November 09, 1999

By: Neil Johnson (BigMoJoDaddy)

I'm glad you asked me that question…

Ginny Tobias (GinnyT635) asked me a question about the etiquette of playing or not playing one-bids. The following is an edited version of her email:

Dear Neil:

My experience in the Social Lounge has been that most players wish to claim one-bids and their reasoning is to move the game on and save time.

One player told me that it is unwritten bridge etiquette in the Social Lounge to claim one bids unless there's a partial score and the one would be for game. My question: Is there such an unwritten code? And how do you feel about it? Play or claim ones?

For some reason, this issue seems to be a recurring bone of contention, with passionate advocates on both sides of the question. At my age, I have better uses for the brief moments of passion I am able to muster up – but I will tell you all, before I render as objective an assessment as I can, that I prefer to play one-bids. I'll give my reasons later.

Okay, in the first place, there is no such "unwritten rule." The written rule says play them – but players at any table may mutually agree to suspend it – and automatically concede one-bids. My own feeling is that if agreement cannot be reached, the table's host should have the tie-breaking vote as to whether one-bids will be conceded.

Of course, it's best to reach an understanding before you begin play – with a little dialogue like this:

HOST: Welcome ops. My partner and I play Goren, with Jacoby Transfers. We prefer to play all contracts, including one-bids – ok with you?

GUEST 1: Sure, that's fine – ok with you, partner?

GUEST 2: Well, I only have 30 minutes to play, so I'd prefer that we agree to concede all one-bids, unless for game.

HOST: OK, then – we'll agree to automatically concede ones until you have to leave.

You have probably noticed that I have used the term "conceded" as opposed to "claimed." That is because it is only Yahoo's system that creates this fundamental misunderstanding about "claiming" one bids – there is no "concede" button.

Without a prior concession from the defense, a claim is a claim – it can be accepted or rejected. So, if the one-bid question has not been addressed before it arises during the course of play, it is up to the defense to concede. It is as just as improper for Declarer to automatically claim a one bid without first asking, "Are we playing ones?" as it would be for a golfer to "claim" a two-foot putt to win a hole in match play. (You can't claim those apparent "gimme" putts, but if your opponent doesn't immediately concede, I recommend this tactic: Clear your throat, look as pitiful as possible and ask, in a tiny, whiny voice: "Is that 'inside the leather'?")

And one other point here: As soon as one defender has said, "Please claim ones," and the declarer has complied with that request, it's official: The concession has been made. The other defender may not reject the claim and insist that declarer play the hand with all of his/her cards exposed. I've seen this happen, and I consider it very inappropriate table behavior.

And this is why I like to play them:

In the first place, let me say to those of you who prefer to concede one-bids that I don't consider myself "right" because I prefer to play them. It's not that I consider myself a Bridge "purist." And it's not (only) because I enjoy being a total pain in the butt. But let me say that there is no "moral high ground" here – not on either side of this issue. You consider it a waste of time to play one-bids, while we who prefer to play them consider them part of the game. Both sides are entitled to their respective opinions. But I'm the columnist, so I get to express mine – first, anyway. Rest assured, however, that I will gladly publish any dissenting opinions I receive.

When I played Bridge in the college cafeteria, we used to concede ones. There were no regular partnerships: X number of people played Bridge, and they gathered at the table as time permitted. We didn't care whom we played with; we were happy just to get to play for a while. There were a few of us who actually attended classes, so we made an effort to play as quickly as possible in order to try to complete rubbers during open periods. Besides, there were always an odd number of players, and someone was always waiting to take any seat that might open up at the end of a rubber. So, out of courtesy, we tried to finish rubbers quickly.

A few years later, when I used to play during lunch hour at work, same deal. There were only four Bridge players who worked in that office. Every day we played at noon – same partners, and we would try to cram as many hands as possible into 50 minutes. So we played quickly and conceded ones – just tossed 'em in and played another.

Funny, though: After a few months, my lunch-time Bridge partner and I decided to join a Bridge club, to try our hand at Duplicate. Wouldn't you know, the very first hand on the very first night, my partner opened 1NT. After 3 passes, out of habit, he tossed his hand face up into the middle of the table! Director! Talk about touching a hot stove – neither of us ever did that again!

From 1968-1998, I played Duplicate exclusively.

In Duplicate Bridge, nothing is conceded, and 1S making 3 earns the same score as 3S making 3 – and 1S making 2 might well be a bad board score. So I got into the habit of playing every hand, and playing it to the hilt. Same thing with defending: If my partner and I found a way to hold a 1H contract to no overtricks while the other defenders allowed one, we got a top score on that hand. To this day, I get equal satisfaction out of perfect bidding, perfect play or perfect defense, no matter whether we are playing or defending 1, 4 or 6.

So, in the first place, it's background and orientation. It really doesn't occur to me not to play or defend a one-bid, unless it's been discussed ahead of time.

Second, conceding one-bids changes the game. Think of it as the difference between National League Baseball, where every player – including the pitcher – hits, and American League Baseball, with the designated hitter. There's a lot more "little ball" – bunting, base-stealing, hit-and-run, etc. – in the National League. Each league has its fans, but there is no question that the managerial strategy is very different – and more challenging – in National League ball.

If we are conceding ones, and my partner opens 1C, I will happily pass holding a singleton trey of C and 4 HCP. If the opponents do not overcall, my partner will get a free 20 below the line, even though he/she opened a 3-card suit to the 9. If we are playing ones, and especially if we are vulnerable, I have to consider bidding with that horrible hand to rescue my partner from a possible disaster. Conversely, if the opponents have opened 1C, there have been 2 passes to me, and I hold 5 clubs to the AKJ, I want to defend that contract. If we are playing ones, I'll pass, looking for set points. If we are conceding ones, I either have to give up the 20 points or find another bid.

And finally, I believe that playing every contract makes for a better, more competitive game. While it may be true that whether you play or concede ones, "it all evens out" over the course of your lifetime, it is absurd to contend that it evens out in the course of one rubber, or a specific 2- or 3-hour game.

Consider that if both sides are vulnerable, the pair with a leg has a quantifiable edge entering the next hand – a much better chance to make the 500 rubber. So my partner and I want to fight for that leg. We can do that either by bidding competitively for it or by making a strategic choice to defend. Having to concede a contract to the opponents eliminates one of those options. Conversely, I don't feel right about accepting a "gift" of 30 or 40 below the line for a contract I couldn't possibly make. It's not just the 30 below – it's the 100 or 200 above that rightfully belonged to my opponents (provided they could find the killing defense) and the undeserved advantage my partner and I have been given going into the next hand.

BigMoJoDaddy