Open 1NT with 4-4-4-1 Hands (and other Variants)

[kenberg]

It is funny but when I read the linked document it sounds that the big club method is an example of a prohibited method rather than an allowed one! Does anyone know for sure what it really means? :o

I sense it bit of irony! [Added: Oops, I guess not. My error.]

I read it as forbidding any agreement that the hand would be opened in NT, but allowing an agreement that the hand cannot be opened in any suit at any level as long as nobody ever mentions the logical consequence of such an agreement. .

I rather like your interpretation, ironic or not.

We all await the 2016 revision.

 

It all reminds me of the old joke about the man, discovered by his wife's photographers in bed with his mistress, shouting "It's not me".

[zillahandp]

My auction would be 1c, 1h, 3h, 4hts and for good or ill I am playing with the room. Seems best chance but if you are top hunting it might work, or it might not!

[jodepp]

With a low singleton, I don't like 1NT much. With South's hand, a solution that seems to serve me is to open 1♠. If we belong in notrump it's likely better from partner's side.

[mycroft]

Rev whenever I think is just the web site; it *looks* (No ACBLScore handy) like it's a direct copy from the one in the Tech files which has been the same for at least years.

 

And yes, the context of the example is "this is an example of a prohibited agreement" - if you're forced into opening 1NT with a singleton because "there's no other bid for it", as opposed to "this looks like a balanced 15-17 to me and everybody else", then it's not legal on the GCC. Similar to the issues with the "all 1 bids are forcing" system we all know about, where by its nature there's no place for a 4441 12-14 count, so it's opened 1NT (I've read that when the pair played GCC, while the pair could still play GCC, they moved it into 1♣ and hoped).

 

My own personal belief (*) is that we should allow it GCC (because people will do it anyway, and anyone who's played in A for any length of time knows it). I would be happy to go with the EBU style of "Announce if it could have a singleton"; then the people who freak about 1NT-w-a-singleton and who would never do it themselves are protected from "evil" NT defences, and those of us who might will feel less constrained about what "looks right", in exchange for "it's a convention, you can play any non-destructive defence to a convention, so I'm going to have to deal with S***tion and CR*S*" (and bears, oh my). I think that most of the problem we have with the regulation as it stands is more "they lied" or "You can't do that" than "it's unfair to have to play against 1NT-with-a-high-honour-stiff" - but you know, ICBW, I've been wrong before. However, as I am not on the committee that decides such things, my own personal belief means less-than-nothing. When I direct - whether it's in the club or whether it's for the ACBL - I of course follow the rules.

 

(*)

I occastionally work, but don't speak, for the ACBL; my opinions are my own only; why would you think anything else?

 

[daffydoc]

opening NT with singletons is an epidemic on BBO - my pards would always transfer to my singleton - rarely think its right. daffydoc

[kenberg]

Thanks Mycroft

 

I really thought this was an example of what is ok rather than what is not ok. I guess I took "may force 1NT" as accepting that as a legit reason to permit it, rather than as saying since it might happen then such an agreement is forbidden.

 

Anyway, I will drag myself out of this. The rare hands that I open 1NT on when holding a stiff have never gotten me into legal trouble, and I have never called for a director when an opponent has opened 1NT with a stiff. So for me the whole issue is theoretical.

 

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, there was an earlier clarification but I really took it as irony. I should just stay out of legal arguments. I rarely understand them and I find them frustrating even if I understand them. I rarely, virtually never, have trouble at the table and I should just leave it at that.

[dave5201]

Since two passes before, its a shame to pass with 4441 and 15 pts. INT in 3rd hand is ok..... if p has nothing then its a play..... if he has a major and 9-10 pts (he passed) then game may be on. 3rd hand openers are often difficult, but hats off to that 1NT opner ....lol

[mikestar13]

Suggestion for future revision of the GCC ,alerting rules and the system card: Add a check box for "may have a singleton" to the card, require an announcement, and amend the GCC to read "any defense to a 1NT opening that may have a singleton".

 

My real suggestion, of course is that the ACBL grows up and adopts something more reasonable like EBU, for example. But I really doubt that will happen.

[steve2005]

If it is regarded as a bid of system, it isn't allowed to open 1NT with 4441. According to ACBL regulations, it is allowed to open 1nt with 4441 only for the range of 10-12hcp weak notrumph system.

I\d like to see this in writing. It is hard to believe ACBL would give an advantage to 10-12 NT people.

[SteveMoe]

I'd originally thought that the prohibition was not about opening 1N with 4441, but about using any conventional responses when that is the agreement. I found the definition of a natural 1N to be a hand with no void nor singletons, and no more than two doubleton. If the agreement allows these features then the bid is conventional and requires an alert.

 

Now it appears an agreement to open a 4441 as 1N is not permitted (unless 16+ and ostensibly forcing).

 

Did I miss something?

[Vampyr]

I'd originally thought that the prohibition was not about opening 1N with 4441, but about using any conventional responses when that is the agreement. I found the definition of a natural 1N to be a hand with no void nor singletons, and no more than two doubleton. If the agreement allows these features then the bid is conventional and requires an alert.

 

Now it appears an agreement to open a 4441 as 1N is not permitted (unless 16+ and ostensibly forcing).

 

Did I miss something?

 

I don't think so.

[mycroft]

The NT openings that are allowed, but bar conventions afterward, are those that could by agreement be fewer than 10 HCP (in context, 8-10 HCP, given the ban on 1-level calls with, by agreement, fewer than 8 HCP), or those with a range wider than 5 HCP (no matter what your evaluation methods are). And yeah, I've played a system that had both - third seat 1NTs were 8-"we don't have game": 15 or so, give or take. Never came up, but we played it.

 

A NT that could by agreement be unbalanced is a convention by the GCC definition; unless you're a Geo. R disciple, there's no conventional NT call allowed on the GCC. Were there to be one, we wouldn't need an addition to the GCC to allow any (non-primarily-destructive) defence to it; that's already there.

 

Note that case law states that Suction, Psycho-Suction, and Wonder Bids over a strong club are considered not "primarily designed to destroy the opponents' methods", but "we bid some number of spades. 2♠ says 'I want to play somewhere at the 3 level'; 3♠ says 'I want to play somewhere at the 4 level'; and so on; 1♠ says 'I have 13 cards and don't want to make a higher bid' - is. So use that in your decisions on defences to said NT, should it ever be allowed GCC (or should you be playing in those Districts who never went along with the Great NT Defence Prohibition Act of 1990, in your defences to any 1NT).