Illegal NT opening

[pilowsky]

Chess has no problem with concealed agreements between players.

 

Concealed agreements are not the issue here.

Banning certain unconcealed agreements is the problem.

 

 

[pran]

Concealed agreements are not the issue here.

Banning certain unconcealed agreements is the problem.

Concealed agreements are one of the main reasons for complicated and controversional Bridge regulations, a problem unknown in Chess.

 

Banning certain agreements is a matter of regulation and is indeed the problem making Bridge less accessible than for instance Chess.

[pilowsky]

Concealed agreements are one of the main reasons for complicated and controversional Bridge regulations, a problem unknown in Chess.

 

Banning certain agreements is a matter of regulation and is indeed the problem making Bridge less accessible than for instance Chess.

 

That's exactly my point.

The two games are similar in many ways. It could be argued that a Bridge hand is equivalent to solving an endgame problem in Chess.

The relative merits of the games are not what concerns me. They are both excellent in different ways.

One thing that chess definitely lacks is dozens of jurisdictions where some of them outlaw playing d4 as an opening because it is too hard for beginners to cope with.

Chess also doesn't have the DOP adjudicating the game if one of the players loses their internet connection.

Just because you can see all the pieces does not mean that everything is easy.

The imperfect information component of the game of Bridge has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

We (me anyway) are questioning the bizarre need to have multiple jurisdictional rules that make the game transcendentally difficult to play across borders in a time when borders for games like Bridge, Chess and Go are evaporating faster than (insert metaphor here).

 

[sanst]

Last night after reading this thread, I went onto LiChess. It's the second-ranked platform, and right now, there are >80,000 players online with ~35,000 games in play. BBO is the biggest Bridge platform and has only ~26,000 players at ~6000 tables.

Stepbridge, internet bridge club of the Dutch bridge union, has over 30.000 members and has grown considerably during the pandemic.

[pilowsky]

Stepbridge, internet bridge club of the Dutch bridge union, has over 30.000 members and has grown considerably during the pandemic.

 

Are the 30,000 active at the same time? Day and night?

I also play on Stepbridge (Australia) it runs about 5-10 tournaments a day with about 100 players per session.

Like other Stepbridges, it is run under the local rules with local directors.

I estimate it to be Australia's busiest local club.

Still nowhere near BBO and nothing like chess.

Recognising the existence of a problem is the first step to fixing it.

In general estimates of activity based on membership are flawed because many players register with multiple clubs/jurisdictions.

The online numbers I quoted are likely an underestimate because they were a snapshot during daytime in Sydney when the world sleeps.

[barmar]

Venue? OP is in Ohio, so I infer from that and the fact he consistently neglects to mention who the RA is that the RA is ACBL. Which chart?

The thread subtitle says "2/1 ACBL".

[barmar]

If the player, for whatever reason, decided that they should bid 1NT with the hand we see, then unless it's Forcing, they've made an illegal deviation (almost certainly, "evidence of implied (and illegal) agreement".

The only "illegal deviation" is psyching an artificial opening bid. Since 1NT is not artificial, this is an allowed psychic bid.

 

So we have to determine whether the partnership actually has an agreement to open 1NT with hands like this. If not, the player has simply psyched. Ideally we should record this, so we can determine if this partnership does it often enough to create an implicit agreement.

 

But if we only have this one hand as evidence, nothing illegal has been done.

[blackshoe]

The thread subtitle says "2/1 ACBL".

So it does. My bad. Open Chart?

[mycroft]

The only "illegal deviation" is psyching an artificial opening bid. Since 1NT is not artificial, this is an allowed psychic bid.

Disagree - in the ACBL. This is not considered a psychic (which would, in fact, be legal). A psychic must *grossly misstate* the agreement. This is only a minor deviation, usually considered "use of judgement".

 

Quoting the Open chart: "If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific ... shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with ... a different shape." The Basic charts have a similar line, converted to "allowed" rather than disallowed.

 

The relevant disallowed section: "6. A non-Forcing 1NT opening that does not meet the definition of Natural."

 

The charts have been deliberately and clearly written to avoid these slippery slope arguments, including "psychs" that fit the agreement the players want to play, knowing that their desired agreement is not legal. Players in the ACBL have been doing this to skirt the regulations for 60 years, and the C&C committee is tired of the arguments. They simply say that this is evidence of an illegal agreement, and we rule against it - if it was deliberate. As I said before, if opener thought he held ♣KT instead of ♠K♣T, that's a misbid and legal.

 

So we have to determine whether the partnership actually has an agreement to open 1NT with hands like this.

No, no longer, we don't. The fact that South thought this was an acceptable 1NT opener "determines" their actual agreement for us.

 

*: Okay, if it was a 6+ board round on the Open+ chart, they get to have this agreement. It is Alertable.

[blackshoe]

No, no longer, we don't. The fact that South thought this was an acceptable 1NT opener "determines" their actual agreement for us.

I know that's the official position. I also know it's bullshit.

[mycroft]

Please explain. Especially given what is legal for RAs to do - which is "effectively anything, including 'single-card' games."

 

Also, please explain your answer to the "oh we just psyched" or "yeah, it was my judgement to upgrade" to *wherever you think it's right to put the limit" - unless you're good with no limits. Because whatever you set, there'll be someone who thinks their Holy Freedom to "bid like a real expert, not these stupid rules limiting Good Judgement" supersedes.

 

Because the real answer is that whatever excuses they make why they should be allowed to break the rules are just that. They think they should be allowed to break the rules. But of course, the rules they're not interested in breaking are good and justified, and others who break those need to be punished.

[pilowsky]

Please explain. Especially given what is legal for RAs to do - which is "effectively anything, including 'single-card' games."

 

Also, please explain your answer to the "oh we just psyched" or "yeah, it was my judgement to upgrade" to *wherever you think it's right to put the limit" - unless you're good with no limits. Because whatever you set, there'll be someone who thinks their Holy Freedom to "bid like a real expert, not these stupid rules limiting Good Judgement" supersedes.

 

Because the real answer is that whatever excuses they make why they should be allowed to break the rules are just that. They think they should be allowed to break the rules. But of course, the rules they're not interested in breaking are good and justified, and others who break those need to be punished.

 

Or as MLK said:

An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.

This does not mean that a law is a 'good' law and can never be changed it only means everyone must follow it.

Some laws are silly and need to be changed.

The laws that allow us to pollute the Earth until we are all dead for the sake of the economy is a fine example.

Laws that disenfranchise certain groups in a population are another.

I'm not arguing that the rules of Bridge fall into the same category but many of them appear to exist for the entertainment of Directors and not to enhance the enjoyment of the players.

The singleton rule that discriminates against certain honours appears to be one.

On what basis does a committee decide that a particular rule should exist? What flame do they hold it up to?

 

[mycroft]

I guarantee you that the convention charts are not for the enjoyment of the Directors. In fact, I don't believe there were any directors on the committee (review and advise, yes, both officially and, in my case, very unofficially). They are explicitly what the committee and the board of directors (no working TDs on there, either, by by-law) think the players want. And they took a huge risk with the Open chart, one that many still think is way too much of a jump (hence the 3000 MP level for Basic+). A successful one, all things considered, even if there's a lot of criticism from both ends. They have just got tired of the perennial "but what about mah Holy Judgement?" (to play a system that if we admitted to what we actually were doing, would be illegal, and we know it. But that's stupid, so, I'm gonna figure out how I don't have to follow it).

 

Is the regulation what I would want? No. Is it a move forward from "unless you're a pro or have 10000 MPs, you're stuck in the '70s, at least if you want to play your system more than twice a year"? Yes. Did they draw some lines in the sand that were controversial? Hell yes. And some of them are parochial in ways so obvious you can put a name to them. But we have some people who are not driven from the game by limitations, and some people who are not driven from the game by the "they just play this to confuse us" people, because they followed the path they did.

 

As far as the rules around 1NT openers are concerned, there was a hard line drawn at 10 HCP. There was a hard line drawn at "4441 isn't 'balanced', and we're not allowing systems that require it to be." (caveat mentioned twice already applies) That same line says that (A-2)55s aren't balanced either. They knew already that if they allowed that, then 0454 was next because "surely it's no different than the singleton 2?" There was a hard line drawn at 5 HCP inclusive ranges, because those that used to play wider than that (or two-way) either "needed help" to resolve the range, or failed to disclose what was actually going on ("13-17, but almost always 13-15. If 16 or 17, will be [something strange]"), or were playing "pro ranges" ("Your NT is 15-17. My NT is 13-18." - Helen Sobel Smith, many years ago when it was in fact legal to do this). I don't agree with all of this, but I can see it, and I don't think it's *wrong*.

 

I will say, as both a director and a player, that the current "it can have a singleton AK or Q" is much easier to understand, and much better accepted, by the "average club player" than the old "balanced means 'no singleton or void'. But we all know there are hands that look balanced, even with a singleton, and we won't rule against people who do that, as long as there's no agreement and it's not expected by partner" nonsense we used to have. And trying to say "well the T is *basically the same* as the Q, right?" is the first step back to those bad old days, just with a different line that "occasionally gets crossed, not that we've ever talked about it or noticed when partner did it, oh no"...

[Trinidad]

No, no longer, we don't. The fact that South thought this was an acceptable 1NT opener "determines" their actual agreement for us.

I know that's the official position. I also know it's bullshit.

I agree with you as a basic principle: The combination of a hand and a call, does not mean that the partnership has agreed to that meaning of a call. As an example: if someone is stuck in a slam auction and "makes up" a control showing cuebid of 4♣ to get the information he wants then you won't hear me when the player says that he was stuck, made up the bid, eventhough he didn't have a control, but that he couldn't figure out a better bid at the table.

 

However, for auctions that come up often, I think that the automatic assumption that this was not the first time and, therefore, there is an (implicit) agreement is entirely reasonable. After all, we do not need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that an agreement exists. We need to weight the evidence. The evidence is: This situation (a 4441 distribution in the 1NT strength range) comes up often. The player thought that his action (opening 1NT) described the hand best. It is unlikely that he didn't think that the previous time that he had this hand type and won't think that the next time he has it. Therefore, the evidence points to an agreement. And we rule based on that. The ruling will be wrong only if it really was the first time. All the other times, it is the correct ruling.

 

Better than having individual TDs rule in cases like this, is to have the RA spell it out, so that individual TDs don't need to struggle with this.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

You know, if you're going to paint anyone who objects to the convention charts as some kind of Bad Person™ there's not much point in discussing it.

 

However' date=' for auctions that come up often, I think that the automatic assumption that this was not the first time and, therefore, there is an (implicit) agreement is entirely reasonable.[/quote']

If it's a long term regular partnership, maybe. New partnership, or even one that's been playing for a month or so, I disagree.

[mycroft]

What is your reasoning for "I chose to make a call I know would be illegal if we did have this agreement with a new partner"?

 

I deviated from "normal" - not grossly, just a little bit - in a way that I know isn't permitted by blackletter regulation in this game. But of course, that's okay because it wasn't an agreement?

 

Whether I like this regulation or not; whether I think the line's in the right place or not; whether I think the ACBL rank and file would have been comfortable with, say, the EBU regulations on this, if it had been brought in as a "new rule" instead of the one we have - is all beside the point. How do the regulators say "this far and no further, if you want to use judgement, don't play right to the line"? And if the answer is "they don't", where do you suggest they put the line so that players can use judgement, and still not be "this far and no further"? Again, I'm not saying anything about where they put the line. But either there's a way, or there's no line. I'm not usually impressed with slippery slope arguments, but this one has 60 years of experience showing that *every* attempt will be pushed.

 

And given that I have dealt with, in a NABC+ event, the backlash of some of that pushing - that happened before I was able to hold cards - I'm not saying this from the "ACBL's Correct Bidding Lessons" bench.

[mikl_plkcc]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak74hk832daj65ct&w=s9hajdq7ckqj98542&n=sj862ht976d832c73&e=sqt53hq54dkt94ca6&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1n3cppdp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

 

South opened 1NT with a singleton in clubs. The bidding continued as posted.

 

When dummy came I called the director pointing out that S opened 1 NT with only 1 club witch was not A or K

 

E/W can make 3NT

 

South is a former director before COVID entered the picture [stated he didn't know that rule. which I do not believe he didn't know]

 

 

What should the ruling be for the illegal bid????

 

 

Thank you

 

1. Was the 1NT bid announced "may contain a singleton"?

2. What's the agreement?

 

I believe some pairs choose to play 1NT bid as "15-17, may contain a singleton" in order to deal with these hands, and under such cases this is the correct bid.

[blackshoe]

Two things:

 

1. The fact that someone makes a particular bid with a particular hand does not mean that the pair has a partnership understanding to do so, except in some very specific cases in the ACBL, by fiat (I don't agree with the ACBL's approach, but it is what it is).

2. Per ACBL regs, a NT opening is Natural if it contains not more than nine cards in two suits combined, no void and not more than one singleton, which must be an Ace, King, or Queen. Note that the wording is "NT opening" so it applies equally to openings at the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 level. Even so, the open and open+ charts do not disallow NT openings at the 2 level or higher that do not meet the definition of "Natural" here.

2a. On the Open Chart, a non-forcing 1NT opening that is not Natural is not permitted. So an agreement to open 1NT on the hand in question (singleton ♣10) would be disallowed.

 

The question then is whether "shape" in this case refers to "one singleton" or to "one singleton which must be the Ace, King, or Queen". To my mind, which card is the singleton has nothing to do with shape, but I would not be surprised if the ACBL disagrees. The Charts all have similar wording on this subject. On the Open Chart 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." If an agreement to open 1NT on a hand with a singleton 10 falls afoul of this, then a player opening with such a hand is considered to have an agreement to do so, whether the pair actually does have such an agreement or not.

 

Outside the ACBL, you can have an agreement to open 1NT with any singleton in most (all, afaik) places.

[pescetom]

 

If it's a long term regular partnership, maybe. New partnership, or even one that's been playing for a month or so, I disagree.

 

I think this is another of the many issues Bridge will have to deal with before it becomes a serious game.

New partnerships between experienced players should be held to higher levels of scrutiny than usual, not lower levels.

Imagine a new MotoGP pilot who wipes out half the bunch on the first bend and says "yeah, I discovered you can't just close the gas on a Ducati like I was used to on a Honda".

You haven't discussed anything? Play this written agreement, and pay the price when you get it wrong.

You can't follow it? Play this simpler one, or stay out of real competition until you're both ready.

[pran]

Two things:

 

1. The fact that someone makes a particular bid with a particular hand does not mean that the pair has a partnership understanding to do so, except in some very specific cases in the ACBL, by fiat (I don't agree with the ACBL's approach, but it is what it is).

2. Per ACBL regs, a NT opening is Natural if it contains not more than nine cards in two suits combined, no void and not more than one singleton, which must be an Ace, King, or Queen. Note that the wording is "NT opening" so it applies equally to openings at the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 level. Even so, the open and open+ charts do not disallow NT openings at the 2 level or higher that do not meet the definition of "Natural" here.

2a. On the Open Chart, a non-forcing 1NT opening that is not Natural is not permitted. So an agreement to open 1NT on the hand in question (singleton ♣10) would be disallowed.

 

The question then is whether "shape" in this case refers to "one singleton" or to "one singleton which must be the Ace, King, or Queen". To my mind, which card is the singleton has nothing to do with shape, but I would not be surprised if the ACBL disagrees. The Charts all have similar wording on this subject. On the Open Chart 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." If an agreement to open 1NT on a hand with a singleton 10 falls afoul of this, then a player opening with such a hand is considered to have an agreement to do so, whether the pair actually does have such an agreement or not.

 

Outside the ACBL, you can have an agreement to open 1NT with any singleton in most (all, afaik) places.

I believe the 'problem' with singletons could easily be avoided by rephrasing the clause to: no void and not more than one singleton which in case must be an Ace, King, or Queen.

 

(Note the simple addition of 'in case')

[pescetom]

I believe the 'problem' with singletons could easily be avoided by rephrasing the clause to: no void and not more than one singleton which in case must be an Ace, King, or Queen.

 

(Note the simple addition of 'in case')

 

As Blackshoe says, the real issue is whether there is any good reason to limit the singleton to AKQ in the first place.

Italy (for instance) has no 'problem' with a singleton of any rank.

And we're talking about an RA that disallows a 6-card major, unlike some others.

[blackshoe]

What is your reasoning for "I chose to make a call I know would be illegal if we did have this agreement with a new partner"?

 

I deviated from "normal" - not grossly, just a little bit - in a way that I know isn't permitted by blackletter regulation in this game. But of course, that's okay because it wasn't an agreement?

 

Whether I like this regulation or not; whether I think the line's in the right place or not; whether I think the ACBL rank and file would have been comfortable with, say, the EBU regulations on this, if it had been brought in as a "new rule" instead of the one we have - is all beside the point. How do the regulators say "this far and no further, if you want to use judgement, don't play right to the line"? And if the answer is "they don't", where do you suggest they put the line so that players can use judgement, and still not be "this far and no further"? Again, I'm not saying anything about where they put the line. But either there's a way, or there's no line. I'm not usually impressed with slippery slope arguments, but this one has 60 years of experience showing that *every* attempt will be pushed.

 

And given that I have dealt with, in a NABC+ event, the backlash of some of that pushing - that happened before I was able to hold cards - I'm not saying this from the "ACBL's Correct Bidding Lessons" bench.

The ultimate end of this would seem to be "you may not use judgment, period".

[mycroft]

Well, yes, that's the "single card" game. But the ACBL has (carefully?) limited it to "we're giving you a fair bit of leeway from 'what we want/what people expect'; that is to allow you to use judgement with normal agreements and not cross the line. If you have chosen to play right to the line - you've already used your judgement." I don't think that's heading to an "ultimate end".

 

If it weren't for the 60 years of people "using judgement" to play over the line set (however stupid that line may be), I'd argue that that's draconian.

 

I mean, in this particular instance, they tried saying "you can't agree to open 1NT without two cards in each suit. But we all know, there are those hands that look like 4432 even though they're not, so we will allow you to use reasonable judgement." for decades, and all that happened was that a) all the punters were screaming "you can't bid 1NT with a singleton!" (and being very upset when the director let them); b) "reasonable judgement" started being "of course 7 AKT4 KJ95 KQ87 is 'balanced', and it's stupid to open anything but 1NT 15-17 with it"; c) people created systems that either required 4441s to be opened 1NT or had systemic responses that showed it, thus taking it from "judgement" to " 'implied' agreement" (implied only because they never told the opponents about this "obvious" part of their system.

 

And there are certainly a bunch of lines that I think are wrongly drawn (it used to be that 10-12 NT was an effective weapon because you took the entire 1 level away from the opponents, on hands that most of the room was passing. Now nobody passes 40% of the 10-12 balanced hands, the more expert the game gets, the more get opened, and if said experts are playing Precision...! So, clearly, if the bottom of a "normal" 1 bid has dropped a point and a half from 1980, we should be able to drop the bottom of a 1NT opener, yes? Plus the "10-12 is easy enough for the Basic Chart, but 9-12 is too hard for World Champions") But experience has shown that wherever the line is drawn, if you let them get a toe over, they'll take a foot.

 

Whether I think the "must be balanced" nature of 1NT openings is a line wrongly drawn - is a good question. Irrelevant, but a good question.

[axman]

As Blackshoe says, the real issue is whether there is any good reason to limit the singleton to AKQ in the first place.

Italy (for instance) has no 'problem' with a singleton of any rank.

And we're talking about an RA that disallows a 6-card major, unlike some others.

 

I'm not sure what is the real issue. My thinking is that the restriction to 15 words for auction communication is a satisfactory constraint. To further constrain what might be done with those words is an unsatisfactory restraint, particularly since such restraints favor some players in order to disfavor other players. It is by judgment that lacunas in one's method of communication are resolved for better or worse. Such judgment comprises bridge and it is better that it not be restrained.

[Gilithin]

The ultimate end of this would seem to be "you may not use judgment, period".

Better: "You may use judgement but you have to disclose what you actually play". In many countries, you have to alert/announce an opening 1NT call with something like "possible singleton". As long as this is actually disclosed, what is the problem?

 

As others have pointed out, the real issue is banning certain logical agreements that many pairs would like to be able to use. Thus they do it anyway and (illegally) fail to disclose saying it is a deviation. This in turn causes the lawmakers to ban the deviation. The answer is to fix the original issue, the banned agreement, rather than applying a band aid to the mess that that regulation creates.

 

In terms of why the regulations exist, this actually comes from the top in the US. Many American experts have complained about having to face unfamiliar methods and consider it to be "guerrilla tactics" or even a form of "germ warfare". Their argument runs that these foreign pairs use a method once and then switch to keep the Americans from becoming familiar with them. Meanwhile the Americans have to learn a new defence for each method. It is a little like a chess player complaining that their opponents keep coming up with opening novelties meaning that they have to think about the position rather than being able to keep playing "book" moves to get the position they want.

 

Probably the best equivalence of ACBL regulations in chess though is that white may only open with 1. e4 (natural) or 1. d4 (strong ♣) and gambits (unusual preempts) may not be played for the first 4 moves. While computer chess works quite well with enforced openings, it is highly unpopular with human chess players. Why bridge authorities think the equivalent should be used for their game is beyond me. If players using unusual methods do not fully disclose, by all means throw the book at them. As long as the disclosure is complete though, let them play what they want!