UK laws on 1NT

[msjennifer]

wrong post

[pescetom]

Surely you aren't saying it's alertable to open 1D when 4-4 in the minors?

 

Not in an RA which says differently, of course, but otherwise yes, I would have thought. Certainly it must be alerted here, as was confirmed to me just a month ago by the most senior national Director. If partner opens 1D and could have 4-4 or opens 1C and cannot have 4-4 then those are special agreements which the opponents have a right to know about.

 

I understand that it might sound strange in an Acol setting where the tradition is for individual choice of openings. It also looks cumbersome in countries where opening 1D with 4-4 is becoming standard. My feeling is that the best solution would be to disclose this within the obligatory announcements of 1-level openings, rather than an alert. I hope our own national rules will take that direction.

[Vampyr]

I understand that it might sound strange in an Acol setting where the tradition is for individual choice of openings. It also looks cumbersome in countries where opening 1D with 4-4 is becoming standard.

 

 

This has been standard in North America for 50 years or more. I do wonder what happens in your RA if 1♣ is the standard opening. I will not try to list the auctions where you would have rebid problems, because I would be here all day.

 

What I wonder about is minor suit openings that promise 3 but the other could be 4, whether that is alertable in the EBU.

 

My feeling is that the best solution would be to disclose this within the obligatory announcements of 1-level openings, rather than an alert. I hope our own national rules will take that direction.

 

What do you mean by obligatory announcements of 1-level openings?

[pescetom]

This has been standard in North America for 50 years or more. I do wonder what happens in your RA if 1♣ is the standard opening. I will not try to list the auctions where you would have rebid problems, because I would be here all day.

Yes it is standard in North America, although most there also open 1♦ with 3-card diamonds and 2-card clubs, which is arguably a strange combination of choices. In my RA almost all 5-card major players (the majority of all players) open 1♦ with minors 4-4 but 1♣ with majors 4-4 (and at least 2-card clubs). All but the most recent generation of players were however taught to play 4-card majors with a strict up-the-line philosophy, opening 1♣ with minors 4-4. They also had to deal with canape' style systems, so are used to drawing precise inferences about opponents' distribution.

 

What do you mean by obligatory announcements of 1-level openings?

Here it is obligatory to announce almost all 1-level and 2-level openings, for example 1♣ might be announced "2 or more cards", 1NT "15 to 17" and so on. It wouldn't be difficult to find a phrase to indicate inferences about the other minor.

[gordontd]

In my RA almost all 5-card major players (the majority of all players) open 1♦ with minors 4-4

But that's what you said was alertable!

[pescetom]

But that's what you said was alertable!

 

Exactly, nowadays the majority of players have the same problem. That's why it would make so much more sense to announce rather than alert.

There is a similar but smaller problem with a 1NT response to 1M, which most people play as semi-forcing but only a truly forcing 1NT is announceable.

The announcements are new and hopefully these problems will be fixed soon.

[barmar]

This has been standard in North America for 50 years or more. I do wonder what happens in your RA if 1♣ is the standard opening. I will not try to list the auctions where you would have rebid problems, because I would be here all day.

When I first learned bridge about 30 years ago, the common rule was to bid 4 cards suits up the line, 5 card suits down the line, so 4-4 minors opened 1♣. As long as the opponents are silent, there are generally no rebid problems.

 

I think the switch to 1♦ happened because players were being taught to be more aggressive in overcalling, so that "As long as" qualifier was not so common. But some players, like my partner, are set in their ways.

[blackshoe]

Our convention card just says that each of these bids shows 3+ cards in the suit. There's nothing on the ACBL CC that says anything about which you bid when you have a choice.

I don't think I'd invoke the poor design of the ACBL system card as a justification for the legality of an agreement. :-)

 

Another case: In the auction 1♣ 1♦ 1NT I'm more likely to bypass 4-card majors to bid 1NT than he is (we play Walsh style, so 1♦ usually denies a major unless responder has invitational+ strength). If the opponents ask about such an auction, we'll disclose this tendency difference, but I don't think it requires a proactive alert.

With this I agree.

[gordontd]

Exactly, nowadays the majority of players have the same problem.

"In most RAs"?

[blackshoe]

Although I've never played the system described in the OP, I sometimes wish I could open 1NT on 14 points with a singleton. 4-4-4-1 is my least favourite shape (probably everyone else's, too!) especially if the singleton is a major. I bid a suit; partner needless to say responds with that major - then what do I do?

A friend of mine recently expressed an interest in playing Fantunes (yeah, I know it's not PC to call it that any more. Don't care.) So I've been re-reading Bill Jacobs' excellent Fantunes Revealed. 4441 with 12 to 14 HCP is a difficult hand for the system. It's opened 1NT. Doesn't matter what the singleton is; it could be the deuce. Not legal in ACBL-land. I haven't had a chance to discuss this yet, but I guess we'll agree to have no agreement to open such hands. Then the question becomes how often does it come up. The first time, it should be classed as a deviation (the deviation is not imo gross enough to be called a psych). After that, frequency matters. OTOH, we will have discussed it. If we disclose that we've done so, will we be subject to a ruling that we have a "partnership understanding" in spite of having specifically agreed not to do it?

[pescetom]

"In most RAs"?

 

The WBF systems policy is not specific to an RA.

If it is a conventional agreement between partners then it should be disclosed, unless a certain RA decides otherwise.

And when I (or a SAYC player for that matter) open 1C it certainly is agreed that I cannot be 4-4 in minors, it's not a question of style or judgement.

[gordontd]

The WBF systems policy is not specific to an RA.

If it is a conventional agreement between partners then it should be disclosed, unless a certain RA decides otherwise.

The WBF systems policy does not apply in events except its own, unless an RA decides to adopt them.

 

But the WBF systems policy does not mandate alerting an agreement to open 1D when 4-4 in the minors, and nor is it correct to say, as you did, that

 

In most RAs you would already be in violation of the rules if you failed to alert (or announce) a 1♦ opening that does not deny clubs of equal length, however common that agreement might be.

 

To say nothing of opening 1D with 5-5 in the minors!

[blackshoe]

A partnership understanding is only "special" if the RA so designates it — unless it involves an artificial call.

 

Interestingly, takeout doubles are "special".

[barmar]

A friend of mine recently expressed an interest in playing Fantunes (yeah, I know it's not PC to call it that any more. Don't care.) So I've been re-reading Bill Jacobs' excellent Fantunes Revealed. 4441 with 12 to 14 HCP is a difficult hand for the system. It's opened 1NT. Doesn't matter what the singleton is; it could be the deuce. Not legal in ACBL-land. I haven't had a chance to discuss this yet, but I guess we'll agree to have no agreement to open such hands. Then the question becomes how often does it come up. The first time, it should be classed as a deviation (the deviation is not imo gross enough to be called a psych). After that, frequency matters. OTOH, we will have discussed it. If we disclose that we've done so, will we be subject to a ruling that we have a "partnership understanding" in spite of having specifically agreed not to do it?

I haven't done the math, but I expect these hands come up pretty frequently, so it's hard to credibly claim no agreement for how to bid them. If you decide to play Fantunes, and both read the same book, I'd consider everything in that book to be an implicit agreement, unless you've explicitly agreed to do something different.

 

BTW, I think this agreement is legal on the Open+ Chart in segments of 6+ boards. It's also legal on the Open and Open+ charts if 1NT is forcing.

[PeterAlan]

4441 with 12 to 14 HCP is a difficult hand for the system. ... Then the question becomes how often does it come up.

0.6172% of all hands (roughly 1 in 162). That's 3 27-board sessions for a partnership.

[etha]

Amusingly when I told this to partner he said oh you better alert my 1nt openers too I sometimes have a singleton minor :-). So that kind of removed the problem anyway.

[barmar]

0.6172% of all hands (roughly 1 in 162). That's 3 27-board sessions for a partnership.

But the number of times they'll be the opening bidder will be significantly less.

[blackshoe]

0.6172% of all hands (roughly 1 in 162). That's 3 27-board sessions for a partnership.

I think your math's a bit off.