[blackshoe]

I think that to rule someone has an agreement to open 1NT on a singleton, absent a statement or system notes that says they do, the TD has to find that one or both players in the pair do open 1NT with a singleton. IOW, there has to be direct evidence. That they happen to have an agreement that will turn up a singleton in opener's hand isn't enough - unless they say, as the pair in this thread apparently did, that the purpose of the call is specifically to show that the player making it opened with a singleton.

I've said before that George Rosenkranz said "we treat ace or king stiff as if it were a doubleton" in deciding whether to bid NT. Of course, in Romex he's talking about opening 2NT, not 1NT (since a 1NT opening is artificial, and may or may not be balanced). I don't think this agreement is illegal, even if the opening is 1NT, given the frequency (which is pretty darn low).

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2014-June-05, 15:58, said:

I've occasionally read posts about systemic bids some players have to discover if the rails have come off in an auction. This isn't evidence that you have an agreement to misbid or misunderstand, just acknowledgement that this sometimes happens inadvertently and you've come up with a way to catch it.

So someone could argue that a method to find a singleton in the NT opener's hand is simply a way to deal with opener missorting their hand, it doesn't imply that the opening is among their agreements.

Bids that announce that there has been something wrong with the auction are interesting, but certainly not illegal. Whether they are a practical use of those bids or not I leave to others to decide. Aside from the fact that I know of no reason for such a bid to be illegal, the bid usually occurs at a very high level and is unlikely to cause any damage to the opponents.

Bids that are intended to discover that partner has a holding that he is not supposed to have are an entirely different animal. It is disingenuous to call such a conventional call a check to see if partner missorted his hand. In the case of opening 1NT with a singleton, such a bid is a deliberate attempt to determine if partner has a hand inconsistent with his previous calls in a manner which is not generally permitted. In my opinion, the comparison to the "off the rails" bid is not legitimate.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-06, 06:02, said:

Bids that announce that there has been something wrong with the auction are interesting, but certainly not illegal. Whether they are a practical use of those bids or not I leave to others to decide. Aside from the fact that I know of no reason for such a bid to be illegal, the bid usually occurs at a very high level and is unlikely to cause any damage to the opponents.

The most obvious example I can think of occurs at a low level: P - (P) - 1NT - (X); P* - (P) - 2♣, where partner's second (starred) pass forced a redouble. This one is common enough to be considered "just bridge", even though for some pairs the third seat 1NT might be psyched often enough to be considered an implicit agreement.

[Vampyr]

I don't understand this thread at all. I played at a Nationals less than a year ago, and a NT opening that could contain a singleton was announced, just like in England. A pair will hardly announce an illegal agreement, it seems to me.

[Zelandakh]

Were you playing under the GCC or was it Midchart/Superchart?

[campboy]

Zelandakh, on 2014-June-06, 06:08, said:

The most obvious example I can think of occurs at a low level: P - (P) - 1NT - (X); P* - (P) - 2♣, where partner's second (starred) pass forced a redouble. This one is common enough to be considered "just bridge", even though for some pairs the third seat 1NT might be psyched often enough to be considered an implicit agreement.

I think the distinction here is that it is clear purely by bridge logic that something has gone wrong; opener can't want to overrule partner's suggestion to play in 1NTxx if he has his previous bid.

On the other hand the auction 1NT - 2♥ - 2NT would make perfect sense as some sort of superaccept, so the conclusion that the 1NT bid was off-shape must be based on partnership understandings.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-06, 06:02, said:

In my opinion, the comparison to the "off the rails" bid is not legitimate.

My post was intended as a kind of straw man. I agree that they seem different, but how would you objectively distinguish between the two situations?

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2014-June-06, 09:03, said:

My post was intended as a kind of straw man. I agree that they seem different, but how would you objectively distinguish between the two situations?

The idea that you have a bid that indicates that something has gone wrong with the auction (a bid that cannot mean something else) may come from pure bridge logic, as Z mentioned above, or by agreement, if the partnership has agreed that a certain bid indicates that the auction has gone off the rails. Having a bid mean "Partner, something has gone wrong, please name the final contract" is not an illegal agreement to the best of my knowledge. If I am not correct about this, I invite anyone to point out why I am wrong.

However, if the sponsoring organization has decreed that a natural nonconventional 1NT opening cannot BY AGREEMENT contain a singleton or void, then it stands to reason that any conventional call subsequent to the 1NT opening which shows that the opening 1NT hand DOES HAVE a singleton or void is clearly illegal. The existence of a conventional call which shows the shortness (singleton or void) clearly indicates that the partnership has an agreement to open a natural 1NT with a shortness, and such an agreement is illegal.

[mycroft]

So, yes, that's where my distinction "without a difference" actually matters - when bridge lawyers get in the game.

It is legal to have a call that says "something's wrong here" - provided that whatever went wrong is also legal. The classic example is bailing out after The Most Dangerous Convention In Bridge: 2NT-3NT! (transfer to clubs); 4♣-4NT (Systemically, "I forgot again, I meant 3NT to play"). The 4NT call doesn't have the problem that "I have a singleton" call has, because 3NT "transfer to clubs or to play 4NT (we forget a non-trivial fraction of the time)" response to 2NT is a legal call (whether there is misinformation from the incomplete explanation of 3NT is an issue, of course).

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-June-06, 06:19, said:

I don't understand this thread at all. I played at a Nationals less than a year ago, and a NT opening that could contain a singleton was announced, just like in England. A pair will hardly announce an illegal agreement, it seems to me.

Neither do I.

I read the GCC and I can only interpret it to mean that it is allowed to have the agreement that 1NT can occasionally have a singleton.

Everybody else seems to read the GCC and say: "Everybody knows that it is not allowed to open 1NT with a singleton." When I ask where it says so, the only answer I have seen was that "The GCC says: 'Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed.' And opening 1NT with a singleton is not specifically allowed, therefore it is disallowed." That would make perfect sense, if it weren't for the fact that a 1NT opening that can contain a 4333 is not specifically allowed either, and neither is a 1♠ opening that promises 5 spades.

The only sensible interpretation of the GCC is that "natural bids (as defined in the GCC) are not methods" or "natural bids are not regulated". And the GCC defines:

Quote

A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

(So, occasionally a singleton is still natural.)

A back of the envelope calculation shows that if you open all 4333s, 4432s and 5332s in range, as well as 4441s with a singleton A/K that the 1NT opening contains a singleton in less than 1% of the cases. I think that qualifies for "generally no singleton".

Rik

[olegru]

mycroft, on 2014-June-05, 14:54, said:

Any call that can find out if the opener has some particular hand may not in itself be an illegal agreement, but is prima facie evidence that you have an agreement that opener can have that particular hand. If agreeing that that hand can make that call is illegal, then you're playing an illegal system.
…
I'm fining you 1/4 board for every time this session I can find out that you've opened 1NT (with or without a singelton) is "the existence of this response to this call shows an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton, and that agreement is illegal", not "that response is illegal".

Cannot agree more this your logic as a director.
The only question I still have is: “The big mouth of a honest player who naively admitted that they have discussed this situation is the only evidence you are going to accept in support of illegal agreements or there are other possibilities exist? (In the real live, not in theory, of course.)”

2campboy:

olegru, on 2014-June-05, 08:41, said:

One can argue that Vanderbilt or USBF final are not general chart tournaments and in general chart tournaments top players playing differently and never open 1NT with the singleton. Sorry, I simply do not believe in it.

2Vampyr:
I believe it is the most funny and sad things about all this tread. Many people routinely open 1NT with singleton honor. Except of very few players, they never imagined that ACBL could prohibit opening 1NT on some hands they treat as balanced. Even if you will read General chart - existence of this limitation, in the best case, is far from obvious. Seems for me that dividing line is the players’ honesty. If player would like to give full disclosure and mention all their agreements (as required by law) he likely to get in troubles. If player prefer to pretend it is just bridge – he is save. I (as a new American) found that it is very true not only for ACBL, but also for much more aspects of living in US. If you would like to be honest, you have to pay a lot of money and you still often will be fined for accidentally breaks many rules. However, if you are ok with “small lies” your live is much cheaper and easy.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-06, 06:02, said:

Bids that are intended to discover that partner has a holding that he is not supposed to have are an entirely different animal. It is disingenuous to call such a conventional call a check to see if partner missorted his hand. In the case of opening 1NT with a singleton, such a bid is a deliberate attempt to determine if partner has a hand inconsistent with his previous calls in a manner which is not generally permitted. In my opinion, the comparison to the "off the rails" bid is not legitimate.

In ruling on such a case, which law(s) and regulation(s) will you invoke?

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-06, 17:22, said:

In ruling on such a case, which law(s) and regulation(s) will you invoke?

There is apparently an ACBL regulation against bids which can determine if an opening natural 1NT bidder holds a singleton or void. I would invoke that one.

This document (which has been cited previously), which is listed on the new ACBL website under "Rulings FAQ," is the only reference that I can find on the ACBL website:

http://web2.acbl.org...h-Singleton.pdf

It specifically states that any agreement that states that a "natural" 1NT can be bid on an unbalanced hand (i.e., a hand containing a singleton or void) is prohibited.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-06, 18:50, said:

There is apparently an ACBL regulation against bids which can determine if an opening natural 1NT bidder holds a singleton or void. I would invoke that one.

This document (which has been cited previously), which is listed on the new ACBL website under "Rulings FAQ," is the only reference that I can find on the ACBL website:

http://web2.acbl.org...h-Singleton.pdf

It specifically states that any agreement that states that a "natural" 1NT can be bid on an unbalanced hand (i.e., a hand containing a singleton or void) is prohibited.

Yeah, I couldn't find the actual regulation either.

[olegru]

Do they have that article on the current acbl site?

[ArtK78]

olegru, on 2014-June-06, 22:07, said:

Do they have that article on the current acbl site?

Yes. I gave you the link.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-06, 18:50, said:

There is apparently an ACBL regulation against bids which can determine if an opening natural 1NT bidder holds a singleton or void. I would invoke that one.

This document (which has been cited previously), which is listed on the new ACBL website under "Rulings FAQ," is the only reference that I can find on the ACBL website:

http://web2.acbl.org...h-Singleton.pdf

It specifically states that any agreement that states that a "natural" 1NT can be bid on an unbalanced hand (i.e., a hand containing a singleton or void) is prohibited.

It is a very nice document... and its status is given in the document itself:

Quote

*Taken from ACBLscore Tech Files, located in Tournament Mode of ACBLscore. Attributed to John “Spider” Harris.

In other words: It is one person's opinion that some others found interesting enough to repeat. And it is not even 100% clear who that person is, but probably it is John "Spider" Harris. Perhaps someone here knows him personally. I quickly googled his name and he seems to have been a TD in the 70's (when opening 1NT with a 5 card suit was still frowned upon). The document has about the same status as a post on BBF by Blackshoe: an interesting opinion on bridge laws.

In this discussion I get this idea of a western movie where the sheriff says: "I don't care what the law says. I am the sheriff. In this town I am the law." And because that sheriff said so back then it is still the law in the 21st century.

If you really want to know whether an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton is allowed, instead of reading what one person once thought about it, you should look in the regulation, which you can find here.

Rik

[olegru]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-06, 23:21, said:

Yes. I gave you the link.

Sorry, found it now

This post has been edited by olegru: 2014-June-07, 04:35

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2014-June-06, 11:48, said:

A back of the envelope calculation shows that if you open all 4333s, 4432s and 5332s in range, as well as 4441s with a singleton A/K that the 1NT opening contains a singleton in less than 1% of the cases. I think that qualifies for "generally no singleton".

My 1NT opening is for all 4333s, 4432s and 5332s in range plus 4441 with specifically a singleton diamond (of any size). In terms of frequency I would guess this also passes a "generally no singleton" test but I am confident most ACBL TDs would rule it illegal since there is no alternative opening for such a 4414 hand, even without the follow-ups that can identify the singleton over a red suit transfer response. Note also that many who open 1NT liberally with singleton honours do so on shapes other than 4441. This greatly increases the frequency. Of course the term "generally" in the link you gave is pretty meaningless, no? You could argue any value above 50% as the cut off for this. I think the point is more that the system allows a choice and the hands opening 1NT with a singleton are a distortion/deviation rather than systemic. To my mind this distinction is artificial but it obviously makes sense to someone.

[olegru]

Actually this is funny. Let's read this document:

Quote

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any regulation...

This article does not call itself regulation. It contradistinguish itself and regulation in the very first sentence. Why should we treat it as a regulation?

Quote

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any regulation which prohibits a player from opening (or overcalling) a natural NT with a singleton if sound bridge judgment dictates doing so.

Very clear. According the author of the article opening a natural NT with a singleton is not prohibited.
What is prohibited?

Quote

 agreement that such bids do not promise balanced hands.

Have author ever said that opening with singleton honors is prohibited? He said exactly reverse way - opening is permitted if opener think his hand with the singleton honor is balanced. The 1NT opening with non-balanced hands are not permitted, nobody arguing against it.

Later in the article he added additional requirements:

Quote

(no more 1% of the time, partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and there are no agreements which enable the partners to discover a 
singleton.)

These additional requirements does not based on regulation (and article made clear that it is not regulation), not based of logic (if opening is permitted why should be any limitations?) does not provide any details of proposed requirements (1% of what? boards he played? Boards he open? Boards he open 1NT? No agreements to enable means no conventional control bids to ask for singleton or no system capabilities to discover this singleton at all?)

Why do we treat this bracketed part of the article is so important to overrule written regulation and logic?

Quote

When a NT opening hand contains a singleton or void, the Director needs to look into the overall system to determine whether an infraction has occurred.

Look, according the author of the article even hand with void is not automated infraction, Director supposed to investigate and could accept the opening as a legal if opener will be able to proof "that the action was "good bridge".