[CSGibson]

jillybean, on 2012-October-31, 16:55, said:

Ok, help me understand this! Is it illegal/legal to open 1nt with a singleton under ACBL regulations when;

1. You have discussed opening 1nt with a singleton A or K and have done so once or twice.
2. You have discussed opening 1nt with a singleton A or K but have never done so.
3. As a pro you recommend to your client that they open 1nt with a singleton Ace or King.
4. You have never discussed opening 1nt with a singleton but have done so once or twice.

Chris, I am impressed that you can remember your last 100+ nt openings and that less than 1 of these contained a singleton.
I would perhaps remember if any of my last 20-30 1nt openings contained a singleton, but not the last 100.
I would be interested to know the results of a simulation - how frequent is a 15-17 hand with a stiff A or K?

First of all, its not the most recent 100 NT openings, its that you average approximately 1 per 100 nt openings at most. I can tell you that is definitely true.

2nd, I always discuss my opening/rebid style with partner, including what hands I am likely to have when I open 1N with a stiff. I do not have the agreement that I will always open those hands 1N, just warned partner that it is possible that I will use my judgement in those situations. In fact, one of the things I discuss with partner is that they should always assume I have a balanced hand type when responding to 1N; if I have deviated from that, then I will take the blame for a bad result. I also discuss when I am likely to rebid a 3 card suit, and when I am likely to overcall or open a 4 card major. The reason I discuss those is not to prepare partner, or to come to an agreement that is possible, but in general to get partner's opinion of those actions so I don't upset him or her when they occur.

As long as we don't have methods to determine when that has happened, as long as its not required to make those bids, and as long as we do so at most 1 time in 100 when we make those calls, it is all right to do so is my interpretation of the rules - and its an interpretation that has been deemed appropriate by the ACBL in their literature, and by the tournament directors that I have discussed this with.

As far as I know, it is legal to open 1N with a stiff A or K in all of your scenerios, as long as you don't do so more than 1 in 100 NT openings, and as long as you have no systemic way to differentiate between that opening and any other.

If you don't have a good memory for when you have deviated from expected agreements, then statistically it should be possible to calculate how frequent a 1N opening in any range is, and then compare it to the frequency that you are dealt hand patterns in which you would potentially decide to open 1N with a stiff A or K that are also in the NT point range. I think if you do so, you will find that the opportunity to do so within those specific rules is less than 1 in 100, and that in the majority of those hands, another auction would be more frequent.

[mycroft]

kgr, on 2012-October-31, 11:51, said:

Question: Is it illegal in ACBL at any level to open 1NT and explain it as "15-17, not the usual balanced because will often have a singleton" and have follow-ups to discover the singleton?
(seems like system are more restricted in ACBL than in Europe?)

Absolutely, and yes, by and large, but with amazing exceptions.

In no ACBL-sanctioned game, including the Spingold Final, may you have an *agreement* to open 1NT with a singleton, and bids that investigate a potential singleton are <i>prima facie</i> evidence of that agreement.

[EDIT: this is wrong. See below. Illegal on the GCC, though]

[CarlRitner]

mycroft, on 2012-November-01, 17:40, said:

Absolutely, and yes, by and large, but with amazing exceptions.

In no ACBL-sanctioned game, including the Spingold Final, may you have an *agreement* to open 1NT with a singleton, and bids that investigate a potential singleton are <i>prima facie</i> evidence of that agreement.

May a 1NT opening ever be artificial, assuming agreements that include unbalanced shapes?

[blackshoe]

CarlRitner, on 2012-November-01, 18:13, said:

May a 1NT opening ever be artificial, assuming agreements that include unbalanced shapes?

Yes.

Quote

General Convention Chart, allowed under opening bids: FORCING 1NT OPENING BID (15+ HCPs) indicating a strong hand, balanced or unbalanced.

One such bid is the Dynamic NT, a cornerstone of the Romex system (either balanced 19-20 with six controls, or unbalanced 18-21 or so, at least 5, usually 6 controls, 4-5 losers (basically, a hand which in standard or 2/1 would reverse or jump shift, and some which might open 2♣)).

[jillybean]

I have obviously misunderstood ACBL's rules on 1nt openings, as others I have talked with about this have.

It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time), Your partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.

So, we can agree to open 1nt with a singleton (A,K, or what ever we agree to) as long as we have no methods to discover the singleton.


Can someone please explain how "Your partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit" is met when we have agreed to open 1nt with a singleton ?
If we agree to open all 15-17 hands, or all 15-17 with a stiff A or K 1nt, will we run a foul of the "no more than 1% of the time" rule, how frequently do these 15-17 hands with a singleton occur?

[CSGibson]

Let's do a simple excercise.

You would definitely open 1N with 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2 shapes. You might open 1N with 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 shapes, especially if the longest suit is a minor. So 3 full shapes, and let's generously call it 40% of the other two.

Of the shapes you might open 1N with a singleton, 4-4-4-1 and 5-4-3-1 have to be the most prevalent. If you never open 1N with a singleton A or K in a major, that is half of those shapes. If you would only open the 5-4-3-1 shapes when you have 1-5 in the minors, that is about 17% of that hand pattern. Further restricting the hand types so that the singleton has to be the A or K reduces those numbers by 2/13. If you want to look up the frequency tables and get the exact percentages for various hand types, I'm sure you can do the calculations at this point.

I think what you will come up with is that you can't have the agreement to open all stiff A or K in the minors when those preconditions are met, and I would not want to. I don't think anyone has advocated treating all hands of that type balanced. But if you chose to open about 40% of those hands 1N (something I personally am well under), then I think you are still on the right side of the law.

For the record, I tried to hit reply and got reputation for your last post, Kathryn, but it was certainly an accident, because it strikes me as being obstinate at this point. I don't think anyone has said that they should open all hands with a stiff A or K in the minor 1N if it falls in the range/appropriate shape. I think in the ACBL that would be illegal.

And I will tell you how the partner will expect you to have 2 - you have the agreement that you have two+, with the understanding that you may deviate from that agreement in some situations. Partner assumes that you have not deviated - which is a winning strategy regardless, because he will be right 99% or better of the time.

In fact, all this is really talking about when you may deviate from your agreement to open 1N with a balanced hand, and the circumstances that may provoke those deviations. The 1% frequency threshold is what the ACBL is implying would take it from a deviation to an implied partnership agreement.

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2012-November-01, 17:40, said:

In no ACBL-sanctioned game, including the Spingold Final, may you have an *agreement* to open 1NT with a singleton, and bids that investigate a potential singleton are <i>prima facie</i> evidence of that agreement.

The Superchart allows "any other non-destructive convention, treatment or method except ..." and the things in "except" don't include 1NT with a singleton.

I think you're fine in the Spingold.

[mycroft]

jeffford76, on 2012-November-02, 10:23, said:

The Superchart allows "any other non-destructive convention, treatment or method except ..." and the things in "except" don't include 1NT with a singleton.

I think you're fine in the Spingold.

Oops, sorry. Now it's my turn to get caught out by natural vs. "could be weak/widerange". Actually, provided it's a *strong* NT, you can play it midchart - Allowed 5: "Any strong (15+HCP) opening bid". All you need is a pre-Alert.

Sneakily enough, you can't play conventions after a "Natural 15-20 NT", but you *can* after a "Artificial, Non-Forcing: 15-20 BAL or 4441". I'd hate to be the TD trying to explain that one - and I'd hate to be the TD investigating a claim that their agreement is the latter, but they don't, actually, bid it with a singleton...

[jillybean]

Hi Chris, I understand the point you are making and that your hand types where you would open 1nt with a stiff would fall below the 1% threshold. The same formula does not apply to to all players, for instance some do not have the restriction that the stiff must be in a minor. I could well be wrong but I would be surprised if these hand types made up only 1% of a players nt openings. I don't have however the knowledge to run simulations so it is nothing more than a hunch.

The second part is the local mindset. I asked 2 of the directors here yesterday and both said that it was illegal to have an agreement to open 1nt with a singleton.

[Stephen Tu]

jillybean, on 2012-November-03, 09:13, said:

The second part is the local mindset. I asked 2 of the directors here yesterday and both said that it was illegal to have an agreement to open 1nt with a singleton.

As stated above, the official ACBL position is that you can open on a stiff if it's "judgment", rare, and partner can't cater to it, but you can't have an actual partnership agreement to do it. Like many ACBL rules, this position is rather dubious from a logical standpoint, as consistent judgment would automatically lead to implicit partnership agreement, even if it was only 1/200 openings partner would become aware it was possible even if it doesn't affect bidding at all.

So for most players who believe it's occasionally the best bid with say 1444 stiff A/K, we just do it, most other good players don't bother calling the director, and if the director is called, then it gets ruled a judgment issue. In my experience, it's only the lower tier players who get bent out of shape when someone opens 1nt with a stiff. They don't know that it's legal, they don't know that psyching in general is legal for greater distortions.

If a director starts saying it's "implicit partnership agreement", then I'll just pretend a club got in with my spades, because I think the ACBL official stance is stupidity.

[Bbradley62]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-November-04, 10:59, said:

If a director starts saying it's "implicit partnership agreement", then I'll just pretend a club got in with my spades...

You mean, if it appears that you're going to be punished for breaking the rules, then you'll lie and cheat. Nice attitude!

[jillybean]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-November-04, 10:59, said:

As stated above, the official ACBL position is that you can open on a stiff if it's "judgment", rare, and partner can't cater to it, but you can't have an actual partnership agreement to do it. Like many ACBL rules, this position is rather dubious from a logical standpoint, as consistent judgment would automatically lead to implicit partnership agreement, even if it was only 1/200 openings partner would become aware it was possible even if it doesn't affect bidding at all.

So for most players who believe it's occasionally the best bid with say 1444 stiff A/K, we just do it, most other good players don't bother calling the director, and if the director is called, then it gets ruled a judgment issue. In my experience, it's only the lower tier players who get bent out of shape when someone opens 1nt with a stiff. They don't know that it's legal, they don't know that psyching in general is legal for greater distortions.

If a director starts saying it's "implicit partnership agreement", then I'll just pretend a club got in with my spades, because I think the ACBL official stance is stupidity.

Yes, I agree as players "get better" we learn which rules can be ignored and ways to pretend we didn't realise we were making an infraction. But I do wonder who we think we are kidding. I sometimes use the " I'll just pretend a club got in with my spades, because I think the ACBL official stance is stupidity" when I raised my partners major on 2.

[Stephen Tu]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-04, 13:12, said:

You mean, if it appears that you're going to be punished for breaking the rules, then you'll lie and cheat. Nice attitude!

When I feel the rule as it is is logically untenable, then I'm going to break it. They can't say it's legal, and also illegal at the same time. Civil disobedience in my view.

[nigel_k]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-November-04, 10:59, said:

As stated above, the official ACBL position is that you can open on a stiff if it's "judgment", rare, and partner can't cater to it, but you can't have an actual partnership agreement to do it.

...

If a director starts saying it's "implicit partnership agreement", then I'll just pretend a club got in with my spades, because I think the ACBL official stance is stupidity.

It looks like the actual rule doesn't outlaw an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton and instead just talks vaguely about what partner expects. It's quite possible that you may agree some hands with a singleton are best opened 1NT, but partner will never 'expect' a singleton and will not allow for it. So I don't think you need to lie to the director to make this work. The 1% threshold may still be a problem though.

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2012-November-01, 23:00, said:

I have obviously misunderstood ACBL's rules on 1nt openings, as others I have talked with about this have.

It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time), Your partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.

So, we can agree to open 1nt with a singleton (A,K, or what ever we agree to) as long as we have no methods to discover the singleton.


Can someone please explain how "Your partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit" is met when we have agreed to open 1nt with a singleton ?
If we agree to open all 15-17 hands, or all 15-17 with a stiff A or K 1nt, will we run a foul of the "no more than 1% of the time" rule, how frequently do these 15-17 hands with a singleton occur?

One of the challenges in dealing with the ACBL is that the organization distributes opinions using a wide variety of publications, most of which have no legal standing. Case in point: The ACBL's Guide for Club Owners opinion about 1NT openings... The only reason that I need to care about what this says is n=knowing how to counter yahoos who use this to generate rulings...

[Zelandakh]

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-31, 10:35, said:

As for opening 1nt with singletons of any kind, I tried it briefly and got thumped every time. I haven't seen any arguments as to why and when for me to EVER do it again and it strikes me as an insult to partners bidding ability.

There are some very good reasons why one might like to open a 4=4=1=4 hand with 1NT when playing a strong club system rather than being forced to use 1♦ or a 2m opening for this. Similarly, for a system like Fantunes. Within a standard system it is less common to open 1NT with any singleton. As others have said, there are good reasons why you might want to do it with a singleton honour though, especially with strong hands.

[mycroft]

Absolutely, no question, the regulation states that you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. It then goes into when, in a player's best - and sane - judgement, 1NT is the best opening with that hand, we aren't going to rule that they have an agreement, unless they stupidly tell us :-).

It then goes into showing how certain things about a player's system are evident that that pair has such an agreement, even if it is just implied.

Because I'm an SB, I refuse to talk to any of my partners about it, above what the regulation says. I realize there are those who actually *do* have, discussed, the "we're not stupid, and we've played this game before" agreement, but will still never cater to it at all. If they don't tell me anything, I'll pretend I don't know, because to the opponents it doesn't mean anything, and it's impossible to "not have agreements" about what the ACBL says we can't have agreements about - at least at the "implied partnership experience and understanding" level that the Laws set. But the SB in me knows that they're still wrong, and smiles smugly.

[nigel_k]

mycroft, on 2012-November-05, 12:44, said:

Absolutely, no question, the regulation states that you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

What regulation states this?

[Vampyr]

nigel_k, on 2012-November-05, 12:47, said:

What regulation states this?

All I could find was this, under "Definitions":

Quote

2. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced
(generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons).

This doesn't at all seem to prohibit an agreement to open with a singleton.

[jillybean]

What I take from this thread is that should further experiment with my 1nt openings, go back to my 16-18 reverse style with partners where I play leb/reverse or with those partners who have developed some hand evaluation skills and, chill on the laws.

I think we are going to experiment on BBO opening 1nt on 15-17 hands with a singleton A,K in a major or any minor singleton.