Illegal Agreement

[sfi]

Surely the regulation is much simpler. It is legal to open a natural 1NT. Natural means not more than 2 doubletons and no shortage.

 

Why is that the definition of "natural 1NT"? That seems to me to be just as much a convention as anything else, but the word natural has been co-opted to describe this convention. Natural would be "a hand that has reasonable expectations of taking 7 tricks", and should cover a range of hand types. Mind you, this is the same organisation that has defined a 1C opening on 4-4-3-2 hands to be natural, so I'm not surprised by this odd view.

[blackshoe]

I think Rik is right as to what the regulation really says. I think Zel is right as to the chance that Rik's interpretation will be followed, or the GCC changed.

[Trinidad]

Surely the regulation is much simpler.

It surely isn't.

Surely the regulation is much simpler. It is legal to open a natural 1NT.

So far, so good.

Natural means not more than 2 doubletons and no shortage.

That is not what the GCC says. It says "Naturally means generally no singleton/void".

 

Sorry, I didn't write it and I do not open or even rebid 1NT with a singleton (overcalls could be a different story), but that is what it says.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

The rest of my post was devoted to the generally Rik. What I am saying is that the generally is allowing for deviations whereas leaving it out would potentially result in any 1NT opening with a singleton being ruled illegal. Basically an illogical and ill-conceived shorthand, which therefore fits perfectly and is completely logical within that context.

[olegru]

Is the following a fair summary of Trinidad's interpretation of the regulation? [/size]

• It's legal to agree to open/overcall 1N on a balanced hand.
• Generally, a "balanced" hand has no more than two doubletons but, exceptionally, may contain a singleton/void.
• You are allowed to agree to open 1N with singletons and voids and any subsequent agreement is allowed so you you may define conventions to locate that singleton/void.

I would reword it a little.

2. You are allowed to agree to open 1N with specific singletons in a specific distribution and any subsequent agreement is allowed so you may define conventions to locate that specific cases.

[Trinidad]

I think Rik is right as to what the regulation really says. I think Zel is right as to the chance that Rik's interpretation will be followed, or the GCC changed.

I think you are right (particularly regarding your first sentence ;) ). But I think the interpretation that you get in practice depends on the TD and the way you treat them. There are TDs in the ACBL who are sensitive to what the regulations say (at least there were when I used to play there). I think the people from the OP would have a good chance to get a ruling in their favor if they would get one of those TDs and say, politely and friendly:

 

"Look, the GCC regulates what agreements are allowed in this event. The GCC allows a 1NT opening for balanced hands, specifying that they generally do not contain a singleton. Our 1NT opening shows a balanced hand and generally does not contain a singleton: On most hands with a singleton we wouldn't dream of opening 1NT. The word 'generally' means that exceptions are allowed. This hand contained a singleton ace and the longest suit was jack empty fifth. I felt that this hand was really balanced, making it such an exception. I know my partner feels exactly the same, which inevitably means that we have an agreement to open such a hand - indeed with a singleton- 1NT. I think that the GCC allows such an agreement. The word 'generally' must be in there for a reason. Please, do me a favor and check the GCC before you give your ruling. Thank you."

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

 

"Look, the GCC regulates what agreements are allowed in this event. The GCC allows a 1NT opening for balanced hands, specifying that they generally do not contain a singleton. Our 1NT opening shows a balanced hand and generally does not contain a singleton: On most hands with a singleton we wouldn't dream of opening 1NT. The word 'generally' means that exceptions are allowed. This hand contained a singleton ace and the longest suit was jack empty fifth. I felt that this hand was really balanced, making it such an exception. I know my partner feels exactly the same, which inevitably means that we have an agreement to open such a hand - indeed with a singleton- 1NT. I think that the GCC allows such an agreement. The word 'generally' must be in there for a reason. Please, do me a favor and check the GCC before you give your ruling. Thank you."

 

 

No one disputes that.

 

The disagreement comes about when your response structure to the 1NT opening includes methods that explicitly show a singleton.

 

Your thought experiment should also include the following:

 

"Thanks for your ruling. You should also be aware that our response structure to 1NT openings includes bids that ask for singletons. How does this change your answer?"

 

You're going to get a VERY different answer to this question.

[campboy]

No doubt the word "generally" is there for a reason. But perhaps the reason is to clarify that deviations are perfectly fine (contrast deviations on minimum opening strength, which I suspect would be treated as evidence of an illegal agreement). If you have methods to find out whether partner has a singleton, it stops being a deviation and becomes part of your agreements.

 

Is the current wording a good way of expressing that? Of course not. But after all, the current wording isn't a good way of expressing anything.

[ArtK78]

I don't know that I agree with the idea that the current wording is not a good way to express that opening 1NT with a singleton or void is a deviation and not a normal action. Sure, the wording could be clearer. It could state "While it is not illegal to open a natural 1NT with a singleton or a void, it is considered to be a deviation from standard practice and it is not permitted to have any agreements which recognize the possibility of this deviation." But the overwhelming majority of players would never consider opening 1NT with a singleton or a void, so it probably never occurred to the person or group of people who put together the Convention Chart that the language "generally not containing a singleton or a void or more than two doubletons" could be misinterpreted.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see the problem, either, although several esteemed posters (primarily from outside of ACBL land) seem to have a problem with it. Having played in ACBL tournaments for 42 years, I have never seen any dispute about opening 1NT with a shortness. As I mentioned in a prior post, I opened 1NT with a singleton K recently and got a good result. My opponents didn't realize what I had done until I told them about it, and they did not have any problem with it. Now, my partner and I employ a very sophisticated system over our 1NT openings, consisting of Stayman, 4-suit Transfers, 2 suited responses at the 3 level, Texas and Gerber. But since the auction continued ALL PASS we never got a chance to whip out our sophisticated methods and avoided any problem about disclosing the singleton later in the auction.

[aguahombre]

As I mentioned in a prior post, I opened 1NT with a singleton K recently and got a good result. My opponents didn't realize what I had done until I told them about it, and they did not have any problem with it. Now, my partner and I employ a very sophisticated system over our 1NT openings, consisting of Stayman, 4-suit Transfers, 2 suited responses at the 3 level, Texas and Gerber. But since the auction continued ALL PASS we never got a chance to whip out our sophisticated methods and avoided any problem about disclosing the singleton later in the auction.

And I will guess that none of your elaborate methods would have uncovered the singleton anyway..but, if they were designed to do so, there could be a problem.

[Trinidad]

No one disputes that.

 

The disagreement comes about when your response structure to the 1NT opening includes methods that explicitly show a singleton.

 

Your thought experiment should also include the following:

 

"Thanks for your ruling. You should also be aware that our response structure to 1NT openings includes bids that ask for singletons. How does this change your answer?"

 

You're going to get a VERY different answer to this question.

 

The GCC is a lot clearer about this: Any constructive rebid by opener is specifically allowed. And all calls after a natural 1NT are specifically allowed (with the exception for wide ranging or very weak 1NT openings).

 

I would never create an agreement for a hand type that occurs in 1% of the cases. But there cannot be any doubt that it is GCC legal.

 

Furthermore, just for the record since it is irrelevant, there is no indication that the NS pair in the OP uses a response structure that includes bids that ask for singletons. South transferred to spades and North refused the transfer which at best showed a singleton. South never used a bid that asked "Do you have a singleton?" and, though it wasn't stated explicitly, it seems clear that NS do not have a singleton asking bid.

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

Furthermore, just for the record since it is irrelevant, there is no indication that the NS pair in the OP uses a response structure that includes bids that ask for singletons. South transferred to spades and North refused the transfer which at best showed a singleton. South never used a bid that asked "Do you have a singleton?" and, though it wasn't stated explicitly, it seems clear that NS do not have a singleton asking bid.

 

Sorry, I should have said relay breaks that show singletons.

Either way, the 1NT bid is illegal.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I just sent the following email to rulings@acbl.org

 

I expect them to reply that I need to renew my membership to get them to answer/ I may do so. My satisfaction in proving you wrong may actually exceed my disdain for the ACBL (which is saying a lot)

 

While playing in a recent ACBL event, I encountered an opposing pair who used super accepts over a Jacoby transfer to systemically show a singleton.

 

The specific auction was

 

1NT – (P) – 2H – (P)

2N*

 

The 2NT bid was alerted as showing a singleton spade. The hand in question did, indeed, contain a singleton spade. My understanding is that that it is illegal to have an agreement that a 1NT opening can show a singleton. (Deviations are fine). Moreover, as I understand matters, having systemic methods by which a singleton can be discovered constitute prima facie evidence that such an agreement exists.

 

I’d appreciate it if you could clarify this matter.

 

Regards,

 

Richard Willey

Q062857

 

[blackshoe]

You would have done better to provide the report of the facts exactly as in the OP, rather than coloring it with later interpretations.

[pran]

Either way, the 1NT bid is illegal.

Does ACBL explicitly forbid psyching an 1NT opening bid?

 

The only way I can understand your statement above is that they do.

 

(Forget any discussion about CPU and agreements to establish if there was a singleton involved, that is not the issue.)

 

Only today I experienced a player opening 1NT with a singleton ♠K, and during our post mortem chat he explained that he had anticipated serious problems with certain response calls from his partner if he had opened 1♥ (which would have been the regular bid with his hand).

 

As it happened his partner transferred to hearts ( !!! ), and on my question what he would have bid with a transfer to spades he said: "3NT of course". They had no agreements to this effect (in fact it was a casual partnership), this would just have been plain simple bridge intelligence.

[olegru]

I would prefer to add word Ace ot "top honor" after "singleton" in your question and stress that discussion is not about all hands with singletons but about hands that look balanced from the point of veiw of certan players depite of singleton honor.

Nobody is arguing that "in general" opening with singletons are not permited. Question is about specific cases.

[nige1]

While playing in a recent ACBL event, I encountered an opposing pair who used super accepts over a Jacoby transfer to systemically show a singleton.

Does ACBL explicitly forbid psyching an 1NT opening bid? The only way I can understand your statement above is that they do.

IMO, Hrothgar asked about an agreement to open 1N, holding a singleton, with a response-structure, which can locate that singleton :) Given the regulators' apparent grasp of language, Hrothgar is an optimist to expect a coherent answer, in real-time :(

[aguahombre]

As it happened his partner transferred to hearts ( !!! ), and on my question what he would have bid with a transfer to spades he said: "3NT of course". They had no agreements to this effect (in fact it was a casual partnership), this would just have been plain simple bridge intelligence.

Perhaps you think it is simple bridge intelligence to have an auction:

 

1N-2H*

3N!!!!. I believe it to be neither simple nor intelligent.

 

And if I "broke" with a singleton Heart after 2D, Terry would not consider it even amusing with her heart bust or her Walsh Relay. We truly have no ability to wiggle out with our stiff and must live with it. No problem with the police this way, and I don't recall lumping a horrible result either.

[ArtK78]

And I will guess that none of your elaborate methods would have uncovered the singleton anyway..but, if they were designed to do so, there could be a problem.

I was being facetious with my discussion of our elaborate methods. Our methods are pretty run of the mill, and in no way are they geared to finding out if our 1NT opening contains a singleton or void.

[hrothgar]

IMO, Hrothgar asked about an agreement to open 1N, holding a singleton, with a response-structure, which can locate that singleton :)

 

Incorrect

 

I asked whether a response structure to a 1NT opening that places singletons constitutes prima facie evidence that there is an agreement that the 1NT opening systemically can include a singleton.

[pran]

Perhaps you think it is simple bridge intelligence to have an auction:

 

1N-2H*

3N!!!!. I believe it to be neither simple nor intelligent.

 

And if I "broke" with a singleton Heart after 2D, Terry would not consider it even amusing with her heart bust or her Walsh Relay. We truly have no ability to wiggle out with our stiff and must live with it. No problem with the police this way, and I don't recall lumping a horrible result either.

Please just answer one simple question:

 

You have the agreement with your (casual and fairly experienced) partner that 1NT is 15-17 and 2H is transfer to spades.

 

Exactly how would you (choose to) understand your partner's responses 2NT and 3NT respectively when you have absolutely no explicit or implicit understanding relevant to these responses? (And what is your next call?)

[helene_t]

Richard, whatever answer you get to your query won't settle this.

 

First, see Blackshoe's comment.

 

Second, you will get the personal opinion of whoever happens to read your email. We won't know if there is any concensus or not in Memphis.

[hrothgar]

Richard, whatever answer you get to your query won't settle this.

 

First, see Blackshoe's comment.

 

Second, you will get the personal opinion of whoever happens to read your email. We won't know if there is any concensus or not in Memphis.

 

I am well aware of Memphis's tendency to produce multiple conflicting answers. (more accurately, Horn Lakes)

I took a first step by asking rulings@ACBL.org

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Note: part of post deleted by mediatr

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

(Personally, I think that this is one of those cases where you're going to get a VERY consistent answer)

 

As for Blackshoe's comment:

 

I wanted to get an answer to a specific question.

Given the limited intellectual capabilities of the folks we're dealing with, it seemed prudent to frame the question...

[campboy]

Please just answer one simple question:

 

You have the agreement with your (casual and fairly experienced) partner that 1NT is 15-17 and 2H is transfer to spades.

 

Exactly how would you (choose to) understand your partner's responses 2NT and 3NT respectively when you have absolutely no explicit or implicit understanding relevant to these responses? (And what is your next call?)

For 2NT I would expect that it shows a maximum hand and 4-card support. If we haven't discussed transfer breaks at all then partner may have decided 2NT and 3♠ are the only safe ones to make; I would take 2NT as stronger than 3♠.

 

3NT means "Oops, I accidentally on a 20-count. I have 2 spades."

 

In both cases my next call depends on my hand.

[nige1]

I would reword it a little.

2. You are allowed to agree to open 1N with specific singletons in a specific distribution and any subsequent agreement is allowed so you may define conventions to locate that specific cases.

and voids?