illegal NT openings

[blackshoe]

Making this determination, and explaining the choice made as politically as possible while still being clear and correct, is one of the hardest things a director is asked to do. Many don't, or can't, or don't bother and revert to the "fair" "A+/A- if hand doesn't match explanation", especially in the clubs.

Not sure I would describe a ruling that does not conform to the laws of bridge as "fair", even with the quotes. OTOH, club directors do all kinds of things they shouldn't, for all kinds of bad reasons. Laziness, for example. B-)

[barmar]

Not sure I would describe a ruling that does not conform to the laws of bridge as "fair", even with the quotes. OTOH, club directors do all kinds of things they shouldn't, for all kinds of bad reasons. Laziness, for example. B-)

I generally attribute it to a combination of ignorance (even if they read the Laws, they don't understand them fully), laziness, and utilitarianism (inexperienced players are likely to take more offense at what they perceive as an excessive penalty, and may be turned away from the game).

[mycroft]

Directing is a very difficult job. Some are better, or less lazy, or prioritise X over Y than others. Oddly enough, the referees in my "casual work league" indoor soccer event weren't as good as the MSL ones, and sometimes even made practical rulings that might not have been book perfect. Shocker. Especially when the pay is "you get your game tonight for free, you can apologize to partner later."

 

Club directing (especially when you are also the club owner) is also a very difficult job. One where the technical legal requirements come at least third place. Which, when I started club directing, I didn't understand, and I'm still not great at. I still would never want to own a club. I guarantee the rulings would be right(er) as it died, though.

[pescetom]

I generally attribute it to a combination of ignorance (even if they read the Laws, they don't understand them fully), laziness, and utilitarianism (inexperienced players are likely to take more offense at what they perceive as an excessive penalty, and may be turned away from the game).

 

As my TD experience in clubs grows, I increasingly sympathise with mycroft here.

I don't agree with you that it is inexperienced players who are likely to take offence at what they perceive as an excessive penalty.

In my experience, inexperienced players expect penalties and are surprised they do not arrive, they are content if they can now learn what is right (that's the hard bit).

The players that take offence are those that have already got away with things for too long and now take it as a right.

[pigpenz]

Nicolas Hammond has listed all the illegal NT openings by players for acbl games.

this was done when he was running scripts for alleged cheating.

[pilowsky]

Nicolas Hammond has listed all the illegal NT openings by players for acbl games.

this was done when he was running scripts for alleged cheating.

 

It would be helpful if you could provide the reference as a hyperlink.

I need to see it as an official statement on ACBL letterhead before I believe it.

Is it a policy, protocol, or guideline (these are different things)?

[pigpenz]

it is not an ACBL linke but data culled by Nicolas Hammond's software for detecting cheating

here is the link to the statistics, just look in illegal nt openings.

 

https://www.detectingcheatinginbridge.com/statistics/index.html

[pilowsky]

it is not an ACBL linke but data culled by Nicolas Hammond's software for detecting cheating

here is the link to the statistics, just look in illegal nt openings.

 

https://www.detectin...tics/index.html

 

So to be clear, when you said "Nicolas Hammond has listed all the illegal NT openings by players for acbl games."

You did not mean (when you said "for ACBL game" that these are the illegal 1NT openings 'as specified by the ACBL' -

You just mean what Nicholas Hammond thinks is correct.

Would you be kind enough to provide the actual ACBL position so that I do not 'offend'.

Thank you.

[pigpenz]

I am not an ACBL employee or do i represent them. I used to be a District Recorder.

 

 

These are hands that were culled out by his software to find 1NT openings in acbl games that

were done with a singleton non AKorQ. It may also include deficit point also.

 

But it DOES NOT REPRESENT what Nicolas Hammond thinks it only shows what his software was able to dig out

of the acbl bbo online data.

 

Originally when his project started was the amount of people who underlead Aces in suit contracts. It was very interesting

that some pairs might have 40-60 hands where they did this out of 1000 hands. and had a success rate that was way too hight.

 

Iknow I used DDS to check out hands by Jeff Meckstroth and in 1 month he had 1200 hands and only underlead an ace once against a suit contract.

So its all about taking the available data and looking at it.

 

could only find this link

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/laws/LCSFM2019.pdf

 

if appears that there is a regulation but no remedy had been stipulated...it comes up in

#5....maybe they have updated it but i couldnt find it anymore.

[pilowsky]

Thanks for that. Perhaps someone that actually represents the ACBL and knows what the real situation is could answer the question.

 

When you say that 'I am not an ACBL employee" and then say that you used to be "a District Recorder" are you claiming to speak authoritatively for the ACBL or are you claiming plausible deniability.

 

If Hammond uses a tool to 'discover something' and then publishes it, that is exactly the definition of what he thinks. If he did not think it he would not have published it.

 

Possibly you do not have enough knowledge of how research works to be aware of this. I don't know.

 

I can provide a useful reference that explains what it means if you think that you know something but are unaware of all the possible meanings. Write to me personally if you would like a copy.

[hrothgar]

Thanks for that. Perhaps someone that actually represents the ACBL and knows what the real situation is could answer the question.

 

When you say that 'I am not an ACBL employee" and then say that you used to be "a District Recorder" are you claiming to speak authoritatively for the ACBL or are you claiming plausible deniability.

 

If Hammond uses a tool to 'discover something' and then publishes it, that is exactly the definition of what he thinks. If he did not think it he would not have published it.

 

Possibly you do not have enough knowledge of how research works to be aware of this. I don't know.

 

I can provide a useful reference that explains what it means if you think that you know something but are unaware of all the possible meanings. Write to me personally if you would like a copy.

 

ACBL officials have already (clearly) ruled what does / does not constitute a legal 1NT opening.

 

At the level of the Basic and Basic+ chart, the relevant clauses are:

 

1. What constitutes a natural 1NT opening bid

 

A NT opening bid or overcall that contains no voids, no more than one singleton, which must be an ace, king, or queen, and that does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined.

 

2. The following metadata

 

Bidding Agreements are disallowed unless they are specifically allowed. If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific High Card Point or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer High Card Points or a different shape. Note that almost all Agreements are allowed beginning with Responder’s initial action.

 

At the level of the Open Chart, the section on disallowed opening bids specific lists

 

4. *** A Natural 1NT opening bid that could contain fewer than 10 HCP.

5. *** A Natural 1NT opening bid that has a Range greater than 5 HCP.

6. A non-Forcing 1NT opening that does not meet the definition of Natural.

 

Simply put, the ACBL has already spoken authoritatively on this subject.

All that Hammond has done is automate detection routines to find cases in which various partnership

 

1. Opened 1NT with a stiff (not including the stiff A, K, or Q)

2. Opened 1NT with fewer than 10 HCPs (with some secondary logic around psychs)

 

I can provide a useful reference that explains the ACBL's convention regulations...

[pilowsky]

 

I can provide a useful reference that explains the ACBL's convention regulations...

 

Thank you - I always like to know what authorities think.

[mycroft]

Remember, of course:

• This applies to agreements. A bid is not illegal, only an agreement. When faced with evidence of an illegal agreement, it requires investigation to determine what is going on. Certainly, the onus can be put on the players if we wish; it's their job to prove they don't have that agreement, not ours to prove they do; but one swallow does not make a summer.
  
• The above especially applies in a L40A world. While you can't use "psych" to cover "we have an illegal agreement, so we'll claim all the evidence is psychic", you can in fact psych.
  
• I have at least 3 cases in my life (one partner, two opponents) of NT openings on a 7 or 8 card suit and a void. Guess whether that fit their agreement, or if there was another cause. Also, sometimes "I had a heart in my diamonds" is actually true.
  
• It has to be deliberate. "Yes, we have that agreement, it's perfectly legal where I play, I didn't know it wasn't here." while *wrong* and *won't deny redress*, is not cheating, unless they clearly avoided learning the rules (viz. several European pairs, and at least one American, playing Multi in pair games at NABCs in the last decade).

I have issues with the framing by Sr. Hammond. The bids are not illegal. On a site called "detecting cheating", that misphrasing is a problem. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be collecting and potentially publishing that information. When there's 5 or 6 by one player, that's certainly going to be a high barrier to climb attempting to prove they don't have this agreement, implicitly at least.

[hrothgar]

Remember, of course:

• [*]This applies to agreements. A bid is not illegal, only an agreement. When faced with evidence of an illegal agreement, it requires investigation to determine what is going on. Certainly, the onus can be put on the players if we wish; it's their job to prove they don't have that agreement, not ours to prove they do; but one swallow does not make a summer.

 

I think that you are wrong on this.

 

If I have an agreement that I am playing a 10 - 12 HCP NT opening than the ACBL has ruled that opening 1NT on a 5332 9 count is not a psych.

And therefore, if I were to open 1NT on said 9 count, the choice to make this bid itself is illegal.

 

In a similar vein, suppose that I am playing a 15 - 17 HCP 1NT opening

 

I decide to open 1N on

 

♠ J

♥ KQT9

♦ AQJT9

♣ KT9

 

Here, once again, the ACBL has regulations that this hand can not psych 1NT.

The choice to make this bid itself is illegal in and of itself.

 

1NT openings are really common.

Its quite easy to look at 100 or so hands and understand what the pair's agreements are (Especially if they are announcing their range as they are supposed to)

 

And, it's just as easy to use this information to rule out bids that are legitimate psychs under the new regulations.

[pilowsky]

It turns out that the concept of all 1NT openings played in ACBL competition is false. Although why should the Forum allow facts to get in the way of a good opinion?

I have just looked through the relevant documents on the ACBL website and here is what I discovered:

Rules and regulations

 

http://bit.ly/ACBLalert2021

http://bit.ly/ACBLlaws2017

http://bit.ly/ACBLcommentary2017

Commentary updated in 2019

 

In none of these documents is it stated that a 1NT opening with a particular shape is illegal.

 

Here are some pertinent quotes:

"LAW18 A. Proper Form

A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.)"

 

"Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of 1NT and an opening bid of one in a suit, which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership agreement. These two special partnership agreements are disallowed in all ACBL sanctioned events."

Nothing about shape here.

 

http://bit.ly/ACBLcharts2020

4. A Natural NT opening bid, as long as it shows at least 10 HCP and the Range is not greater than 5 HCP.

Again, nothing about shape.

It is possible that some people are confused because of the following information that I found in the Club Directors Handbook.

 

http://bit.ly/ACBLclubHandbook

If your notrump opening shows a balanced hand, you may occasionally pick up a hand with a singleton, which you may want to treat as balanced. You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that:

1. It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and,

2. Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and,

3. You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.

 

What this says is that it is only illegal IF you do it more than 1% of 1NT openings AND if you have an agreement aimed at working out whether or not the hand contains a singleton.

 

NOWHERE in any ACBL documents that I can find does it say:

A natural 1NT bid MUST contain etc.

 

I note that the rules were drawn up by the following committee:

The Laws Commission of the American Contract Bridge League

Chip Martel, Chairman

Adam Wildavsky,Vice Chairman

Peter Boyd

Eric Rodwell

Chris Compton

Rebecca Rogers

Allan Falk

Aaron Silverstein

Ron Gerard

Matt Smith

Robb Gordon

Roger Stern

Al Levy

Howard Weinstein

Matt Koltnow

www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/laws-commission/

 

It appears that the ACBL is systemically misogynistic.

As a person who grew up with a wife, two daughters, a mother and three sisters I find it disturbing that the rules are controlled by a small group with only one woman.

I'm pretty sure that women also play bridge. It is always my belief that in a situation where two people are arguing and one is a woman, then the woman is more likely to be right.

 

As Tony Fauci said (and any Doctor or person with scientific training will tell you). If you don't know the answer, just say "I don't know".

 

The ACBL also explains what humour is. And I quote:

"Humor

http://bit.ly/Humour1NT

A well-placed laugh can make it easier for your students to learn. It relaxes them and makes them more receptive to new information. The ideal time for a joke is when your class has been working hard and you need to break the tension a bit. In fact, there were a couple of lessons in this series where I found the need to tell TWO jokes. My class was working so hard on learning the new material. Yes, you can tell jokes – even if you've never been able to recall a punch line in the past, (trust me – I know this from personal experience). Write the joke down and review it before you tell it. Soon you will find yourself remembering jokes and being able to tell them in social circles. (I never would have believed it either.) Humor is very personal and a joke that one teacher is comfortable telling would embarrass another teacher, so it is wise to start a collection of jokes. Mark each one when you use it in a particular class. Don't be discouraged if some students find the joke the most important item in your lesson plan. I once had a student request the joke from a missed lesson but not the lesson sheet."

 

So, next time you are concerned about whether or not you are funny, check with the ACBL.

Remember though, it is important to collect your jokes and test them on others to make sure that they laugh, and that they DO NOT contain any singletons or voids. At least none that the audience can discover.

 

 

 

[hrothgar]

It turns out that the concept of all 1NT openings played in ACBL competition is false. Although why should the Forum allow facts to get in the way of a good opinion?

I have just looked through the relevant documents on the ACBL website and here is what I discovered:

Rules and regulations

 

http://bit.ly/ACBLalert2021

http://bit.ly/ACBLlaws2017

http://bit.ly/ACBLcommentary2017

Commentary updated in 2019

 

In none of these documents is it stated that a 1NT opening with a particular shape is illegal.

 

 

Has anyone else used the expression "all 1NT openings played in ACBL competition"?

(Because I think that you're inventing a straw man)

 

 

Regardless, perhaps you need to read the documents a bit more carefully.

 

First and foremost, the ACBL Convention Charts don't use the precise word "illegal" to describe any bid, so I'm not sure what to make of the point that the don't use it to describe a 1NT opening with a particular shape.

 

The Convention Charts do, however, include the following language

 

Under the definition of Natural

 

A NT opening bid or overcall that contains no voids, no more than one singleton, which must be an ace, king, or queen, and that does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined.

 

Please note: The definition of the word natural that is used in the ACBL Convention Charts is different than the definition of the word natural that appears in the Laws and (for the purpose of these documents) it supersedes the definition that appears in the Laws

 

The Basic and the Basic+ charts specifically state

 

Bidding Agreements are disallowed unless they are specifically allowed.

 

Furthermore, the Basic and Basic+ chart specifically permit

 

A Natural NT opening bid, as long as it shows at least 10 HCP and the Range is not greater than 5 HCP.

 

If you are playing in an event governed by the open chart, anything that isn't banned is permitted. However, the Open chart specifically bans

 

6. A non-Forcing 1NT opening that does not meet the definition of Natural.

 

Note that this bans you from playing a non forcing 1NT opening that might show a 5-5-2-1 or a 7-3-2-1 shape.

 

So, while the Convention Charts might not specifically use the word "a 1NT opening with a 5-5-2-1 shape is illegal", you are not permitted to open this by agreement.

 

Note: It is certainly true that one could play a strong artificial and forcing 1NT opening that could be made on 5-5-2-1 shape, but that's not what's being discussed here.

[hrothgar]

 

It is possible that some people are confused because of the following information that I found in the Club Directors Handbook.

 

http://bit.ly/ACBLclubHandbook

If your notrump opening shows a balanced hand, you may occasionally pick up a hand with a singleton, which you may want to treat as balanced. You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that:

1. It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and,

2. Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and,

3. You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.

 

What this says is that it is only illegal IF you do it more than 1% of 1NT openings AND if you have an agreement aimed at working out whether or not the hand contains a singleton.

 

 

It is possible that Pillowky is confused because he doesn't know that the ACBL Club Handbook wasn't updated to accord with the most recent set of changes to the Convention Charts. (And that the regulations surrounding 1NT openings changed dramatically when the Convention Charts got overhauled a couple years back)

 

Seems like there is some old saying about cases like this...

 

'A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing' or some such

[pilowsky]

It is possible that Pillowky is confused because he doesn't know that the ACBL Club Handbook wasn't updated to accord with the most recent set of changes to the Convention Charts. (And that the regulations surrounding 1NT openings changed dramatically when the Convention Charts got overhauled a couple years back)

 

Seems like there is some old saying about cases like this...

 

'A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing' or some such

 

It is possible that Willey needs to drink some more Pierian spring water.

Mr Willey appears to be intoxicated by "shallow draughts".

 

 

Players play by the rules that are published.

Not what Mr Willey thinks they are.

 

The ACBL very carefully defines what a NT bid is - it does NOT include anything about shape.

 

[hrothgar]

It is possible that Willey needs to drink some more Pierian spring water.

Mr Willey appears to be intoxicated by "shallow draughts".

 

 

Players play by the rules that are published.

Not what Mr Willey thinks they are.

 

The ACBL very carefully defines what a NT bid is - it does NOT include anything about shape.

 

How ***** stupid are you??

 

What do you think the expression "does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined" means?

 

This is clearly a description about shape.

It is how the ACBL choses to define a balanced / semi balanced hand.

 

However, if you don't believe me, feel free to post over on Bridge Winners

Danny Sprung and several other members of the ACBL Conventions Committee post there regularly and are happy to answer questions.

[pilowsky]

Thank you for your helpful reply, Mr Willey.

Is 'Bridgewinners' the official spokesperson for the ACBL?

When you make statements that purport to be authoritative, please provide an actual reference.

This is not an elementary school playground.

Your behaviour may be acceptable in your workplace, but it is not acceptable to me.

 

Do you speak this way to everyone?

[hrothgar]

Do you speak this way to everyone?

 

No, I don't. Most of my conversations on the forum are polite.

But you're "special". You don't deserve respect.

I have nothing but contempt for you and I treat you accordingly.

 

Thank you for your helpful reply, Mr Willey.

Is 'Bridgewinners' the official spokesperson for the ACBL?

 

I am going to repeat what I wrote in my previous reply in the hopes it might actual penetrate your thick skull this time around

 

Danny Sprung and several other members of the ACBL Conventions Committee post there regularly and are happy to answer questions.

 

You asked for an authoritative source.

I would think that the folks who wrote the actual convention are qualified to speak as to what it means.

 

When you make statements that purport to be authoritative, please provide an actual reference.

 

I have provided an authoritative reference on multiple occasions

 

The ACBL Convention Chart defines a natural NT opening as

 

h. A NT opening bid or overcall that contains no voids, no more than one singleton, which must be an ace, king, or queen, and that does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined.

 

And you consistently ignore this

 

If you prefer, here's an entire thread on Bridge Winners discussing whether or not the ACBL rules banning people from opening 1NT with a small singleton is a good idea or not.

 

It's a long thread.

Close to 400 replies went back and forth.

Large numbers of expert players and top level pros expressing their opinions.

There was considerable disagreement about whether or not this is a good regulation or a bad regulations.

 

But everyone (or almost everyone) was in agreement that the regulation in question placed restrictions on shape.

 

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/effect-of-the-recent-acbl-rules-about-opening-1nt-with-a-singleton/

[helene_t]

But you're "special". You don't deserve respect.

I have nothing but contempt for you and I treat you accordingly.

Hey Richard,

 

Paul didn't quote QAnon or anything, he just voiced his opinion about some bridge issue.

 

It's just a game. Well, actually, it's not even about a game, it's just about some weird regulations of some weird organisation in some obscure country on the other side of the Pacific.

 

Live and let live.

[mycroft]

Remember, of course:

• [*]This applies to agreements. A bid is not illegal, only an agreement. When faced with evidence of an illegal agreement, it requires investigation to determine what is going on. Certainly, the onus can be put on the players if we wish; it's their job to prove they don't have that agreement, not ours to prove they do; but one swallow does not make a summer.

I think that you are wrong on this.

 

If I have an agreement that I am playing a 10 - 12 HCP NT opening than the ACBL has ruled that opening 1NT on a 5332 9 count is not a psych.

And therefore, if I were to open 1NT on said 9 count, the choice to make this bid itself is illegal.

Yes, and they've said that opening 1♠ in third seat with AKxxx x xxxx xxx is not a psych either (unless you're playing Roth-Stone, I guess - good luck proving that). That's because they're not going to allow you to use "judgement" to bid something that, were it your agreement, would be illegal. That is, in fact, what I said in the quote - it requires investigation, and the onus is on the player to disprove the "illegal agreement" assertion.

 

Two things, though. It's not legal or illegal bid, it's legal or illegal agreement, with the evidence being the bid. And you're "excluded middle"ing here. It's not "psych or agreement", that excludes all the other potential deviations.

 

In a similar vein, suppose that I am playing a 15 - 17 HCP 1NT opening

 

I decide to open 1N on

 

♠ J

♥ KQT9

♦ AQJT9

♣ KT9

 

Here, once again, the ACBL has regulations that this hand can not psych 1NT.

I would agree with the regulators; this isn't a psychic - a "deliberate and gross deviation from agreement". I would say that it was if anything a minor deviation, and one which, if deliberate, is "an illegal agreement if it weren't judgement"[1]. Again, the bid will be ruled against as "illegal agreement", but the bid itself is not illegal; the infraction is "violation of the convention regulations".

 

The choice to make this bid itself is illegal in and of itself.

Correct. But the bid is not. I can even prove it:

 

J9 KQT9 AQJT9 KT. I open 1NT (holding real cards). I put my hand down to write in the contract, pick it up and resort, and it's the hand you give. The director may or may not believe me (and it would depend on how many such mistakes I've made, to my benefit, in the last year or so), but it's not a psychic, it's not evidence of an illegal agreement, it's not judgement; it's a misbid, and it's legal. As I said, the onus is on me to prove that that is what happened, and I might be ruled against if I can't prove it to her satisfaction, but in this case it was perfectly legal.

 

1NT openings are really common.

Its quite easy to look at 100 or so hands and understand what the pair's agreements are (Especially if they are announcing their range as they are supposed to)

 

And, it's just as easy to use this information to rule out bids that are legitimate psychs under the new regulations.

I am 100% in agreement with this (except that I would think that 1NT "openings" on these kinds of "I want to play an illegal agreement" probably require 1000 or so hands - they aren't as common as Natural 1NT hands). And I encourage N.H. to collect this information, and publish it. And those that have 2 or more of these? Worth investigating - look at other, similar hands, and see if they were opened not-1NT. All I had an issue with - and have an issue with here - is calling the bid illegal. Bids can't be illegal (okay, 8♣, fifth consecutive pass, doubling partner, insufficient,... sue me), and we can't know that a violation of the rule on Natural 1NT opening is illegal judgement/agreement/whatever. We can and should assume it as base case, and require the player to convince us we're wrong - and penalize them if they don't. We can look at the people with 5 or 6 of these, and assume they're doing it deliberately, and investigate whether they knew what they were doing was wrong, and suspend them if they were - especially if it was magically "always safe" when they did (especially with a small stiff major!)

 

I realize I'm making a big deal over a small matter of legal terminology. But it's a critical small matter, given that what the regulators are dealing with is 50 years of "I want to play this way, and these people won't let me. So I'll play it the right way, and tell everybody I'm playing it the legal way, 'using judgement'. And then claim that my judgement is clearly better than the directors enforcing the regulations, or the people creating them, or that regulations are for little people, we experts just 'play bridge'." There's a term for people who deliberately choose to break the rules, in their favour, knowing that they're doing so. There's another term for people who don't believe the rules apply to them, because they're too good or too rich or too important. I would like to believe that that term is "Suspended" or "Expelled".

 

[1] The quote, on the Open charts, is "If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific High Card Point or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer High Card Points or a different shape." On the Basic charts, it's the equivalent, given the obvious "allowed" vs "disallowed". Allow me some shorting in the discussion, if you would.

[mycroft]

If you want an online version, swap the suits: ♠AKT9 ♥J♦T 95 ♣AKT96. "But sir, I've set my settings to 'show cards, show SHDC.' I apologize, I misread it."

[blackshoe]

Certainly, the onus can be put on the players if we wish; it's their job to prove they don't have that agreement, not ours to prove they do

Where, pray tell, do you find this in the law book?