Illegal Agreement

[blackshoe]

Isn't it GBK that passing a forcing response implies you psyched your opening?

It is. That, or you don't know your system. B-) So the pass does not require an alert, in itself. The problem is that this pair apparently frequently psychs, which leads to implicit understandings, some of which, as in this case, may be illegal. There are also prhibitions against frivolous and unsportsmanlike psyching. See Psychic Bidding, although that's a "rulings faq", not, apparently, a regulation. I had thought there was something in the General CoC about these kinds of psychs, but I did not find it when I just looked.

[nige1]

Keep it civil in here, please.

People tend to lose the rag when trying to interpret rules that are fragmented, sophisticated, ambiguous, self-contradictory, and (arguably) unnecessary but it would be more productive if they vented their frustration on rule-makers.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I haven't heard "lose the rag" before. B-)

[nige1]

Opening 1 NT with a Singleton* There is not now, nor has there ever been, any regulation which prohibits a player from opening (or overcalling) a natural NT with a singleton if sound bridge judgment dictates doing so.

What IS prohibited is any agreement that such bids do not promise balanced hands. Example: A forcing club system with five‐card majors and diamond openings promising 3+ may force 1NT on 4‐4‐1‐4 or 3‐4‐1‐5

Repeated openings with a singleton by any player will tend to create this implicit and illegal agreement with his partner, and he may be proscribed from the practice if his reputation precedes him.

Players may use their bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton provided that: It is a rare occurrence (no more 1% of the time, partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and there are no agreements which enable the partners to discover a singleton.)

When a NT opening hand contains a singleton or void, the Director needs to look into the overall system to determine whether an infraction has occurred. Petitions such as "I just felt like it" or "It seemed the right thing to do" should be looked at askance, and the burden of proof that the action was "good bridge" is on the bidder.

If these tests fail to support the bid, then the opponents should be protected from damage.

It might be appropriate to assess a procedural penalty for violation, particularly if the offender has a history of transgressions of a similar nature.

NOTE: There is one conventional 1NT opening permitted on the General Chart. It is a forcing 1NT opening indicating a hand of 16+ HCP which may be balanced or unbalanced. An example is the Dynamic 1NT, a cornerstone of the Romex system. Because it is a forcing bid conventional responses are allowed to this specific 1NT opening.

Also, there two types of conventional unbalanced notrump overcalls permitted. The first is a two-suited takeout, i.e., the Unusual Notrump, if used at the one level by an unpassed hand (aka Sandwich Notrump) or as non-jump overcall, it requires an alert. The second is a three-suited takeout similar to a takeout double. This always requires an alert.

 

*Taken from ACBLscore Tech Files, located in Tournament Mode of ACBLscore. Attributed to John "Spider" Harris.

The "offenders" might be OK with

• "Players may use their bridge judgment to open 1N with a singleton" and
• Singleton A occurs "no more 1% of the time" that they open 1N, on average. Perhaps even ....
• "Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit".

However their actions appear to flout

• "Repeated openings with a singleton by any player will tend to create this implicit and illegal agreement with his partner"
• "There should be "no agreements which enable the partners to discover a singleton".

As a player, when I buy an entry I sign up to play according the bridge rules and sponsorship organization regulations. I don't have to read all articles on the ACBL site to check if they have additional requirements not listed in any official regulation.

AFIK, players and directors should be aware of the latest laws, minutes, local regulations, and conditions of context (at least).

But can anybody answer Olegru's query? Is this a proper ACBL regulation?

[hrothgar]

But can anybody answer Olegru's query? "Is this a proper ACBL regulation"?

 

It's more proper than most...

 

One of the ACBL's greatest failings is the organizations inability to produce a single authoritative regulatory work.

We have nothing equivalent to the EBU's orange book, white book etc.

I have long argued that we'd be better over throwing the bums out and adopting the EBU's system lock, stock, and barrel.

 

In this case, the verbiage that Art points to can be found in any number of (semi authoritative) ACBL sources.

I've never heard of a director or a reputable authority disagreeing with this interpretation.

 

Sadly, that's about as good as well get here in North America.

 

(There's always the option to contact Horn Lake and see what they have to say about this specific case. As always, I recommend asking 3-4 times to make sure that the same answer comes back)

[CSGibson]

What, exactly, was your purpose in making the original post, then?

 

To get a sense of what the ruling and process for the ruling would be when presented a similar case, as done in the OP, and to share what I think is an interesting situation that the director staff did not immediatly know how to resolve with this group as an interesting problem.

 

My thought is that the OP should be treated as 100% fact, and that if you need extraneous information, you would ask for it, same as a director presented the case at the table would. The fact that this scenerio closely mirrors an actual situation I experienced at the table is irrelevent to the ruling IMO.

[Trinidad]

But can anybody answer Olegru's query? Is this a proper ACBL regulation?

No. The GCC and the Alert chart are the regulations. A nice article written by an individual is not, not even if it is an important individual.

 

I am not a specialist in American law - many years ago I graduated the law school in Russia - but for me "the correct legal ruling" is only ruling based on legislation. It can not be based on articles, specialists' commentaries or other nice stuff. To make a ruling I need regulation.

This is indeed different in Anglosaxon contries. Case law plays a much more prominent role.

That may be the case, but an individual writing an article does not make case law. Even if John Roberts (Chief Justice of the USA) writes an article it may be interesting reading, but it is not case law.

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

 

That may be the case, but an individual writing an article does not make case law. Even if John Roberts (Chief Justice of the USA) writes an article it may be interesting reading, but it is not case law.

 

 

The I guess all the North American's are living in a state of anarchy, because there is no such thing as formal case law.

The only thing that we have is a large, contradictory set of random articles, semi official pronouncements, and dim memories of what a given director did the last time this problem came up.

[blackshoe]

To get a sense of what the ruling and process for the ruling would be when presented a similar case, as done in the OP, and to share what I think is an interesting situation that the director staff did not immediatly know how to resolve with this group as an interesting problem.

 

My thought is that the OP should be treated as 100% fact, and that if you need extraneous information, you would ask for it, same as a director presented the case at the table would. The fact that this scenerio closely mirrors an actual situation I experienced at the table is irrelevent to the ruling IMO.

Fair enough. Now, fifty-some posts into the thread, have we given you what you were looking for, or did we screw the pooch? B-) If the latter, I'll try to go back to the OP, start over, and give you that sense - at least as I see it.

[Trinidad]

The I guess all the North American's are living in a state of anarchy, because there is no such thing as formal case law.

The only thing that we have is a large, contradictory set of random articles, semi official pronouncements, and dim memories of what a given director did the last time this problem came up.

There are AC decisions. They are case law.

 

The North Americans are not living in a state of anarchy since there are regulations. In this case the regulation explicitly states that a 1NT opening is natural if it by agreement generally does not contain a singleton.

 

I certainly think it would be good to write explicitly somewhere in the regulation that natural calls are not regulated. But it isn't hard to derive this from the context.

 

What does happen in North America is that regulations are regularly overlooked, ignored, forgotten, or TDs aren't even aware of their existence. Instead the views of a few people with an opinion (let's call them "respected rebels") are taken as the final word on the matter - even though these individuals don't have jurisdiction. So, yes, there is anarchy, not because there are no regulations - but because many choose to ignore the regulations... and get away with it.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

AFIK, players and directors should be aware of the latest laws, minutes, local regulations, and conditions of context (at least).

I like this - "Conditions of context." It is a sort of a contradiction - a malapropism which actually makes some sense.

 

[For those who may be missing the point, what Nigel should have written in his post was "conditions of contest."]

[gnasher]

Nevertheless, the word "generally" in the regulation clearly indicates that a 1NT opening that occasionally contains a singleton is natural.

That depends by what you mean by occasionally.

 

The word "generally" appears inside the bracketed part which defines "balanced". Hence the rule says two things:

 

- A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced.

- "Balanced" means "generally no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons".

 

That is, the rule doesn't mean "You can agree to open 1NT with a singleton as long as it's only occasionally." It means "In general a 1NT opening can't have a singleton by agreement, but there are some special cases where it can."

[Trinidad]

That is, the rule doesn't mean "You can agree to open 1NT with a singleton as long as it's only occasionally." It means "In general a 1NT opening can't have a singleton by agreement, but there are some special cases where it can."

Special cases occur "occasionally".

 

Your interpretation would be permitting even more than "occasionally" since it allows you to have specific agreements about these special cases (e.g. in the special case of a 5 card major strong club system, 1NT could be 4=4=1=4).

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

George Rosenkranz, in one of his books on Romex, commented that "we treat a singleton Ace or King as if it were a doubleton" in determining whether a hand is "balanced". Do folks think this is an illegal agreement?

[barmar]

Suppose you have the (common in the US) agreement to open 1NT with a 5-card major, when it's in your NT range. If you systemically open 1NT with a 5-card major and also a singleton A/K, I think that would probably not accord with ACBL's expectations.

[Bbradley62]

We shouldn't have to guess what "would probably not accord with ACBL's expectations".

[aguahombre]

Suppose you have the (common in the US) agreement to open 1NT with a 5-card major, when it's in your NT range. If you systemically open 1NT with a 5-card major and also a singleton A/K, I think that would probably not accord with ACBL's expectations.

I think using "systemically" to make your point convolutes this discussion. It connotes a package including responses and rebids to uncover the singleton, which we already know is ACBL illegal (unless Romex).

 

However, if opener has both a 5cM and a singleton somewhere and chooses (by express or implied understanding) to open 1NT ---then, Opener is not choosing 1NT to solve a difficult rebid problem but rather for some other reason which is indeed frowned upon.

 

If there are no illegal methods to uncover the situation is he engineering to be declarer? Does his partner do it too, or just him?

 

If there are such methods to uncover the shortness, it is illegal.

[Zelandakh]

However, if opener has both a 5cM and a singleton somewhere and chooses (by express or implied understanding) to open 1NT ---then, Opener is not choosing 1NT to solve a difficult rebid problem but rather for some other reason which is indeed frowned upon.

Would the idea of a weak NT not cross your mind with ♠A ♥xxxx ♦xxxxx ♣AKQ agua? How about with the black suits reversed? Are you completely happy with your rebid options in both cases for any given response structure?

 

Putting my earlier Devil's advocacy aside, my understanding is that my system would be illegal, inter alia, because the only systemic opening I have for a minimum 4414 hand is 1NT, not to mention that 1NT - 2♦; 2♠ and 1NT - 2♥; 3♣ show this distribution. If I played a Precision 2♦ opening but still chose to open the 4414 hands with a singleton ♦A 1NT, this would be ok providing I also dropped the special super-accepts. It is the expectation that matters. Responder needs to be playing Opener for a balanced hand for the 1NT to be considered natural.

[aguahombre]

Zel---Barry was referring to a hand with a 5-card Major...and so was I (hence "5cM") What you are talking about is not that. A 1-5-(43) opener does not have a rebid problem unless he invents a rebid problem...it bids the five bagger and then the 4-bagger. Life is simple.

[Zelandakh]

How about ♠xxxxx ♥A ♦AKQ ♣xxxx not playng 2/1 then? :D

[olegru]

I am reading the latest ACBL Bulletin. Page 16.

"A creative bid by Katz on this board produced another swing..."

As you can guess Katz open 1NT with 15 points and singleton Queen.

 

How often the big names in bridge open 1NT with singletons?

I checked the 2014 USBF final.

During the final match it was only 3 boards when player have an opportunity to open 1NT with singleton honor.

And (surprise, surprise) in each of those 3 board one of players choose to open 1NT:

http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_F_1_s3.htm#bd40 (Meckstroth)

http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_F_1_s4.htm#bd52 (Bathurst)

http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_F_1_s4.htm#bd58 (Moss)

 

There were 2 more boards with opportunity to open 1NT with singleton in Semifinal, and again exactly 1 player used this opportunity:

http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_SF_2_s3.htm#bd36 (Grego)

http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_SF_2_s5.htm#bd8 (Diamond)

 

I did not check earlier stages, I believe picture is clear. Majority of "big names" in bridge do not mind to open 1NT with singleton honor if they feel like that. I do not know if they discussed it with their partners or not, but common knowledge about such possibility is implicit agreement anyway. I don't know if in any of their system exist possibility for responder to discover if opener had a singleton or not; but there is nothing in law or charts that make that "follow up agreement" illegal anyway - only agreement about opening 1NT could be illegal.

 

Problem is that nobody will dare to call 1NT opening with singleton made by any of famous people "the illegal agreement" - it is "just bridge" or "creative bid" as it was called in the bulletin.

 

Of course if opening 1NT with singleton honor will be produced by not so well known (or foreign) player reaction will by quite different. And if they will naïve enough to admit that they already saw that kind of bids ...

 

PS.

One can argue that Vanderbilt or USBF final are not general chart tournament and in general chart tournament top players playing differently and never open 1NT with the singleton. Sorry, I simply do not believe in it.

[ArtK78]

I do not know if they discussed it with their partners or not, but common knowledge about such possibility is implicit agreement anyway. I don't know if in any of their system exist possibility for responder to discover if opener had a singleton or not; but there is nothing in law or charts that make that "follow up agreement" illegal anyway - only agreement about opening 1NT could be illegal.

 

Of course any systemic way of discovering if the 1NT opener has a singleton is illegal. The mere existence of such a method implies that there is an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

 

In a sense it is the same as a psychic control - a bid used to determine if the bidder's partner has psyched. The psych itself is not illegal - with the exception of psychs of artificial calls, no psych is illegal. However, any method used to find out if the bid is a psych is illegal.

[Zelandakh]

It is also an agreement once you have done it a few times Art - and many of the top pairs have done it more than just a few.

[ArtK78]

It is also an agreement once you have done it a few times Art - and many of the top pairs have done it more than just a few.

 

No doubt you are correct. However, if a pair has a systemic method of determining whether the 1NT opening has a singleton, that is many steps beyond mere awareness of the possibility that opener has a singleton for his 1NT opening - that is a partnership agreement.

[olegru]

Of course any systemic way of discovering if the 1NT opener has a singleton is illegal.

 

By itself? Why?

Could you refer to any regulation to confirm your opinion?

 

The mere existence of such a method implies that there is an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

 

This make much more sense.

Existing of this methods may be a proof that pair has illegal agreement to open 1NT with singleton. (Of course if agreement to open 1NT with otherwise balanced hand and singleton honor is illegal). But as a proof it is not any better of worse than other evidence. I believe it will not be too hard to check archives and collect the evidence that the number of top players opened 1NT with the singleton honor often enough to make it implicit agreement. Do they all play illegal methods too?

 

In a sense, it is the same as a psychic control - a bid used to determine if the bidder's partner has psyched. The psych itself is not illegal - with the exception of psychs of artificial calls, no psych is illegal. However, any method used to find out if the bid is a psych is illegal.

Difference is huge. Bluff is legal. Psychic control is illegal. That is it. We have regulation that makes any agreements to control psychs illegal. We do not need to look for any logic or for any analogies. Any methods to find out if the bid was psych is illegal by regulation. Period.

 

In our case there is no regulation to make follow up constructive bid illegal. Logic is exactly reversed. We have no limitation for the agreements about second bids, but our original bid maybe illegal. If our original bid indeed was illegal, questions about legality of our agreements about the second bid make no sense. The original illegal bid was enough to null the situation. But if our agreements about the original bid was legal, subsequent agreement cannot make it illegal. There is no analogies or better to say that existing analogy is misleading.

 

And one more. I believe I wrote it in some earlier post, sorry for repeating.

Lets take your example with psychic control. It is possible that bidding would go such a way that partner of psychic bidder was able to recognize the psych. He did not used any special psychic control bids, but opener made a subsequent bid that not possible according their system and responder was able to deduct that original bid was psych. Responder scratched his head and replied on your answer: "There is no such bidding possible. The only explanation according our system - he psyched originally." Are you going to call it psych control? I purposely make an unlucky wording; people in general are not lawyers and not linguists. (It is possible that original bid was not psych and they have illegal agreement and you have all rights to call director and report psych, but there is no psych control).

Edited June 5, 2014 by olegru