me (past tense, we haven't met in the arena for years). Not because we don't like each other (on the contrary, we are good friends – though you probably wouldn't say so if you are a regular reader of these columns...). So why do you think he didn't like playing against me...?
Furthermore I have never ever accused him of cheating. After all, you don't accuse your dog of cheating either, when he runs on the lawn in the park (which is forbidden) when retrieving a stick.

En hilsen fra Orkanger

PS: Pien will never answer a bridge question, since she doesn't play bridge! She is the wizard of the internet; without her this site would have been impossible.