Weak NT openings

[dickiegera]

I believe that in ACBL it is illegal to open 1NT with 9 Pts.

This is for pairs that play a 10-12 pt NT or maybe 10-13 NT.

 

Am I correct?

Illegal as opposed to being a psych.

I believe that playing strong 15-17 NT it would be a psych.

 

If so what are the ramifications of bidding a 9 pt NT?

 

Thank you

[blackshoe]

It is not illegal to open a 9 point 1NT. It is illegal to have an agreement to open a 9 point 1NT, if you play any conventions after that bid. There is one problem: in practice, I believe, most if not all ACBL directors will rule that you have such an illegal agreement if you ever open 1NT with 9 HCP. Personally, I think that such a ruling would itself be illegal, but you can't argue with the five hundred pound canary.

[nige1]

It is not illegal to open a 9 point 1NT. It is illegal to have an agreement to open a 9 point 1NT, if you play any conventions after that bid. There is one problem: in practice, I believe, most if not all ACBL directors will rule that you have such an illegal agreement if you ever open 1NT with 9 HCP. Personally, I think that such a ruling would itself be illegal, but you can't argue with the five hundred pound canary.

Such regulations should be dropped. If we must suffer them then let them stipulate that such openings are illegal, even when psychic. Allowing a player to make such a bid "without agreement", creates problems when he claims he "psyched". This is especially the case when opportunities for the banned agreement are rare. The frustration of ACBL directors is easy to understand.

[blackshoe]

I would much rather see the regulation be that you cannot agree to open 1NT with a lower limit below 10 HCP, but that you can use judgement to upgrade a good nine count. I don't like regulations that prohibit a player from using his judgement.

[weejonnie]

I would much rather see the regulation be that you cannot agree to open 1NT with a lower limit below 10 HCP, but that you can use judgement to upgrade a good nine count. I don't like regulations that prohibit a player from using his judgement.

Cue rather a lot of comments about ER25 hands and the EBU Blue Book!

 

If you can upgrade a 9-point hand to a 10-point hand, then can you upgrade an 8-point hand?

 

J432

Q432

A2

K32

 

Vs

 

QJT9

QJT9

QT9

T9

[Vampyr]

I think that what this rigid type of regulation does, ultimately, is prevent accurate disclosure.

[nige1]

Regulations are over-sophisticated, little known, and poorly understood. The rules are daft enough already, without the complication of "upgrades" and unnecesary "judgement". Unmodified HCP is a crude measure but, for legal purposes, has the merit of simplicity.

 

If we must have system-regulations, rule-makers should ensure that directors can enforce them impartially and consistently.

 

Otherwise controversies are inevitable. For example recent fudges over substandard third-in-hand openers.

[neilkaz]

Regulations are over-sophisticated, little known, and poorly understood. The rules are daft enough already, without the complication of "upgrades" and unnecesary "judgement". Unmodified HCP is a crude measure but, for legal purposes, has the merit of simplicity.

 

If we must have system-regulations, rule-makers should ensure that directors can enforce them impartially and consistently.

 

Otherwise controversies are inevitable. For example recent fudges over substandard third-in-hand openers.

 

Agreed!

[blackshoe]

Cue rather a lot of comments about ER25 hands and the EBU Blue Book!

 

If you can upgrade a 9-point hand to a 10-point hand, then can you upgrade an 8-point hand?

 

J432

Q432

A2

K32

 

Vs

 

QJT9

QJT9

QT9

T9

I think there's a difference between "this hand is upgradeable" and "I can bid whatever I want". That 8 point hand looks like an 8 point hand to me. Certainly not 10. But I suppose if a jury of my peers (or yours, or anybody's) thinks it's upgradeable to 10, so be it.

[Zelandakh]

I think there's a difference between "this hand is upgradeable" and "I can bid whatever I want". That 8 point hand looks like an 8 point hand to me. Certainly not 10. But I suppose if a jury of my peers (or yours, or anybody's) thinks it's upgradeable to 10, so be it.

If you are using Banzai points, the first hand comes out at 13 and the second is 17. They may not be your kettle of fish, nor mine, but it seems a little unfair to prohibit someone else from using their own evaluation judgement just because it is different from the mainstream.

[helene_t]

I think that what this rigid type of regulation does, ultimately, is prevent accurate disclosure.

Yes. But I will keep flogging the dead horse: It should be made clear that the intention of the regulation is to ban anything lighter than 11 points - and then you are allowed to use judgement and therefore we condone anything that is 10 Walrus points and upwards.

[johnu]

I would much rather see the regulation be that you cannot agree to open 1NT with a lower limit below 10 HCP, but that you can use judgement to upgrade a good nine count. I don't like regulations that prohibit a player from using his judgement.

 

What about

 

a) an exceptional 8 count.

b) a fabulous 7 count.

c) an extraordinary 6 count

d) a once in a lifetime 5 count

e) you can't believe this 4 count

[blackshoe]

The first one, maybe. IMO the other four don't exist.

[ahydra]

What about

 

a) an exceptional 8 count.

b) a fabulous 7 count.

c) an extraordinary 6 count

d) a once in a lifetime 5 count

e) you can't believe this 4 count

 

In order to warrant a massive upgrade to 10, the 4-7 counts must be so shapely (e.g. Q1098xxx Q1098xx - -) that they no longer open 1NT, so no problem.

 

Perhaps for simplicity, if they don't want people opening 1NT on less than 10 then the rules should say as much. No upgrades, no judgement allowed. I guess this still doesn't solve the problem of (supposed) psychic bids, but I think it otherwise might be a reasonable approach for setting the lower limit of 1-level openings.

 

ahydra

[johnu]

The first one, maybe. IMO the other four don't exist.

 

Suppose you are playing a 10-12 1NT which is ACBL legal. For some people, a 12 HCP is always really good, so too good for 1NT. And probably also upgrade most 11's. So now, in effect, you are playing 8-10 1NT. Perfectly legal? B-)

[johnu]

In order to warrant a massive upgrade to 10, the 4-7 counts must be so shapely (e.g. Q1098xxx Q1098xx - -) that they no longer open 1NT, so no problem.

 

Perhaps for simplicity, if they don't want people opening 1NT on less than 10 then the rules should say as much. No upgrades, no judgement allowed. I guess this still doesn't solve the problem of (supposed) psychic bids, but I think it otherwise might be a reasonable approach for setting the lower limit of 1-level openings.

 

ahydra

 

If you can leave it to judgement, how can you say

 

♠J109

♥J109

♦J10987

♣J10

 

doesn't qualify for a big upgrade according to the rules? Certainly not much worse than allowing 2♣ openings on weakish preemptive hands because the bidder thinks the hand is strong.

[barmar]

Perhaps for simplicity, if they don't want people opening 1NT on less than 10 then the rules should say as much. No upgrades, no judgement allowed. I guess this still doesn't solve the problem of (supposed) psychic bids, but I think it otherwise might be a reasonable approach for setting the lower limit of 1-level openings.

The general problem is that it's hard to make it consistent if they write rigid rules.

 

They don't mind 15-17 players upgrading 14 counts (it's "just bridge"), but they don't want 10-12 players upgrading 9 counts (I assume the rationale is that mini-NT is already hard enough for opponents to deal with, they want to limit the damage).

[blackshoe]

Suppose you are playing a 10-12 1NT which is ACBL legal. For some people, a 12 HCP is always really good, so too good for 1NT. And probably also upgrade most 11's. So now, in effect, you are playing 8-10 1NT. Perfectly legal? B-)

If you are upgrading all twelves and most elevens you are not playing a 10-12 NT. Similarly if you are upgrading all nines and most eights. Currently an 8-10 1NT is not legal. I think it should be.

[barmar]

If you are upgrading all twelves and most elevens you are not playing a 10-12 NT. Similarly if you are upgrading all nines and most eights. Currently an 8-10 1NT is not legal. I think it should be.

Just to reiterate -- 8-10 1NT is legal. You're just not allowed to play any conventional responses to it.

 

This is a holdover from the 1997 Laws, which only permitted RAs to regulate conventions, not natural calls. So ACBL couldn't prohibit any natural NT bids, but they could prohibit artificial responses like Stayman in the context of certain NT bids. They could have changed GCC to prohibit the ultra-weak 1NT under the 2007 Laws, but they didn't -- they're still using the old strategy that allows it but makes it unplayable.

[TylerE]

Just to reiterate -- 8-10 1NT is legal. You're just not allowed to play any conventional responses to it.

 

But conventional methods over _opponents_ conventions are still legal, right?

[blackshoe]

Just to reiterate -- 8-10 1NT is legal. You're just not allowed to play any conventional responses to it.This is a holdover from the 1997 Laws, which only permitted RAs to regulate conventions, not natural calls. So ACBL couldn't prohibit any natural NT bids, but they could prohibit artificial responses like Stayman in the context of certain NT bids. They could have changed GCC to prohibit the ultra-weak 1NT under the 2007 Laws, but they didn't -- they're still using the old strategy that allows it but makes it unplayable.

Sorry, you're right. I got sloppy.

 

But conventional methods over _opponents_ conventions are still legal, right?

Nope.

 

General Convention Chart, Item 7 under "Disallowed: CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural no trump 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)…

The rest of it has to do with weak two bids.

[nige1]

Just to summaries my feelings: if weak 1N openings must be regulated then the rules should be as simple as possible e.g.

• A rigid Milton Work HCP lower limit
• No judgement about "upgrades".
• No deviations or psychs.
• No exemptions if you eschew conventional continuations.

 

 

Even with such simple rules, players will probably balk at compliance.

 

 

 

[blackshoe]

If they must indeed. In this particular case, I would want to know why such bids must be regulated. If the answer is that these bids are so far out of the norm as to disrupt the game, that's one thing (though in the case of a "Kamikaze" NT, I don't buy it). If the answer is that forty years ago someone with some influence within the Regulating Authority wanted it banned because he got bit by it, that's another thing altogether, and should be anathema to any real bridge player.

[barmar]

I don't think you'll ever get an explanation other than "We think this is what most of our members want, and our job is to serve them".

 

And it's probably right, since the majority of ACBL members are probably LOLs and life novices, who find anything out of the ordinary to be a big annoyance.

[blackshoe]

I would reply "your job is to serve all your members".