ACBL restriction on opening 1nt

[foo]

Petty politics and personal influence peddling have to be rejected in favor of a completely logical apporach based on deductive extension of a few well stated and easy to understand axioms.

 

I'd like to move to the alternate universe where this will happen...

 

Peter

I want the players to =create= "that alternate universe".

 

Last I checked, Bridge belongs to the =playing members=. If We want something badly enough, particularly if it's something designed to make the game more fair or reduce or remove inequities that exist, then it should be able to happen.

 

Else, like any other product, unhappy users will stop using it in numbers large enough to kill the product.

 

"If not me, then who? If not now, then when?"

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

etc.

 

What's missing is getting the vast majority of players aware of and to have a voice in these matters.

 

Every time a "big wig" gets 1.5-2 weeks free in Bermuda in return for attending a 1 day meeting or every time a "big wig" gets to manipulate the regulations in their SO, or every time "the badges" demand higher personal kickbacks as part of "vendor fees" at tournaments for people like booksellers, or ...

 

It hurts Bridge.

 

...and I'm =certain= that such things, if properly exposed and explained to the general membership, would get the backlash they deserve.

[Cascade]

I think the "1%" rule was an estimate. I think "1%" is a euphanism for "not very often." I don't think anybody actually sat down and computed how often reasonable 1N hands with a signleton actually came up. I think that people that would always open certain singleton honor hands with 1NT when that is the best description are within the rules even if those hands would comprise 2 or 3 % of the 1N bids.

 

Finally, I think that if you consider x AQJxx Kxx AQxx a 1N opener, then you will get in trouble with the TD.

In a previous discussion is was noted that expert practice is that occasional 1NT openings with a singleton are not queried even if more frequent than 1%. Personally I would prefer the rule reflected the practice.

 

As for the example hand. I think it is the wrong approach to ban 1NT on that hand. If the player thinks he is playing a natural 1NT and wants to open it with that hand then he should be free to do so. Bridge is a game of judgement and players should be free to exercise their judgement whether it be good or bad. They should not be regulated from using bad judgement.

[SoTired]

I read this story once about a track and field club at an elementary school. A teacher formed it for the elementary students as an after school activity. The teacher got some funding from the school system for equipment and such. To encourage students to perform their best, he gave out prizes and cash to the top performers every week.

 

Because of overcrowding at a nearby high school, there was a special afternoon class of high school students in the elementary school. The high school students heard about the track club and the cash prizes and joined. Of course, they won all the prizes. The teacher tried to get the HS students kicked out of the club, but the school board had rules that specified that all after school activities could not be restricted by age or grade, only by school. The rules were intended to prevent children from narrowly restricting their clubs to only their own age group. But rules are rules. Soon, all the young students dropped out. The parents did not want their children injured by the larger and older high schoolers. The teacher who started the program also dropped out in disgust. That was the end of that. A nice program run by volunteers destroyed by rules designed to encourage open competition, but in this case, created ridiculous and unfair competition.

[blackshoe]

Thus the =original= and therefore most "natural" definition of a NT Opening...

This contains an unstated, and therefore suspect, assumption. Why should an "original" meaning (in what system? I should point out that the Vanderbilt Club is as old as Contract) necessarily be "natural"?

Mr Vanderbilt himself used the words "artificial and forcing" to describe his improvement on bidding that involved opening 1C with all strong hands rather than using Strong Twos or opening them at the 1level.

 

Prior to the development of the Vanderbilt Club (the 1st Forcing 1C System), a 1♣ opening promised 4+♣'s (remember people played 4cM's).

 

Thus a "natural" 1ofasuit opening originally showed 4+ cards in the suit. After the advent of 5cM's, the definition of a "natural" 1m opening was tweaked to 3+ cards in that suit. Even today, a 1m opening that systemically could be on < 3 cards requires an announcement, and of course if it has nothing to do with the minor opened, it is considered conventional and alertable.

Heh. I should have known better than to mention the Vanderbilt club in this context. :)

 

I said your original post contained an unstated assumption - which I suppose is properly expressed as "originally, all (opening?) bids were natural". On reflection, I suspect that's probably true - although, as I pointed out, it didn't take long before "natural" got tossed out the window. B)

 

I still wonder why the "original" meaning of a bid should be considered "more natural" than the current natural meaning of that bid. :)

[blackshoe]

I read this story once about a track and field club at an elementary school...

http://www.thisistrue.com/

 

:)

[tbr]

Has anyone not opened 1no recently (with the right amount of high card points) but a weak doubleton?

[awm]

Here's an interesting website: Thomas Andrews' Double Dummy Analysis

 

It's not clear what sort of hand has "something to do with notrump" versus another suit. But it seems reasonable to state that a natural notrump bid requires a hand that would play well in notrump rather than a suit. After all, I think we agree that a 1NT opening showing "any 5-5 hand" is not a natural bid even if non-forcing. Here's some double-dummy analysis about the expected number of tricks in notrump versus the best suit fit by shape:

 

Shape NT Suit Difference

4333 6.15 7.76 1.61

4432 6.10 8.07 1.97

5332 6.07 8.13 2.06

5422 6.01 8.40 2.39

6322 6.00 8.50 2.50

4441 6.09 8.61 2.52

5431 6.03 8.68 2.65

6331 6.03 8.77 2.74

5521 5.94 9.03 3.09

 

It seems like the reasonable thing to do is to draw a line somewhere here, and say that hands that really play a lot better in a suit fit shouldn't be able to open notrump as a "natural bid" since even though there is some possibility of being passed out, most of the time a passout will leave you in the wrong strain. It can't be enough to say "well I want to play here opposite some hand partner can have" since then all NF bids would be natural and non-conventional.

 

Obviously it's not clear where the line should be, but it seems consistent as long as you don't have two patterns where the hand that plays a lot better in a suit can open 1NT but the other cannot. Sure, you can argue that "well 4441 is pretty close to 4432 with a small doubleton" but then you can continue and say "well 5440 is not that different from 4441 with a small singleton" and this has gotta stop somewhere. The selection of "no singletons" is a combination of a reasonable dividing line with historical practice.

[Cascade]

The selection of "no singletons" is a combination of a reasonable dividing line with historical practice.

Which serves to stifle progress. I mean lets continue making the mistakes we have made in the past.

 

I don't know what is best but I think I should be free to experiment and find out what works. And certainly if my NT bid is natural in that I am intending on offering to play in No Trumps opposite a similar sort of hand then I can't really see how it can harm the opponents if I happen to open my 1NT on a slightly different subset of hands than they do.

[the hog]

I'd be surprised if you could find any SO where an agreement to open 1NT with all 4441 hands in range doesn't require an alert; in other words, I don't think anyone really believes that this is the "natural" meaning of 1NT (although many places are inclined to allow more artificial/conventional bids than ACBL does).

That's not true (or you will be surprised). :) Here in Norway you don't have to alert a 1NT opening which promises an average+ hand which is balanced or semibalanced (semibalanced defined as 2 doubletons or 1 singleton and no doubleton).

 

Thus we can systemically open 1NT on 4441, 5431, 6331, 6322 and 5422 without alerting it.

The same is true in Australia. Another argument is that many players would in fact argue that a 4441 shape is at least semi balanced.

[david_c]

Petty politics and personal influence peddling have to be rejected in favor of a completely logical apporach based on deductive extension of a few well stated and easy to understand axioms.

It would be nice to eliminate the petty politics and personal influence. But I don't like your alternative either. System regulation is difficult - you shouldn't expect it to be possible to have an axiomatic approach.

[foo]

Petty politics and personal influence peddling have to be rejected in favor of a completely logical apporach based on deductive extension of a few well stated and easy to understand axioms.

It would be nice to eliminate the petty politics and personal influence. But I don't like your alternative either. System regulation is difficult - you shouldn't expect it to be possible to have an axiomatic approach.

"It is not that Democracy is demonstratively bad. Of course Democracy is demonstratively bad. The issue is that every other form of government is demonstratively worse."- Winston Churchill

 

"Let me be a free man - - free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk and think and act for myself - - and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty."- Chief Joseph of the Nez Pierce Native American tribe.

 

 

IOW, doing things based on logic and axioms that we do everything we can to make fair is the best system I can think of and demonstratively much better than the current situation.

 

Got a better idea, I'd be happy to hear it.

[foo]

Folks, I submit that a good default definition of "natural" is that it would make intuitive sense to an utter Bridge novice.

 

Thus when you bid a suit, you are offering to play in that suit. And when you say that you are going to take "n" tricks over Book without a trump suit (" 'n' with No Trumps"), then you have a hand that is best designed for NT rather than suit play.

 

It is never going to be intuitive to a novice that a hand containing a stiff or void, for which We teach novices to add 3 or 5 Dummy Points respectively for ruffing value, is a hand best played w/o a trump suit!

 

Nor is it ever going to be intuitive to a novice that a hand shape that We teach novices to open 2suit based on Assumed Fit principles is a "natural" for a NT opening.

 

...and thus, "natural" shapes for a NT opening become

4333, 4432, 5332, 5422

 

 

Let me be clear. I do not necessarily think that "unnatural" or "conventional" NT openings are somehow "bad"; any more than I think Stayman, Gerber, Blackwood, Transfers, puppets, relays, etc are "bad" because they are not natural. I simply think that we should not call them "natural".

The debate / discussion as to whether any specific "not natural" treatment is "bad" or how it is best regulated for the good of the game is a =different= matter that has nothing to do with whether or not a treatment is "natural" or not.

"Natural" does not inherently mean either "good" or "bad".

 

It does, however, strongly imply "simpler". Simpler to understand; simpler to use; simpler to defend against; and thus simpler to teach.

As the Shakers said- "Tis a gift to be simple."

[SoTired]

These numbers are my estimates.

 

95% of players want to play an enjoyable game with competitive challenge. It is not competitively fair to those players to have to understand a complex system that is completely unknown to them when they sit at a table for 2 hands of bridge for 15 minutes. These players want severe restrictions on the bidding systems that they encounter during those 15 minutes.

 

4.5% of players want to experiment with strange systems. They will get some competitive advantage just from opps unfamilarity with their system.

 

0.5% of players need to experiment in order to compete successfully in international events.

 

Not counting the Pros that need to win with clients. I have no idea what rules suit them best.

 

Remember that the first group pays the bills.

[hrothgar]

Nor is it ever going to be intuitive to a novice that a hand shape that We teach novices to open 2suit based on Assumed Fit principles is a "natural" for a NT opening.

 

...and thus, "natural" shapes for a NT opening become

4333, 4432, 5332, 5422

1. Who in their right mind teaches novices about assumed fit preempts?

 

2. Almost anyone using using assumed fit methods will open a 5-4-2-2 hand. Most assumed fit structures permit preempts with 4-4-3-2 shapes.

[foo]

Not only is there the practical matter that the majority "pays the bills", there is also a matter of ethics involved.

 

If the sole or even main reason you are using method "x" is because you think you will get better results due to the opponents unfamiliarity with it or due to the randomizing effect of it, then at the least you are not being very sportsmanlike. At the worst you are being unethical.

[foo]

Nor is it ever going to be intuitive to a novice that a hand shape that We teach novices to open 2suit based on Assumed Fit principles is a "natural" for a NT opening.

 

...and thus, "natural" shapes for a NT opening become

4333, 4432, 5332, 5422

1. Who in their right mind teaches novices about assumed fit preempts?

 

2. Almost anyone using using assumed fit methods will open a 5-4-2-2 hand. Most assumed fit structures permit preempts with 4-4-3-2 shapes.

I said "Assumed Fit principles" not "Assumed Fit Preempts".

 

The reason we teach that a two level preempt requires 6 cards and a 3 level preempt requires 7 cards and a "n" level preempt requires "n+4" cards is that the most likely degree of fit in your trump suit can be mathematically proven to be equal to the number of tricks you are offering to take. (Schenken also said the shapely component was important to keep the maximum loser count down. This is why 7222's are usually opened at the 2 level and not the 3 level.)

=That= is real "assumed fit".

 

 

Side Note: Not all AFP's that I've seen proposed are as well thought out as to degree of fit and low enough number of expected losers as traditional single suited preempts. The "assumption" for those AFP's is at best considerably less strong and at worst downright speculative compared to their more traditional single suited brethren.

[jtfanclub]

Not only is there the practical matter that the majority "pays the bills", there is also a matter of ethics involved.

I don't think anybody plays opening 1NT with 5431/4441 (which are about as notrumpy as 5422 and 6322) because it's difficult to defend against, nor because it confuses people.

 

 

Neither are systems like playing Drury over 1 diamond. These are all logical extensions that fit nicely in SAYC.

 

Meanwhile, systems like Bergen raises and Forcing NT were allowed not because they didn't confuse the hell out of the populace when they first became GCC, but because some experts wanted to play it with their clients. The idea that American (but not English, Dutch, Austrailian, or most other countries) need to be 'protected' from stuff that's easy to play and understand is what causes the problem in the first place.

 

And nobody plays anything in order to randomize anything. Sorry.

[jillybean]

These numbers are my estimates.

 

95% of players want to play an enjoyable game with competitive challenge. It is not competitively fair to those players to have to understand a complex system that is completely unknown to them when they sit at a table for 2 hands of bridge for 15 minutes. These players want severe restrictions on the bidding systems that they encounter during those 15 minutes.

 

 

Do you think a 1nt opening w/ a singleton falls into this category of a completely unknown complex system?

 

If the sole or even main reason you are using method "x" is because you think you will get better results due to the opponents unfamiliarity with it or due to the randomizing effect of it, then at the least you are not being very sportsmanlike.  At the worst you are being unethical.

 

I think others have made it clear that the reason for opening 1nt w/stiff is to best describe the hand, eliminate rebid problems and they think it is the best method to find the right contract. Suggesting the reason is because of the opps unfamiliarity is very unpalatable, I hope I have misunderstood your reply.

[SoTired]

Do you think a 1nt opening w/ a singleton falls into this category of a completely unknown complex system?

Yes - If the opps routinely open 1N with a singleton, then almost all hands in their 1N range may be opened with 1N. The opps will use unknown methods for determining which are eligible and which are not. This affects not only the 1N hands, but also the negative implications from the non-1N hands. This affects competitive bidding. It also affects the defense when attempting to reconstruct declarer's hand.

[pbleighton]

If the sole or even main reason you are using method "x" is because you think you will get better results due to the opponents unfamiliarity with it or due to the randomizing effect of it, then at the least you are not being very sportsmanlike. At the worst you are being unethical.

 

Do you know anyone who fits this description?

 

This sounds like a malicious slur to me.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

95% of players want to play an enjoyable game with competitive challenge. It is not competitively fair to those players to have to understand a complex system that is completely unknown to them when they sit at a table for 2 hands of bridge for 15 minutes. These players want severe restrictions on the bidding systems that they encounter during those 15 minutes.

 

Would this apply to those deviants who play a 4 card major, weak NT in a 5 card major, strong NT field?

 

And vice versa, of course.

 

Oh, the EVIL of intellectual challenge. But of course, we need to be cognizant of the rights of the majority of dues paying Go Fish players...

 

Peter

[SoTired]

95% of players want to play an enjoyable game with competitive challenge. It is not competitively fair to those players to have to understand a complex system that is completely unknown to them when they sit at a table for 2 hands of bridge for 15 minutes. These players want severe restrictions on the bidding systems that they encounter during those 15 minutes.

 

Would this apply to those deviants who play a 4 card major, weak NT in a 5 card major, strong NT field?

 

And vice versa, of course.

 

Oh, the EVIL of intellectual challenge. But of course, we need to be cognizant of the rights of the majority of dues paying Go Fish players...

 

Peter

What an ignorant, unthinking, arrogant, insulting and condescending comment.

 

Besides the obvious and direct insults, it is wrong on so many levels, I hesitate to even respond. First, it makes the conclusion that players that want system restrictions are poor players. Second, it makes the conclusion that players that play unusual conventions are good players. Neither of which are necessarily true.

[jtfanclub]

What an arrogant, insulting and condescending comment.

 

Besides the obvious and direct insults, it is wrong on so many levels, I hesitate to even respond. First, it makes the conclusion that players that want system restrictions are poor players. Second, it makes the conclusion that players that play unusual conventions are good players. Neither of which are necessarily true.

How curious. I don't believe PB had any mention of playing ability for either group.

[SoTired]

How curious. I don't believe PB had any mention of playing ability for either group.

<snip>majority of dues paying Go Fish players...<snip>

 

Looks like a mention of playing ability to me.

[david_c]

IOW, doing things based on logic and axioms that we do everything we can to make fair is the best system I can think of and demonstratively much better than the current situation.

 

Got a better idea, I'd be happy to hear it.

The current system sucks only because the ACBL refuses to keep up to date and to correct the ambiguities that have been pointed out to them. Other countries regulate conventions in a similar way to the ACBL, but for them it works much better because the authorities actually care about finding ways to improve the regulations.