Illegal Agreement

[Zelandakh]

And again, what if the meaning of 2NT as defined as "max, unsuitable for spades" but the pair in practise never make this call with a small doubleton? The explicit agreement is not illegal but the implicit agreement, that it is highly likely or even certain to show a singleton, is.

 

Putting aside the OP for a moment, which is obviously written from a particular perspective, is it not possible that the pair in question have no agreement for a 2NT transfer break here at all but one time one of the players was embarassed about having opened with a singleton and chose 2NT as a natural call? In other words, that the real agreement is "natural but it has only come up once and on that occasion partner had a singleton ace".

 

Are we still in illegal territory? Would it really be possible for a TD to judge these shades of grey accurately if a pair with more rules lawyering ability were involved? Is it fair that an honest pair gets punished, potentially thrown out of the event if we agree with Richard, where the immoral SB-type probably gets away with it? What does this tell us about the current regulations? Can anyone think of a better way?

[helene_t]

Is it fair that an honest pair gets punished, potentially thrown out of the event if we agree with Richard, where the immoral SB-type probably gets away with it? What does this tell us about the current regulations? Can anyone think of a better way?

I am not sure if North's 2NT bid in itself is evidence for an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. For an inexperienced player it may just be GBK that you don't play in a 5-1 fit. For a more experienced North it is not but then again, a more experienced North wouldn't have such a silly agreement, never mind assume it to be GBK.

 

South didn't seem to take advantage of the alleged agreement since he probably wanted to introduce hearts anyway. Otherwise he would have used Texas.

 

North might have based his 4♥ bid on the idea that he wanted to prevent South from bidding 4♠. In other words, he is doing the ethical thing, not assuming that his partner knows about his sigleton spades. Of course it is also possible that South showed 5-5 and simply misbid.

 

So if we take your approach and don't ask them about the agreement of the 2NT bid (because we think that a dishonest pair will give an answer that is favorable to themselves), I think we have to rule no damage, although we might still think that the 2NT bid is evidence of an illegal agreement. Depending on whether we think the strange 2NT bid suggests a special partnership understanding or whether he was just panicking. I am inclined to the later and just let the score stand, but recording the case.

 

Of course Nige1 is right that the ultimate solution is to get rid of this ridicolous regulation but OK, that is not what the discussion is about.

[olegru]

The question, I think, is whether their agreement is that 2NT shows a stiff in responder's suit. That seems illegal to me, as I said earlier. Olegru, if you think it's legal, please explain why.

I am not a certified director and could be wrong, but I simply cannot find regulation that make it illegal. Could you point it to me? Note: GCC DISALLOWED 7 have nothing to do with the current issue:

CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit.

[blackshoe]

I base the contention that an agreement that allows responder to determine that opener who opened 1NT has a singleton is illegal on the article from the ACBL website posted upthread by, I think, Agua. Is that article a regulation? I don't know - the ACBL is so cavalier about its regulatory structure that just about anything might be — or might not be.

 

Again, to me the question is not "do they have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton?" I DON'T CARE! The question is whether they have an agreed method by which responder can determine that opener has a singleton.

 

In response to Zel: yes, it's possible that NS's initial assertion that their agreement was that 2NT shows a singleton was "mis-spoken". Is this possibility more likely, or is the possibility they changed their story to wiggle out of an adverse ruling more likely? I don't know; I wasn't there — but I lean towards the latter. I wouldn't, if they, in changing their story, said "no, we mis-spoke" or similar. There's no evidence of that.

 

Addendum: I started a message to "rulings", and thinking about it made me realize something. A careful reading of the aforementioned article will bring up the fact that what the article actually says is that an agreement that 2NT here shows a singleton is illegal because nothing in the GCC permits it. There need not be any regulation that specifically says it's illegal. I do have a problem with that: Item 8 under "Responses and rebids" on the GCC allows "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call." That would seem to make this 2NT legal, unless someone would argue that it's not "constructive". Comments?

Edited May 28, 2014 by blackshoe
added thoughts

[olegru]

I base the contention that an agreement that allows responder to determine that opener who opened 1NT has a singleton is illegal on the article from the ACBL website

 

As a director you are going to base your decision on something you don't even know it is a regulation or not? How players were supposed to know it? Decision to cancel the board base on illegal is a very serious one and surely should be done based on something more official than somebodies opinion or some article somewhere on the ACBL site.

 

 

The question is whether they have an agreed method by which responder can determine that opener has a singleton.

 

1. No they don't. The do not have agreed methods for responder to determine if opener has a singleton. But sometimes bidding could go such a way that opener will have a chance to demonstrate singleton.

2. Even if they have such methods so what? Is there a regulation to prohibit pair to have such a methods?

 

Item 8 under "Responses and rebids" on the GCC allows "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call." That would seem to make this 2NT legal, unless someone would argue that it's not "constructive". Comments?

 

Exactly my point. Thanks :)

[barmar]

And again, what if the meaning of 2NT as defined as "max, unsuitable for spades" but the pair in practise never make this call with a small doubleton? The explicit agreement is not illegal but the implicit agreement, that it is highly likely or even certain to show a singleton, is.

If the only kind of hand that's "unsuitable for spades" is one with a spade singleton, then they're effectively equivalent. The laws treat explicit and implicit agreements the same.

[hrothgar]

As a director you are going to base your decision on something you don't even know it is a regulation or not? How players were supposed to know it? Decision to cancel the board base on illegal is a very serious one and surely should be done based on something more official than somebodies opinion or some article somewhere on the ACBL site.

 

 

 

 

1. No they don't. The do not have agreed methods for responder to determine if opener has a singleton. But sometimes bidding could go such a way that opener will have a chance to demonstrate singleton.

2. Even if they have such methods so what? Is there a regulation to prohibit pair to have such a methods?

 

 

Let me repeat this once again: Under the ACBL regulatory system, if you are playing in a GCC all methods that are not explicitly sanctioned are banned.

This is clearly sanctioned under the line "**Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed**""

The fact that there is no regulation explicitly prohibiting an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton is a distraction.

I appreciate that you have a fixation with this point. Get over it.

 

I have very little sympathy for the ACBL. They do a piss poor do explaining the regulatory system.

However, any experienced pair with half a brain knows that you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

Moreover, most experienced pairs should know that having systemic methods to ask for singletons is viewed as having an agreement.

(There are plenty of written examples that make this point)

 

Finally, according to the original post, the pair stated directly that a 2S super-accept shows a singleton.

The hand in question, in fact, held a singleton.

What more do you need to accept that this was an agreement?

If you're expecting a stone tablet from Lord God Almighty, you're gonna be disappointed alot.

[CSGibson]

Putting aside the OP for a moment, which is obviously written from a particular perspective...

 

The facts as stated in the OP are not in dispute - both teams agreed to what occurred at the table, and the explanations given.

 

What I have not stated, but which is also true, is that while the director was taking the statements, he at one point told the NT opener that he had twice opened with singletons and had similar auctions exposing the singletons while playing against him. Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D. This is a known action pair, and this was not the first recorder filled out against them for similar activity, as it transpires - if anything I had deliberately smoothed my own perspective out of the OP to try and put the NT opener in the best possible light.

[Trinidad]

Let me repeat this once again: Under the ACBL regulatory system, if you are playing in a GCC all methods that are not explicitly sanctioned are banned.

This is clearly sanctioned under the line "**Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed**""

Nice, but a natural 1NT opening is not a "method" (in the view of the GCC authors). Just assume that it is a method and you are in trouble with the rest of the regulation ...

 

So, you are not allowed to play a 1♠ opening promising 12-21 points and 5 spades... It is not explicitly sanctioned. Neither is a 1NT opening showing 15-17 points and any 4333, or 4432 distribution.

 

If you check the GCC, you would notice that the ACBL "forgot" to specifically allow all natural calls. They went through the trouble to define natural calls, but didn't do much more with that definition. It appears to be the regulators' aim to only regulate conventions. It also appears that the authors of the GCC considered "natural calls" the opposite of "conventions" and that, therefore, natural calls are not subject to regulation.

 

So, the question is: "Is a 1NT opening that by agreement on occasion can contain a singleton a natural call?". This question is answered specifically in the GCC definitions:

2. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced (generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons).

(Emphasis mine.)

 

So, the answer is "Yes", it is GCC legal to have the agreement that your 1NT opening generally does not contain a singleton (but on occasion might).

 

If these singletons occur about as frequently as the hands with 2 doubletons for many other pairs, you should be safe. Given that it seems perfectly acceptable to agree to open 1NT with almost any 2=2=4=5 or 2=4=5=2 (each 0.882% probability) in range, as well as quite a few 2=4=2=5, 4=2=5=2, 4=2=2=5 and (2236m) (0.470% each) hands, an occasional 4441 hand (0.748% each) should definitely be acceptable too. If players are allowed to open 2=4=5=2 hands 1NT "because I don't have good enough suits for a reverse, making it hard to rebid after a 1♠ response", the same goes for the occasional 4441 hand and a rare 5431.

 

The next question is whether the 2NT transfer break is allowed. As Blackshoe showed, this is specifically allowed under item 8.

 

Rik

[olegru]

Let me repeat this once again: Under the ACBL regulatory system, if you are playing in a GCC all methods that are not explicitly sanctioned are banned.

 

Let me repeat once again:

2NT bid legal because:

Item 8 under "Responses and rebids" on the GCC allows "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call.

Question if 1NT bid with the singleton Ace is legal is murky; but because too many people routinely open 1NT with singleton Ace if otherwise hand is appropriate I would not dare to call 1NT opening with singleton Ace illegal. Note, definition of balanced hand as a hand with no singletons and voids is not rigid, it include word "generally" that, as far as I understand, means that possible could exist some balanced hands with singleton and/or unbalanced hands without singletons.

 

However, any experienced pair with half a brain knows that you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

And experienced pair with more half a brain could regularly open with singleton if they like, but never admit it is as an implicit or explicit agreement.

 

Moreover, most experienced pairs should know that having systemic methods to ask for singletons is viewed as having an agreement.

 

As I said earlier I cannot see that pair in question had or used any methods to ASK for singleton. Possibility of refusal to accept transfer that shows specific hand does not create methods to ask for such kind of hands.

 

Finally, according to the original post, the pair stated directly that a 2S super-accept shows a singleton.

The hand in question, in fact, held a singleton. What more do you need to accept that this was an agreement?

 

Pair stated directly that a 2S super-accept shows a singleton ACE and hand in question, in fact, held a singleton ACE. Yes, I don't need anything else to accept they have and agreement that permit opening 1NT with singleton ACE and otherwise balanced hand. And I see no legal problem with that agreement.

If you're expecting a stone tablet from Lord God Almighty, you're gonna be disappointed alot.

 

By the way, is it just me or tone of message I replied was below the standards of polite discussion?

 

Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas.

[hrothgar]

Item 8 under "Responses and rebids" on the GCC allows "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call.

 

You still fail to understand the issue at hand.

No one cares about the legality of the 2NT rebid.

 

The fact that the 2NT response shows a singleton is only important because it documents the fact that you are opening 1NT with a singleton by agreement.

[hrothgar]

 

As I said earlier I cannot see that pair in question had or used any methods to ASK for singleton. Possibility of refusal to accept transfer that shows specific hand does not create methods to ask for such kind of hands.

 

 

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

 

In this case, we have a bid (potentially a set of bids) that show singletons in a hand that opened 1NT.

The NT opening is illegal.

 

I don't give a damn about semantic discussions regarding whether 2♦ is best described as an asking bid about regarding partner's shape or a bid that shows 5+ Hearts. (It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping). It's not a fruitful discussion. It's also not an interesting discussion because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you think about this issue. It also doesn't matter what I think about this issue. The only thing that actually matters is what the ACBL has ruled on this topic and I have seen any numbers of examples that specifically state the ACBL's position on this very matter. (Hint: I'm right. You're wrong)

 

If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to make a little wager with you.

 

We can submit this as a question to the ACBL.

If you're right, I'll leave the forums for a period not less than a year.

I'm I'm write, you do the same?

 

How about it? You talk a good game. Let's see if you have any cojones...

[helene_t]

If you're right, I'll leave the forums for a period not less than a year.

I'm I'm write, you do the same?

Please don't play those silly chicken games. Just wager a beer or something.

[blackshoe]

As a director you are going to base your decision on something you don't even know it is a regulation or not? How players were supposed to know it?

I am trying to come to the correct legal ruling. We are discussing how to do that. The article contains a claim or two about ACBL regulations. I could just write to "rulings" and say "show me the regulation", but I wouldn't expect a great answer from them, either way. As for players, ignorance, sayeth the sage (and the General Conditions of Contest, if I remember correctly), is no excuse.

 

1. No they don't. The do not have agreed methods for responder to determine if opener has a singleton.

Do they not? They said they did.

[blackshoe]

Keep it civil in here, please.

[blackshoe]

The facts as stated in the OP are not in dispute - both teams agreed to what occurred at the table, and the explanations given.

 

What I have not stated, but which is also true, is that while the director was taking the statements, he at one point told the NT opener that he had twice opened with singletons and had similar auctions exposing the singletons while playing against him. Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D. This is a known action pair, and this was not the first recorder filled out against them for similar activity, as it transpires - if anything I had deliberately smoothed my own perspective out of the OP to try and put the NT opener in the best possible light.

I understand your intent, but if you leave out pertinent information - and this information is pertinent to the question whether they open 1NT with a singleton frequently enough to have an implicit agreement — then we cannot give an accurate ruling.

[campboy]

So, the answer is "Yes", it is GCC legal to have the agreement that your 1NT opening generally does not contain a singleton (but on occasion might).

 

If these singletons occur about as frequently as the hands with 2 doubletons for many other pairs, you should be safe. Given that it seems perfectly acceptable to agree to open 1NT with almost any 2=2=4=5 or 2=4=5=2 (each 0.882% probability) in range, as well as quite a few 2=4=2=5, 4=2=5=2, 4=2=2=5 and (2236m) (0.470% each) hands, an occasional 4441 hand (0.748% each) should definitely be acceptable too. If players are allowed to open 2=4=5=2 hands 1NT "because I don't have good enough suits for a reverse, making it hard to rebid after a 1♠ response", the same goes for the occasional 4441 hand and a rare 5431.

Have you misread the regulation? It says "generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons". So comparing the frequency of 4441 and 5422/6322 hands is irrelevant because you are allowed to open 5422/6322 hands 1NT as much as you like. The meaningful comparison would be against the frequency with which people open 1NT with 7222 shape, which in my experience is very rare indeed (no-one expects the 7222 no-trump!).

[olegru]

I am trying to come to the correct legal ruling.

 

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.

 

Your idea to write to "rulings" and say "show me the regulation" looks the perfect solution for me.

 

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.

 

If you are expected that "rulings" will not be able to reply on which rules or regulations were based their claims in the article; but still expect player to follow their claims, not official regulation, I don't think it is the ignorance of players. Of course if once side has right to make any ruling their want, other side do not have to much choice but obey and tried to read minds of persons who made regulation instead of regulation. But, I believe we are discussing the bridge law.

 

Do they not? They said they did.

 

Again, I may be wrong, but I understood that after they have no special conventions that responder can employ to ask opener if he has singleton. He could bid Stayman, transfer to minor or to other major and singleton in opener's hand would stay undiscovered. But as it happened he transferred in suit with singleton and, as it happened, opener decided to not accept transfer that according their agreement could be done only in case if opener had the single Ace. I believe this agreement is one of the worst I saw in my live, but I really did not see anything in the laws and regulations that make it illegal. (Of course if they open 1NT only if singleton is Ace and the balanced cards. If they actually have an agreement to open 1NT on almost everything it is the completely different story, but I am basing my opinion on the original message).

 

By the way, I personally hate to open 1NT with singletons (except of robot tournaments of course) and always ask partners do not to it playing with me.

[helene_t]

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.

[CSGibson]

I understand your intent, but if you leave out pertinent information - and this information is pertinent to the question whether they open 1NT with a singleton frequently enough to have an implicit agreement then we cannot give an accurate ruling.

 

 

I don't think its completely relevent as to whether you can give an accurate ruling as to what actually happened at the table - the director won't consult you, and the ruling has already happened. Mostly I was wondering what would be the ruling on the facts as presented, and what other facts you would seek out before making a ruling.

 

Only when the integrity of the facts were questioned did I add the other stuff to illustrate that this is not a steamrolling of opponents or anything like that, so much as a curiousity question. Perhaps even responding to that post was a mistake, as it distracts from the main point, but I wanted to re-route this a bit to actually discussing the case, not debating the OP's accuracy.

[blackshoe]

I don't think its completely relevent as to whether you can give an accurate ruling as to what actually happened at the table - the director won't consult you, and the ruling has already happened. Mostly I was wondering what would be the ruling on the facts as presented, and what other facts you would seek out before making a ruling.

 

Only when the integrity of the facts were questioned did I add the other stuff to illustrate that this is not a steamrolling of opponents or anything like that, so much as a curiousity question. Perhaps even responding to that post was a mistake, as it distracts from the main point, but I wanted to re-route this a bit to actually discussing the case, not debating the OP's accuracy.

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

[Trinidad]

Have you misread the regulation? It says "generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons".

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

 

Rik

[billw55]

The facts as stated in the OP are not in dispute - both teams agreed to what occurred at the table, and the explanations given.

 

What I have not stated, but which is also true, is that while the director was taking the statements, he at one point told the NT opener that he had twice opened with singletons and had similar auctions exposing the singletons while playing against him. Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D. This is a known action pair, and this was not the first recorder filled out against them for similar activity, as it transpires - if anything I had deliberately smoothed my own perspective out of the OP to try and put the NT opener in the best possible light.

So essentially, this pair habitually cheats. Not in the sense of coughing or toe tapping - but by playing illegal methods. It may (or may not) be a dumb rule, but it is still a rule and breaking it on purpose for advantage is cheating.

[helene_t]

Passing a forcing bid reveals a psyche or, depending on how forcing it was, maybe just a slightly subminimal hand. This is GBK. The pair might be cheating but so far it seems more like they are being overly helpful. Or maybe they are a pair of provos who want to tease the TD.

[barmar]

Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D.

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