[hrothgar]

 pilowsky, on 2021-January-26, 15:54, said:

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

Quote

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

Quote

Bidding Agreements are disallowed unless they are specifically allowed.

Furthermore, the Basic and Basic+ chart specifically permit

Quote

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

Quote

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]

 pilowsky, on 2021-January-26, 15:54, said:

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]

 hrothgar, on 2021-January-26, 16:47, said:

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]

 pilowsky, on 2021-January-26, 17:19, said:

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]

 pilowsky, on 2021-January-26, 18:43, said:

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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://bridgewinner...th-a-singleton/

[helene_t]

 hrothgar, on 2021-January-26, 20:32, said:

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]

 hrothgar, on 2021-January-26, 12:35, said:

 mycroft, on 2021-January-26, 09:28, said:

Remember, of course:[list][*]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.

Quote

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".

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-26, 09:28, said:

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?

[blackshoe]

 pilowsky, on 2021-January-26, 17:19, said:

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

You keep saying that. Apparently you missed this definition of "natural" (Item 2h in the "Definitions" section of the current Convention Charts):
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.

[pigpenz]

so in the ACBL games online what will a director rule if called when someone opens
1NT witha singleton X, not AKQ?

On Nicolas's data there is one player who has done this 30 times!
But of course Leo has done this for years with ACBL BOTs but they never seem to call the TD

[mycroft]

Blackshoe: I don't. It's a regulation. "We claim you have an illegal agreement, and the evidence is that you bid this with this hand. Anything to say about it?"

As for where the power comes from to make such a regulation, and interpret said regulation, L40B2a1. Note the "without restriction".

[mycroft]

I don't know what "a director" will rule. It depends on the game, the director, the discussion around the hand, the players, and their history. One of my points is that it's not, and can not be, a "2 minutes for cross-checking" situation. Those players who are believers in "they did something wrong, we get a good score" are, again, going to be disappointed.

I would do what I always do - investigate, come to a conclusion on the facts and evidence available, consult with colleagues, and rule. The ACBL's policy on use of illegal agreement, for table rulings at least, is not what I would do if I was the regulator - there is to be no penalty besides an admonition to play only legal agreements, unless the opponents were damaged specifically by the agreement, in which case they will be protected. But I would rule to that.

Having said that, use of an illegal agreement, knowing (or having been reminded) that it is an illegal agreement, or worse, doing so *because* they were reminded that it is an illegal agreement, leads to C&E, not table penalties. "Getting lucky" with these breaches, in the online context, adds a little je ne sais quoi to said committee meeting. I assume that this is happening.

I also believe that given the public nature of history, if it happens against someone, and they do a quick look online to find that that nick has 6 or 7 other "guesses" to his credit, that they would likely inform the TD of that information. Which might change the process, or the result, somewhat. (Who am I kidding - what they would do is fume about it for 3-4 hours, write a slanderous post on Some Bridge Forum, get told that this user has said evidence in the NH files, and then declaim that the regulators should do Something, Now, because They Were Injured without possible recompense, and of course They are the Only Important Person out there, and Their Problems must be the First Priority, and if Something Isn't Done, the only alternative is Revolution.)

[hrothgar]

FWIW, my position is that all of this information should be (completely) public.

When you play a F2F game, your scores on each and every board get posted
In online bridge, we have much better record keeping and the potential to automate a whole bunch of analysis.

And, in much the same as you board scores get posted, the number of times that you are underlead Aces gets posted and the number of times that you are opening 1NT with a (small) stiff gets posted and the frequency with which your 15 - 17 HCP 1NT contains a 14 count gets posted.

[mycroft]

It's what gets done with that data and that analysis that concerns me. I am I think reasonably well aware of your position. I also believe you are reasonably well aware of my position, if not my beliefs (and as a result, why you would not be as aware of my beliefs as might otherwise be). I think you can understand why I will say nothing further down that path.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-27, 11:20, said:

Blackshoe: I don't. It's a regulation. "We claim you have an illegal agreement, and the evidence is that you bid this with this hand. Anything to say about it?"

All right. What regulation? Where can I read it?

[mycroft]

I quoted it. It's the convention charts. If you play X, you can't use "judgement" to play X-1, if X-1 would be an illegal agreement. "Does not apply to a psych", but a psychic is a *gross* misstatement of your hand. Not my job to prove that - I can't, I don't know your system.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-29, 09:07, said:

I quoted it. It's the convention charts. If you play X, you can't use "judgement" to play X-1, if X-1 would be an illegal agreement. "Does not apply to a psych", but a psychic is a *gross* misstatement of your hand. Not my job to prove that - I can't, I don't know your system.

I am questioning your assertion that it's up to the "accused" to prove whatever it is you think he has to prove. AFAIK, there is no legal basis for that assertion. And it may not be your job to prove whether a bid is a psych, but it is your job to investigate, gather what evidence you can find, and determine on the basis of that evidence whether the bid is a psych. Also, while it is in the best interests of the alleged offending side to provide whatever evidence they can in support of their position, that does not mean that the law puts the onus on them to prove anything.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2021-January-29, 18:17, said:

I am questioning your assertion that it's up to the "accused" to prove whatever it is you think he has to prove. AFAIK, there is no legal basis for that assertion. And it may not be your job to prove whether a bid is a psych, but it is your job to investigate, gather what evidence you can find, and determine on the basis of that evidence whether the bid is a psych. Also, while it is in the best interests of the alleged offending side to provide whatever evidence they can in support of their position, that does not mean that the law puts the onus on them to prove anything.

Are you suggesting that RA guidance such as the EBU's "to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" is contrary to the laws of bridge?