NT Opening

[mjj29]

Well, I can't disagree with people who say "you shouldn't flaunt the rules because they are silly, you should still enforce them", otoh, this particular rule _is_ silly and should be changed. Good luck with that though.

 

Alternatively, may I suggest anyone who has a problem not being allowed to open 1NT with a singleton switch to including them in 1C. After all the ACBL allow opening 1C with "any opening hand"...

[nige1]

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.

Again, below the belt :unsure:

Sven knows that, consistently, ..

• I don't condone CPUs (under any circumstances).
  
• I don't advocate breaking rules. (On the contrary, I've lost matches by conforming to such rules).
  
• I just think that such rules are daft and should be scrapped.
  

As for my "alleged experience with directors" :) :) :)

... Sven is also well aware of several discussion-group cases (e.g. "Herman Heart" and "Rule of 18/19"), where directors accused other directors, when playing, of habitually breaking the rules. As a player, I agreed with most of the accusations and, as far as I remember, so did Sven :)

 

I demurred however, in the cases where directors accused each other of cheating. IMO, the problem is that Bridge rules are too complex, subjective and fragmented.

[nige1]

But if I write total twaddle then I expect people to call the rubbish I write bosh.

Sorry, Bluejak, we seem to be too polite to oblige :unsure:

You have a habit of writing stuff that is not true to wind people up:

Is that a beam in thine own eye, Bluejak? :)

Sometimes my views are mistaken. When I recognize a mistake, I admit it. I write stuff intended to improve the rules of Bridge :)

[nige1]

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

Law-makers should consider scrapping rules that add no value, are widely disliked, are often flouted, and are hard to apply.

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 the Laws on stealing?

A Law against stealing seems sensible. In real-life, less sensible laws are sometimes repealed. Especially if they are so rarely enforced that it is the few who comply with them who suffer.

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.

Simpler rules require less education.

As for TDs, you tend to over -emphasise TDs' incompetence without evidence or justification.

We are grateful to directors. We admire their patience and good humour. But the rules are fragmented, over-complex, and over-subjective. It is they that cause problems for directors and players alike.

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.

Has Bluejak read the views of people like Blackshoe in this topic? Or the views that Bluejak himself expressed in the Passing the Multi topic? I wonder how many players-per-year are ruled against by ACBL directors for having an agreement to open 1N with a singleton honour?

 

Incidentally, it intrigues me that law-committee members who have the means and motivation to collect statistics on rulings and appeal decisions, rarely do so. Lacking such statistics, it is hard for ordinary players to bolster impressions gleaned from experience.

[blackshoe]

If your partner has done something 100 times then you know he is liable to and you have an implicit agreement.

If you've been playing with the same partner for 50 years, and he's done something 100 times, I submit that you don't have an implicit agreement, or even an understanding. Unless those 100 times all occurred in the last six months.

 

The laws are, it seems to me, leaning away from talking about agreements (although they still do so at present) and towards talking about "understandings". For example, one player may think opening 1NT with a singleton is okay on rare occassions, the other may think one should never do it. They've been arguing about it for years, but have yet to come to an agreement. Still, each player has an understanding of what his partner may do.

 

I can't recall having opened 1NT with a singleton. I can recall maybe 1 or 2 hands in the last couple of years with which I might have done. Had I done that, I don't think you can argue that my partner and I have an implicit agreement — even if it was the same partner both times.

[StevenG]

If you've been playing with the same partner for 50 years, and he's done something 100 times, I submit that you don't have an implicit agreement, or even an understanding. Unless those 100 times all occurred in the last six months.

What about the one time in the 100 that he asked you "was that bid OK?" during the post-mortem?

[blackshoe]

What about it?

 

I can't remember half the conversations I've had with my partner about our bidding. I'm pretty sure that if we came to an agreement about something, we put it on our card, and if we didn't come to an agreement, we did not put it on our card.

[StevenG]

It seems to me that if partner makes a bid that would be illegal if part of an agreement, then a conversation that goes "What did you think of the bid?", "Good bid, I'd make it every time" creates an agreement that makes it impossible to use the bid legally again, whereas if the reply is "Horrible. Don't ever do it again" (whatever you really think), this leaves him free to make the same bid again.

 

Which appears to me to be ridiculous.

[Zelandakh]

Alternatively, may I suggest anyone who has a problem not being allowed to open 1NT with a singleton switch to including them in 1C. After all the ACBL allow opening 1C with "any opening hand"...

That's rather difficult if you are playing strong club with a weak NT and are using 1NT specifically to get around the 4=4=1=4 problem without being forced into a mini-roman 2D or 2H opener.

[nige1]

If you've been playing with the same partner for 50 years, and he's done something 100 times, I submit that you don't have an implicit agreement, or even an understanding. Unless those 100 times all occurred in the last six months.

Wow, I would be amazed if my regular partner had the opportunity to open one-notrump with 15-17 HCP and a singleton honour, 100 times in 6 months. Nevertheless, if I remembered 100 such occasions in the last 6 months (or 50 years), then I would certainly consider it to be an implicit understanding. Of course, it is obvious that others abide by quite different criteria. It is another question of judgement :P

:) Just to be clear, Sven: I don't have such an agreement :)

[Pict]

Hands up as someone who has never opened 1NT with a singleton. I just have a fondness for bidding 5+ card suits, with a side four card suit. I find the idea of treating 7222 as balanced interesting, but not for my treatment of the first round of bidding.

 

As for oppos, if they have methods and base any bidding and plays on the shape of partner's 1NT, I'd like to hear about it, otherwise I don't care

 

I understood Bluejak's earlier point to me that in defence I might be affected by the idea that partner had a singleton or extreme distribution. This is problematic, but I'd rather not worry about it.

[blackshoe]

I suppose, Nigel, that there are some players who can remember every hand they've ever played. Personally, I'm lucky if I can remember the hand I just put back in the board!

[pran]

Hands up as someone who has never opened 1NT with a singleton.

I am one that for certain can say I have never opened 1NT (or 2NT) with a hand containing a singleton. There is no hole in my system calling for such an opportunity.

[Cascade]

Hands up as someone who has never opened 1NT with a singleton.

I am one that for certain can say I have never opened 1NT (or 2NT) with a hand containing a singleton. There is no hole in my system calling for such an opportunity.

I don't see why opening 1NT with a singleton implies a hole in your system.

 

Its just a belief that 1NT is a better description and/or that the benefits of doing so outweight the costs - including the benefits from better description to other bids.