Opening 1NT with a singleton

[Cascade]

On the assumption that this is intended as an offer to play in no trumps:

 

1. Is this allowed?

 

2. Is there an explicit regulation allowing or disallowing it?

 

3. If it is not allowed has the ACBL designated this non-conventional non-artificial usage as a "Special Parternership Understanding"?

 

4. If it has been designated a "Special Partnership Understanding" are a significant number of ACBL players unable to understand "balanced or nearly balanced - may have a singleton. 4441, 5431 shapes are possible"?

 

Basically we have been told that our 1NT style is not allowed in ACBL play. As far as I can tell our system is a WBF Green (natural) system.

 

Our 1NT bid is basically any classical balanced shapes (any 4333, any 4432 and any 5332), many or most 5422, some 6322 and other hands that are difficult to rebid (1=4=4=4, 4=4=4=1, other 4441 hands that have short honours, some 5431 hands with bad long suits or short honours) and perhaps very rarely some other shapes.

 

If the regulations do really prohibit opening 1NT with these problem hands? If they do effectively they make some structures impossible to play with some hands. e.g. five-card majors weak 1NT so that a NT rebid shows extra values, now a 4=4=4=1 minimum hand can start with 1D and when partner responds 2C there is no appropriate rebid. On the other hand the strong no trumpers have the option to rebid 1NT because there is no restriction on NT rebids. This seems a little inconsistent.

 

By the way what would the standard rebid be with a 15-17 4=4=4=1 after 1D 2C in a strong no trump system (not 2/1 GF) when 2NT rebid shows a minimum and 3NT shows 18-19?

[hrothgar]

On the assumption that this is intended as an offer to play in no trumps:

 

1. Is this allowed?

 

2. Is there an explicit regulation allowing or disallowing it?

 

3. If it is not allowed has the ACBL designated this non-conventional non-artificial usage as a "Special Parternership Understanding"?

 

4. If it has been designated a "Special Partnership Understanding" are a significant number of ACBL players unable to understand "balanced or nearly balanced - may have a singleton. 4441, 5431 shapes are possible"?

 

Basically we have been told that our 1NT style is not allowed in ACBL play. As far as I can tell our system is a WBF Green (natural) system.

 

Our 1NT bid is basically any classical balanced shapes (any 4333, any 4432 and any 5332), many or most 5422, some 6322 and other hands that are difficult to rebid (1=4=4=4, 4=4=4=1, other 4441 hands that have short honours, some 5431 hands with bad long suits or short honours) and perhaps very rarely some other shapes.

 

If the regulations do really prohibit opening 1NT with these problem hands? If they do effectively they make some structures impossible to play with some hands. e.g. five-card majors weak 1NT so that a NT rebid shows extra values, now a 4=4=4=1 minimum hand can start with 1D and when partner responds 2C there is no appropriate rebid. On the other hand the strong no trumpers have the option to rebid 1NT because there is no restriction on NT rebids. This seems a little inconsistent.

 

By the way what would the standard rebid be with a 15-17 4=4=4=1 after 1D 2C in a strong no trump system (not 2/1 GF) when 2NT rebid shows a minimum and 3NT shows 18-19?

Hi Wayne

 

I suspect that this is illegal.

 

Please don't take the following as gospel, however, here's how I THINK the discussion would go.

 

In ACBL land, you are allowed to exercise judgment in deciding to open 1NT with a singleton. You are not allowed to have a systemic agreement that you open 1NT with a singleton.

 

You methods seem to require that that you open 1NT with certain shapes (1=4=4=4 / 4=4=4=1). As such, the 1NT opening does not meet the requirements for the "classic" natural, balanced opening.

 

There is no explicit sanction allowing you to open 1NT to show either a balanced hand OR 1=4=4=4 / 4=4=4=1 shape.

 

Therefore you can't play this in GCC events...

[hrothgar]

By the way what would the standard rebid be with a 15-17 4=4=4=1 after 1D 2C in a strong no trump system (not 2/1 GF) when 2NT rebid shows a minimum and 3NT shows 18-19?

Open your better four card major and rebid 2♦

[jdonn]

In the ACBL it's illegal to agree to open 1NT on all of a certain shape with a singleton, such as 1444 or 4441.

 

What do you play after 1♦ 2♣ as far as 2♦/2♥/2♠? I think you would just have to make the 4441 hand allowable in one of those rebids, even if it doesn't otherwise fit your definition of that rebid.

[bluejak]

If the regulations do really prohibit opening 1NT with these problem hands? If they do effectively they make some structures impossible to play with some hands. e.g. five-card majors weak 1NT so that a NT rebid shows extra values, now a 4=4=4=1 minimum hand can start with 1D and when partner responds 2C there is no appropriate rebid. On the other hand the strong no trumpers have the option to rebid 1NT because there is no restriction on NT rebids. This seems a little inconsistent.

Regulations on systems always "make some structures impossible to play". If you forbid people from playing the multi then you are stopping people playing - for example - a structure by which you can show weak two suiters and weak one suiters, as is quite common in England using Lucas and the multi. Neither do the rule-makers think it unfair to do so, nor do they necessarily consider individual structures. It is their job to provide what they think it is a fair setup for players within their jurisdiction, and players who want to play something not permitted often think this is not fair. Especially players who play in other jurisdictions under other rules always wonder why their rules are not permitted. It is of no interest to American rule-makers that you want to play a system that is Green in the WBF [or purple in the Antarctic Bridge Federation :lol: ] since that has no relevance to ordinary players in the jurisdiction making the rules.

 

As to consistency, a major reason for not allowing specific opening bids is that people have to defend against them and the rule-makers think it unfair to allow certain opening bids as a result. Rebids are completely different since the other side have both had a chance to bid or double before it gets to a rebid so it is perfectly normal to allow much greater freedom - in England, for example, there are no restrictions on rebids at all. So comparing rebids and openings is not a matter of consistency: in fact it is irrelevant.

 

If it is not allowed has the ACBL designated this non-conventional non-artificial usage as a "Special Partnership Understanding"?

As to legality, the rule -makers can designate anything a special partnership understanding. The ACBL do not follow English practice of trying to make sure the legal details are transparent, but their decision not allow a 1NT with a singleton is effectively covered by making it a special partnership understanding, whether they have said so explicitly or not.

 

If it has been designated a "Special Partnership Understanding" are a significant number of ACBL players unable to understand "balanced or nearly balanced - may have a singleton. 4441, 5431 shapes are possible"?

As to whether a significant number of ACBL players would have difficulty understanding your 1NT, first that is the ACBL's decision with no higher authority to challenge it to, but second, the answer is probably Yes. I played for many many years in England when 1NT openings with a singleton were illegal, and the ferocious arguments if someone opened one - even as a complete psyche - and accusations of everything from cheating downward, added to my understanding that the average ACBL player is considerably less able than English players to tolerate or understand or accept any system but his own favourite in the hands of opponents leads me to believe that any non-standard treatment is correctly a Special Partnership Understanding in the ACBL.

 

By the way what would the standard rebid be with a 15-17 4=4=4=1 after 1D 2C in a strong no trump system (not 2/1 GF) when 2NT rebid shows a minimum and 3NT shows 18-19?

I played for many years that 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ showed no more diamonds than when it was opened to take care of difficult rebid hands.

[peachy]

In ACBL land, you are allowed to exercise judgment in deciding to open 1NT with a singleton.  You are not allowed to have a systemic agreement that you open 1NT with a singleton.

The ACBL Convention Charts support this. However, if opening 1NT with a singleton more frequently than whatever the powers-to-be consider "rare", it becomes an illegal agreement and it also would be a CPU unless alerted.

[helene_t]

Playing strong notrump the 4441 hands are no big deal. Just upgrade to a reverse or downgrade to a NT rebid.

 

Playing weak NT it's a little trickier. I prefer opening 1NT to 1♥ (certainly not "better major": always 1♥ if 1NT is not allowed).

 

Or play some artificial follow-ups to 1♦, maybe in combination with a nebulous 1♣ opening, but that may not be GCC either.

 

Or play mini-roman but then I would rather trash the whole system and play something different.

[Cascade]

In the ACBL it's illegal to agree to open 1NT on all of a certain shape with a singleton, such as 1444 or 4441.

Is this explicit somewhere?

 

All I can find is that "A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced

(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)."

 

I can't see any regulation that explicitly does not allow a non-natural no trump opening in general.

 

There is a general statement "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" but this appears to not apply to many treatments that are commonly played.

[helene_t]

I wouldn't know how to interpret "generally".

 

This is the one reason why I dislike system regulations. I am all for protecting nervous LOLs and LOGs against confusing conventions, but it's futile to try to write regulations that TDs, let along players, are able to understand.

[Cascade]

I wouldn't know how to interpret "generally".

Me neither.

 

This is what dictionary.com came up with:

 

1. usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon.

2. with respect to the larger part; for the most part: a generally accurate interpretation of the facts.

3. without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking.

 

This sort of interpretation would seem to allow our 1NT opening as far and away the large majority of hands that we open 1NT with do not have a singleton. Therefore "usually, commonly, ordinarily" we do not have a singleton so the bid conforms to the ACBL definition of 'natural no trump'.

[jdonn]

I can't see any regulation that explicitly does not allow a non-natural no trump opening in general.

 

There is a general statement "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" but this appears to not apply to many treatments that are commonly played.

You answered your own question.

 

As to why the regulation is enforced for 1NT opening bids with a singleton and perhaps not for other things, pick whatever combination you like of inconsistent interpretation (regarding allowing other things - they are very consistent on disallowing the 1NT with a singleton), public demand, perceived public demand, historical precedent, or perhaps some other factors as well.

[paulg]

There used to be a page on the ACBL web site with the following information, but I can't find it now. However the information is provided in the ACBL Club Director's Handbook (PDF) when discussing the GCC:

 

If your notrump opening shows a balanced hand, you may occasionally pick up a hand with a singleton, which you may want to treat as balanced. You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that:

1. It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and,
   
2. Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and,
   
3. You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.
   

Systemically opening 1NT with a singleton is not permitted at Mid Chart (would need an approved defence) but it could be permitted at Super Chart with appropriate disclosure and Director approval (but I do believe the only open Super Chart events are the Vanderbilt and Spingold, definitely not the Reisinger).

 

This restriction will also limit Fantoni and Nunes if they are playing in San Diego, as their normal system opens 1NT with a singleton.

[LH2650]

A current link to the ACBL website:

 

http://www.acbl.org/learn/noTrumpwithaSingleton.html

 

From other other writings, it is clear that:

 

1. If there is any 4441 hand which your system requires you to open 1N, your system is illegal.

 

2. If you have any methods for determining that partner has a singleton, your system is illegal.

[Cascade]

If your notrump opening shows a balanced hand, you may occasionally pick up a hand with a singleton, which you may want to treat as balanced. You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that:

1. It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and,
   
2. Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and,
   
3. You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.
   

Yes I have seen this too.

 

But what does it mean?

 

1% of what?

 

If 1% of 1NT openings then standard expert practice of opening some offshape hands with singleton honours will probably exceed the 1% threashold.

 

If 1% of all hands then I doubt that we have any problem.

[nige1]

If your notrump opening shows a balanced hand, you may occasionally pick up a hand with a singleton, which you may want to treat as balanced. You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that:

1. It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and,
   
2. Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and,
   
3. You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.
   

Yes I have seen this too. But what does it mean?  1% of what?

If 1% of 1NT openings then standard expert practice of opening some offshape hands with singleton honours will probably exceed the 1% threashold.

If 1% of all hands then I doubt that we have any problem.

I reckon the former i.e. 1% of the hands on which you open 1N. Such restrictions do seem weird. How much more natural can a bid be than one designating a contract that you would be content to play? Even more worrying is:

1. If there is any 4441 hand which your system requires you to open 1N, your system is illegal.
   
2. If you have any methods for determining that partner has a singleton, your system is illegal.
   

This seems to imply that you can open 1N with a singleton only if you are prepared to lie about your implicit systemic agreements :lol:

[jdonn]

I think the question was along the lines of 'am I allowed to do this, why or why not?' which has nothing to do with whether the regulations make sense. Do we really have to get into this again, for the thousandth time......

[hrothgar]

A current link to the ACBL website:

 

http://www.acbl.org/learn/noTrumpwithaSingleton.html

 

From other other writings, it is clear that:

 

1.  If there is any 4441 hand which your system requires you to open 1N, your system is illegal.

 

2.  If you have any methods for determining that partner has a singleton, your system is illegal.

Silly question:

 

Do we have any reason to believe that this opinion has an actual legal standing?

 

I understand that this is published on the ACBL web site, however, the ACBL has a long and storied history of publishing inaccurate information through semi official channels. Please note: I don't disagree with the contents of the web site. This corresponds to my understanding of the rules. I'd simply like to see this type of content published somewhere with official standing.

[gnasher]

This seems to imply that you can open 1N with a singleton only if you are prepared to lie that about your implicit systemic agreements :lol:

In the same way that you can agree to use your fingers to signal your distribution, but only if you're prepared to deny the agreement when questioned.

[LH2650]

Silly question:

 

Do we have any reason to believe that this opinion has an actual legal standing?

 

Resolutions of the ACBL Board of Directors have official standing. The points made in the link (and my other two points) are made, with a completely different set of words, in the ACBLscore Tech Files. From the wording, this is clearly unofficial by the BOD standard. Good luck in explaining that to an ACBL TD.

[blackshoe]

The regulations regarding what conventions are and are not allowed in the ACBL Convention Charts. There is no statement in those charts about opening 1NT is a singleton. At this link about interpretation of the ACBL Tech files there is this statement:

The following is the response that John Harris used to answer questions sent to him on Notrump bidding.

 

      1. The bid of a natural notrump MUST promise a balanced hand. No agreement, either explicit or implicit, that the bid may be made with an unbalanced hand is legal;  also illegal is any set of agreements which force certain hands to be opened 1 NT with unbalanced distribution.

 

I have no idea who John Harris is, or was, or why anyone should care what he said, and as far as I know the Tech Files are not regulations. As far as I know, there is no official stance that corresponds to the quote above. In practice, though, what Mr. Harris said here is the law in North America.

[Cascade]

This seems to imply that you can open 1N with a singleton only if you are prepared to lie that about your implicit systemic agreements :(

In the same way that you can agree to use your fingers to signal your distribution, but only if you're prepared to deny the agreement when questioned.

Its quite different.

 

As far as I am aware it is not expert practice to use finger signals.

 

On the other hand it is common expert practice to open 16 HCP 4-4-4-1 and the like with a stiff king with 1NT.

 

This expert practice falls outside the 1% guideline in the defacto regulations and I think would very quickly constitute an implicit understanding.

 

Further the director (chief director maybe) that I checked this point with on the ground in San Diego said to me something like it is quite ok with a problem hand to decide to open 1NT with a stiff king for example if legimately trying to make the best bid or give the best description of your hand.

[blackshoe]

Further the director (chief director maybe) that I checked this point with on the ground in San Diego said to me something like it is quite ok with a problem hand to decide to open 1NT with a stiff king for example if legimately trying to make the best bid or give the best description of your hand.

Right - so long as nobody decides you have an agreement, implicit or explicit, you're fine.

[bluejak]

This seems to imply that you can open 1N with a singleton only if you are prepared to lie about your implicit systemic agreements.

Not at all. Regulations are not designed to deal with cheats, and I would prefer that no-one on this forum recommends cheating.

 

If something is illegal, it is illegal whether someone is prepared to lie or not. Whether he is prepared to lie just affects whether he is a cheat or not.

[gnasher]

Its quite different.

 

As far as I am aware it is not expert practice to use finger signals.

 

On the other hand it is common expert practice to open 16 HCP 4-4-4-1 and the like with a stiff king with 1NT.

 

This expert practice falls outside the 1% guideline in the defacto regulations and I think would very quickly constitute an implicit understanding.

What on earth does "common expert practice" have to do with anything? You asked what was allowed, not what people actually do.

 

If it is common to agree to do this, and illegal to have such an agreement, and the players in question know that their agreement is illegal, it is no different from any other illegal agreement.

 

Further the director (chief director maybe) that I checked this point with on the ground in San Diego said to me something like it is quite ok with a problem hand to decide to open 1NT with a stiff king for example if legimately trying to make the best bid or give the best description of your hand.

That also seems irrelevant. You have already been told that it's OK to do it sometimes as a matter of judgement, as long as you don't agree to do it always on a particular shape and strength, and as long as the frequency of such actions is below a defined limit (albeit rather ambiguously defined). The director you spoke to seems to agree with that.

[nige1]

This seems to imply that you can open 1N with a singleton only if you are prepared to lie about your implicit systemic agreements.

Not at all. Regulations are not designed to deal with cheats, and I would prefer that no-one on this forum recommends cheating. If something is illegal, it is illegal whether someone is prepared to lie or not.  Whether he is prepared to lie just affects whether he is a cheat or not.

I feel that the following two items of advice contradict each other...

The bid of a natural notrump MUST promise a balanced hand. No agreement, either explicit or implicit, that the bid may be made with an unbalanced hand is legal;...

If your notrump opening shows a balanced hand, you may occasionally pick up a hand with a singleton, which you may want to treat as balanced. You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that:

1. 
    
    
   
2. It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and,
    
   
3. Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and,
    
   
4. You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.
    
   

I don't think the latter deliberately advocates law-breaking. Whether or not it does seems to depend on how you interpret the definition an implicit agreement. I feel that advice given in this thread (and also in the thread on "EBU rule of 18") stretches the rules about implicit agreements.

 

For instance, IMO, after you discuss actions that you'd definitely take on specific hands, even in a forum like this, then, de facto, you have an implicit agreement with those who read it.

 

This is a recurrent theme that is worth attempting to resolve. (I accept, of course, that a simple way of skirting the issue would be to get rid of some of the dafter rules).