NT Opening

[helene_t]

Maybe players are more prone to hogging the hand (for example by opening an off-shape 1NT) in indys?

[suprgrover]

A better criterion is "with what percentage of 4441s containing a singleton honour, do you open 1N".

I disagree. I think the better criterion is "with what percentage of hands which open 1nt do you have a singleton?"

 

If you defined 1nt to be only 1=4=4=4 hands with 15-16 points where the stiff spade is the king (and you never opened 1nt with anything else, even normal balanced stuff) then your agreement covers less than 1% of all hands, and less than 1% of 4441 hands (and probably only around 1% of all 4441 with a singleton honor - only 5% are K=444 and then we are limited to 15-16 points which is probably less than 1/5 of those hands). But that agreement is no good, I claim, because partner expects you to always hold the stiff K of spade when you open 1nt.

 

But if you opened K=444 with 15-16 hcp hands 1nt in the context of a 15-17 balanced nt that includes 4333, 4432, 5332, 5m422, and 6m322 now far less than 1% of your 1nt opening bids will be with a stiff K and I think you are in your "ok" style agreements.

Here's the problem. The ACBL has that 1% criterion. But it also says that "generally" NT openers should not have singletons either. And it also says that you cannot agree to always open hands with singletons int he NT range with natural NT openers.

 

Frankly, the ACBL would be better off seeing what other NBOs have done and see what has worked the best, because what it has isn't working very well. There are lots of players who never open 1NT or 2NT with a singleton. There are lots who almost never open 1NT with a singleton but will open 2NT with a 4441 or perhaps a 5431 hand. And then there are some who will open 1NT with a singleton at the drop of a hat. They all can point to ACBL official or quasi-official pronouncements for why they do it.

[aguahombre]

Isn't all this fairly silly? It really doesn't matter if opener is offshape if it is what he/she deems to be the correct opening.

 

What matters is whether responder will allow for a singleton, or whether the pair has a sytem to expose it. If they don't, this is all moot.

 

Even if the player has done this a hundred times with this partner, it is probably not an agreement which is alertable or questionably illegal.

[Cascade]

Isn't all this fairly silly? It really doesn't matter if opener is offshape if it is what he/she deems to be the correct opening.

Agree. I believe it is a mistake for the regulations should not regulate judgement.

 

What matters is whether responder will allow for a singleton, or whether the pair has a sytem to expose it.  If they don't, this is all moot.

 

Why should it matter if you have a method to find a singleton?

 

I don't understand that.

 

Even if the player has done this a hundred times with this partner, it is probably not an agreement which is alertable or questionably illegal.

 

I don't think you understand "implicit agreements". When you have an implicit agreement your obligations, to disclose and comply, are the same as if you have an explicit agreement.

[aguahombre]

Wayne, I understand implicit agreements. They are firstly agreements. If partner never uses this allegedly implicit agreement for anything, it is nothing.

 

It would be a problem if pard declined to use a Texas xfer, or you had some other inquiry to check for a singleton. Otherwise, it is no agreement at all.

 

If an opponent inquires about your style of NT openers, then a statement about how often a singleton has occurred might be appropriate; but that doesn't make it part of your system unless you allow for it.

[Cascade]

In a way I agree with some of what you wrote.

 

If something is not an agreement then it cannot be an "implicit agreement".

 

However the laws of bridge specifically state that repeated deviations from explicit agreements lead to implicit agreements which need to be disclosed.

 

"Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system."

 

I would think that 100 such deviations in this context would in almost every instance create an "implicit agreement".

 

I don't think that fact that you or your partner chooses not to use the information has much, if any at all, bearing on whether or not you have an "implicit agreement".

[Finch]

Incidentally, there is a substantial body of players who will never open 1N with a singleton but consider opening 2N with a singleton quite normal. The reasons are pretty obvious, but I just thought I would throw that in.

Yes, I'm aware people do it, but personally I'd rather open 1NT with a singleton than 2NT (not that I really do either)

[aguahombre]

There's a difference between opening 1NT with a singleton, and having an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

 

ACBL does not allow an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton (except if you play a romex-style forcing 1NT opening).

This was the focus of my post. Adam goes on to mention other jurisdictions which allow such agreements with disclosure. You (Wayne) have a different jursdictional reference than I do.

 

I am ACBL, and was speaking to the legality of frequently opening 1NT with a singleton in ACBL, if partner never allows for it during the auction. My contention is that it is legal.

[babalu1997]

this discussion is way over my head, but i still would like to know whetther the nt opener, who opens with a singlton must do so for :

 

1% max of all deals dealt

 

or or

 

1% of the deals dealt to him?

 

thanks

[blackshoe]

I would think it means 1 deal in every hundred dealt to the player, on which he would open 1NT.

[Jacki]

At the risk of repeating what someone else has already said...

 

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

 

Jacki :)

[Zelandakh]

Thank you Jacki. Nice to have that cleared up and always amusing to see the hoops ACBL regulations go through to prevent players from making free choices. Now for my part, even though it is largely irrelevant as I am not in America. I play a 1NT opening as any balanced hand of (11)12-14 hcp including 5M332. Sometimes 5422s are opened 1NT, especially 2=2=4=5, and very rarely 6m322. All pretty standard but I also open ALL 4=4=1=4 hands in range 1NT - singleton diamond but no other singleton possible, not even a bare honour.

 

I would assume that would pass the 1% test. But here is the kicker. After a major suit transfer one specific super-accept is devoted to showing this hand type, so there is a means to uncover the singleton. I would assume that the opening is ACBL-legal but the super-accept is not. Is this right?

 

Equally, my understanding is that both parts would be EBU-legal providing the possible singleton is announced. Once again, is this correct? Finally, I sometimes play bridge in Germany. When I was last there they had a blanket ban on opening 1NT with a singleton. But my understanding is that this has since changed. Is there anything in the current regs there that would prhibit this agreement?

[peachy]

Thank you Jacki. Nice to have that cleared up and always amusing to see the hoops ACBL regulations go through to prevent players from making free choices. Now for my part, even though it is largely irrelevant as I am not in America. I play a 1NT opening as any balanced hand of (11)12-14 hcp including 5M332. Sometimes 5422s are opened 1NT, especially 2=2=4=5, and very rarely 6m322. All pretty standard but I also open ALL 4=4=1=4 hands in range 1NT - singleton diamond but no other singleton possible, not even a bare honour.

 

I would assume that would pass the 1% test. But here is the kicker. After a major suit transfer one specific super-accept is devoted to showing this hand type, so there is a means to uncover the singleton. I would assume that the opening is ACBL-legal but the super-accept is not. Is this right?

 

Equally, my understanding is that both parts would be EBU-legal providing the possible singleton is announced. Once again, is this correct? Finally, I sometimes play bridge in Germany. When I was last there they had a blanket ban on opening 1NT with a singleton. But my understanding is that this has since changed. Is there anything in the current regs there that would prhibit this agreement?

ACBL GCC says that if your 1NT opening is forcing and promises 16 or more HCP )can be balanced or unbalanced) then it is ACBL legal but needs to be alerted. If it is not forcing, then it is ACBL illegal to agree that 4-4-1-4 hands (regardless of which singleton it is) open 1NT. If you read the text that Jacki linked, it is said there clearly. If you read the ACBL GCC, it is clear there as well that it is not allowed.

[Finch]

Equally, my understanding is that both parts would be EBU-legal providing the possible singleton is announced. Once again, is this correct?

Yes

[Finch]

I would also suggest that 4441 is no less balanced than either 5422 or 6322, all being 2 cards away from 4333. And how anyone could argue that 4441 was more unbalanced than 7222 (still no singleton) is beyond me.

Quite. That's why the EBU definition of a "natural" 1NT opening now includes 7222 (in fact the write-up implies 7222 with a minor, which is not what I intended when I raised it, but as I only ever open 7222 1NT with a long minor, I was not bothered).

[jallerton]

At the risk of repeating what someone else has already said...

 

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

 

Jacki :lol:

The link explains what agreements are permitted under "The ACBL General Convention Chart".

 

Does the same restriction on 1NT openings apply at the ACBL Nationals (Spingold, etc.)?

[Cascade]

At the risk of repeating what someone else has already said...

 

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

 

Jacki :lol:

The link explains what agreements are permitted under "The ACBL General Convention Chart".

 

Does the same restriction on 1NT openings apply at the ACBL Nationals (Spingold, etc.)?

I believe so.

 

There is no modification on the ACBL mid and super charts to what is allowed as a 1NT opening.

[nige1]

Suppose the rule is that you are not allowed to have an agreement with partner to open 1N with a singleton honour but in practice, when you hold such a hand in your notrump HCP range, you often do. IMO...

• You have an (implicit) illegal agreement.
  
• Your opponents will sometimes suffer damage as a consequence. Examples. Opponents will often miscount your hand eg The best line, if they were privy to your implicit agreement, may be to try to drop your singleton king offside rather than attempt an unlikely end-play.
  
• You even suffer an ethical dilemma if an opponent asks whether partner regularly opens 1N with a singleton honour. Although since such an implicit agreement is illegal, I suppose you could take righteous umbrage at the question :)
  

Such rules should be scrapped because

• Many players regard them a ludicrous.
  
• There is a strong incentive to break them.
  
• Anyway, in practice, many players ignore them.
  
• Some players (including directors) rationalize their breaking of such rules; but most players who break them do so because they don't know them.
  
• Directors seem sympathetic to rule-breakers. Unless you admit to such an agreement, the chance of being ruled against is small.
  
• Partnerships who read rules like this and try to abide by them, suffer a significant long-term disadvantage, compared with those who habitually break them. Those who comply with them are derided as masochistic secretary birds. When they lose matches as a result, they can expect no sympathy from other players and directors (see previous similar topics).
  

If the rules were dropped, disclosure would marginally improve because players are loth to disclose illegal agreements but are slightly less reticent about legal agreements.

[peachy]

At the risk of repeating what someone else has already said...

 

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

 

Jacki :)

The link explains what agreements are permitted under "The ACBL General Convention Chart".

 

Does the same restriction on 1NT openings apply at the ACBL Nationals (Spingold, etc.)?

The Convention Charts are here

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

 

In Superchart, wich applies at Spingold and other highest level competition, there is a general statement at the beginning of "ALLOWED" that says also allowed is:

 

All of the ACBL MidChart plus any other non-destructive convention,

treatment or method

 

then lists a few exceptions to that blanket statement.

 

So in Superchart, to systemically agree that hands containing singletons are opened 1NT, is ok. As far as I understand from reading the regulation.

[Cascade]

Whoops I misread this statement in the super-chart.

[pran]

Suppose the rule is that you are not allowed to have an agreement with partner to open 1N with a singleton honour but in practice, when you hold such a hand in your notrump HCP range, you often do. IMO...

• You have an (implicit) illegal agreement.
  
• Your opponents will sometimes suffer damage as a consequence. Examples. Opponents will often miscount your hand eg The best line, if they were privy to your implicit agreement, may be to try to drop your singleton king offside rather than attempt an unlikely end-play.
  
• You even suffer an ethical dilemma if an opponent asks whether partner regularly opens 1N with a singleton honour. Although since such an implicit agreement is illegal, I suppose you could take righteous umbrage at the question :)
  

Such rules shouled be scrapped because

• Many players regard them a ludicrous.
  
• There is a strong incentive to break them.
  
• Some players rationalize breaking such rules; but most players who break them do so because they don't know them.
  
• Anyway, in practice, many players ignore them.
  
• Directors seem sympathetic to rule-breakers. Unless you admit to an agreement, the chance of being ruled against is infinitesmal.
  
• Partnerships who study rules like this and try to abide by them, suffer a significant long-term disadvantage, compared with those who habitually break them.
  
• If the rules were dropped, disclosure would marginally improve because players are loth to disclose illegal agreements but are slightly less reticent about legal agreements.
  

I am not concerned about 1N openings with a singleton being illegal in ACBL (or elsewhere).

 

What worries me is your alleged experience with directors and the fact that you seem to favour concealed partnership understandings, at least in the case of implicit agreements? I certainly hope (for you) that you do not, because CPU has no place in bridge - we call that cheating.

 

I have often experienced players being ignorant of some law or regulation; then I tell them (and adjust if opponents have been damaged), and that's usually it.

 

Once in a championship we discovered a pair that accidentally (from apparent misunderstanding) had violated a brown sticker regulation, and this affected so many of their otherwise legal agreements that I ordered them to cease using their entire convention card and revert to the standard, very simple convention card we have worked out for beginners with no variations permitted, until they had created a new complete CC and had this approved.

[Cascade]

In my memory Nigel has argued many times against concealed partnership understandings saying that those that adhere strictly to the boundaries explicitly created by the regulations put themselves at a disadvantage to others who are willing to push the boundaries saying it is "just bridge" and the like.

 

In this thread others have argued that even a 100 openings with a singleton does not create an implicit agreement. With in my opinion the flimsy caveat that partner does not use the knowledge that you might have a singleton.

 

From other threads it seems that the standard expert practice is to open 1NT more frequently than the ACBL guideline of 1%.

 

Similar things happen in other situations with expert practice at times being in violation of the written regulations e.g. light third seat openings that again some dismiss as "just bridge" when the alternative is to accept that their (implicit) methods are HUM.

 

Its my opinion that it is those that dismissively push these boundaries that have a problem with their implicit agreements being contrary to regulations.

 

However it seems clearly wrong to have regulations that are loosely written and frequently broken or strained by those 'in the know' or with concealed agreements while others attempt to play strictly according to the written rule.

 

I strongly believe that it is the regulations that are broken. The alternative is to label many as Sven did as "cheats".

 

The irony in all this is that some who argue strongly for these strict regulations are the same ones who are willing to hide behind "just bridge" for their violations of the regulations and to justify their otherwise illegal implicit agreements.

[bluejak]

Isn't all this fairly silly?  It really doesn't matter if opener is offshape if it is what he/she deems to be the correct opening. 

 

What matters is whether responder will allow for a singleton, or whether the pair has a sytem to expose it.  If they don't, this is all moot.

 

Even if the player has done this a hundred times with this partner, it is probably not an agreement which is alertable or questionably illegal.

Whether you allow for something and whether you have an agreement are not the same. If your partner has done something 100 times then you know he is liable to and you have an implicit agreement.

 

Furthermore, what do you mean by not allowing for it? Suppose this player is defending, and trying to count the hand. His partner has opened 1NT 100 times with a singleton. Do you really think when he his counting th hand he will say to himself "Partner cannot possibly have a singleton so I shall exclude from my projected count all hands which contain a singleton for partner"? I don't think so! :lol:

 

It does not matter whether you allow for it: if you know it happens it becomes a disclosable - and possibly illegal - agreement.

 

Wayne, I understand implicit agreements.  They are firstly agreements.  If partner never uses this allegedly implicit agreement for anything, it is nothing.

No. If you know that partner might do something with a particular hand because of experience, that is a disclosable agreement.

 

If an opponent inquires about your style of NT openers, then a statement about how often a singleton has occurred might be appropriate; but that doesn't make it part of your system unless you allow for it.

Exactly: you think you ought to disclose it because it is part of your agreements.

 

:)

 

Many players regard them a ludicrous.

Many players regard lots of rules as ludicrous. So what? Lots of players do not.

 

There is a strong incentive to break them.

Bosh. That applies to lots of rules: fortunately the world is not peopled by cheats, and as a way of deciding what the rules should be it stinks. There is a strong incentive to steal as a cheap way of getting food/money etc. Should we abolish th Laws on stealing?

 

Anyway, in practice, many players ignore them.

Again, no reason to change them. Just penalise the Law-breakers.

 

Some players (including directors) rationalize their breaking of such rules; but most players who break them do so because they don't know them.

True of a number of rules. Again, not a reason to change them, but a reason to educate. As for TDs, you tend to over -emphasise TDs' incompetence without evidence or justification.

 

Directors seem sympathetic to rule-breakers. Unless you admit to such an agreement, the chance of being ruled against is small.

That is just rubbish.

 

Partnerships who read rules like this and try to abide by them, suffer a significant long-term disadvantage, compared with those who habitually break them. Those who comply with them are derided as masochistic secretary birds. When they lose matches as a result, they can expect no sympathy from other players and directors (see previous similar topics).

That is silly. Players who follow the rules get a greater satisfaction from winning.

[nige1]

Bluejak takes indignant offence when others politely dispute his opinions but castigates the views of others as "lies", "bosh", "rubbish", "silly", and so on :)

[bluejak]

Perhaps you should read what I write rather than castigate it all without considering. Lots of people disagree with me. Sometimes they convince me I am wrong.

 

But if I write total twaddle then I expect people to call the rubbish I write bosh. You have a habit of writing stuff that is not true to wind people up: that is way distant from what most people write here.

 

Compare what you wrote and what aquahombre writes. I think he had misunderstood and I disagreed with him, because I think he is wrong. But he was not trying it on as in your post. So my response to him was written totally differently. Compare the two posts: compare the two responses.