[helene_t]

In one partnerhship I used to play Precision without the Precision 2♦ opening. So with a 4414 hand, or with 4M5c with bad clubs, we would have to be "creative".

This was with a very inexperienced partner who wouldn't be aware of this system hole as long as I didn't mention the problem, and we had more basic problems with getting our bidding to work so I didn't mention it.

The first one or two evenings we played this, it would not occur to her that my 1NT openings might contain a singleton. Whether I would expect her 1NT openings to contain a singleton is less clear. My guess would be that the answer was "no" since she would always or almost always bid her best almost-biddable suit instead, but I couldn't be 100% sure.

Now this was not in ACBL so the issue was not about legality but only about disclosure. If it had been a question of legality I suppose I would just have to decide "never" to open 1NT with a singleton myself, and then at some point tell my p to do the same.

[nige1]

The ACBL article quoted by Blackshoe said:

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. What IS prohibited is any agreement that such bids do not promise balanced hands.Example:
A forcing club system with five-card majors and diamond openings promising 3+ may force 1NT on 4-4-1-4 or 3-4-1-5. Repeated openings with a singleton by any player will tend to create this implicit and illegal agreement with his partner, and he may be proscribed from the practice if his reputation precedes him. Players may use their bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton provided that: It is a rare occurrence (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.)

The problem with this kind of system-regulation is obvious.

Suppose, without explicit agreement, a partnership start opening 1N with otherwise suitable hands that contain a singleton top honour in a minor.

As defined by the ACBL, this will be a "rare occurrence". Even were it a more frequent occurrence, however, directors would still need a coordinated policy of comprehensive historical records to demonstrate any implicit partnership understanding.

Admittedly, there exist partnerships who take the trouble to study relevant regulations. Most of those will believe that they are simply exercising what the ACBL terms "sound bridge judgement" --- but a few might be incapable of rationalizing petty infractions --- and cease the practice.

Law-makers seem to believe that such masochists fully deserve their self-imposed handicap

[pickabidp]

Any comments in light of the 1NT openings with singletons in the Vanderbilt?
Also more info:
http://bridgewinners...unes-in-action/
thanks

[nige1]

pickabidp, on 2015-March-26, 15:41, said:

Any comments in light of the 1NT openings with singletons in the Vanderbilt?
Also more info: http://bridgewinners...unes-in-action/

Chauvinism is the central design feature of most national regulations but, ACBL quislings, the Joker and the Penguin, surreptitiously created the dreaded "super-chart" so that they could unleash devastating off-shape 1N openers on unsuspecting Gotham City bridge-players. Fantoni-Nunes employ a more natural system than any other pair in the Vandebilt. Unfortunately, as foreigners, they were unaware that they needed to super-chart their system. No matter how daft the rules, ignorance of them is no excuse so, Fantunes weren't allowed to use that part of their system. We must hope, however, that regulators eventually have a sudden rush of sanity to the head -- and drop all system-restrictions.

[Vampyr]

pickabidp, on 2015-March-26, 15:41, said:

Any comments in light of the 1NT openings with singletons in the Vanderbilt?
Also more info:
http://bridgewinners...unes-in-action/
thanks

If you want to try to be the world-class players who get away with violating the regulations, I suppose no one can stop you.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2015-March-26, 19:43, said:

We must hope, however, that regulators eventually have a sudden rush of sanity to the head -- and drop all system-restrictions.

this would just result in all SOs writing whatever system regulations they liked, and anybody entering any event ever (even a lclub duplicate) would have to find out what they were.

[barmar]

Fantunes and the Monaco team have been playing in NABC+ events for many years. There's really very little excuse for them getting something like this wrong.

This mistake seems reminiscent of the NABC last year that used the 10 & 3 schedule instead of the usual 1 & 7;30 schedule, and then some team got confused about the registration deadline for the main team event (it's something like the start time of the second session on the first Sunday, but they assumed it that this means the usual 7:30 time, not that tournament's 3pm start time).

[johnu]

nige1, on 2015-March-26, 19:43, said:

Unfortunately, as foreigners, they were unaware that they needed to super-chart their system. No matter how daft the rules, ignorance of them is no excuse so, Fantunes weren't allowed to use that part of their system.

LOL. Fantunes has been competing in NABC's since at least the mid 2000's, and probably earlier. Based on posts from Fantunes system fanboys, they also have system variations to use if tournament regulations say they can't open on a singleton or use responses over 1NT to determine the singleton (which is basically only the ACBL, anybody know other jurisdictions?) That doesn't sound like players who are unaware of the regulations.

[Zelandakh]

johnu, on 2015-March-27, 19:06, said:

Based on posts from Fantunes system fanboys, they also have system variations to use if tournament regulations say they can't open on a singleton or use responses over 1NT to determine the singleton (which is basically only the ACBL, anybody know other jurisdictions?)

Until fairly recently it was not allowed to open 1NT with a singleton in Germany at all, at least at the levels I play. It is allowed now though (requiring an alert).

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-March-27, 15:29, said:

Fantunes and the Monaco team have been playing in NABC+ events for many years. There's really very little excuse for them getting something like this wrong.

This mistake seems reminiscent of the NABC last year that used the 10 & 3 schedule instead of the usual 1 & 7;30 schedule, and then some team got confused about the registration deadline for the main team event (it's something like the start time of the second session on the first Sunday, but they assumed it that this means the usual 7:30 time, not that tournament's 3pm start time).

i dont see the parallel. the case being discussed is clear, to just follow the rules. The registration deadline was confusing and the interpretation of it was changed from one nabc to the next.

[nige1]

pickabidp, on 2015-March-26, 15:41, said:

Any comments in light of the 1NT openings with singletons in the Vanderbilt?Also more info: http://bridgewinners...unes-in-action/

nige1, on 2015-March-26, 19:43, said:

Fantoni-Nunes employ a more natural system than any other pair in the Vandebilt. Unfortunately, as foreigners, they were unaware that they needed to super-chart their system.

johnu, on 2015-March-27, 19:06, said:

LOL. Fantunes has been competing in NABC's since at least the mid 2000's, and probably earlier. Based on posts from Fantunes system fanboys, they also have system variations to use if tournament regulations say they can't open on a singleton or use responses over 1NT to determine the singleton (which is basically only the ACBL, anybody know other jurisdictions?) That doesn't sound like players who are unaware of the regulations.

Here is the the BridgeWinners' article

Jo Ann Sprung said:

Saturday of the NABC swiss we lost our first match and were treated with a draw of the Team Monaco. Fantunes prealerted their system. Danny knew enough about their system to ask what they open with 4441 and a weak nt range. They said that they open 1NT per systemic agreement and assured us that it was legal to play in that event. The director ruled that they could not play it in mid chart events. While this may be allowed in SuperChart methods there was no indication that they registered as a SuperChart team for the Vanderbilt or notified the DIC and opponents in advance per the Vandy conditions of contest:

Assuming that Jo Ann Sprung is correct then EITHER Fantunes were economical with the truth OR they they were mistaken about this regulation. We tend to underestimate how hard it is for foreigners to devise the motives and intentions of local regulators

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2015-March-28, 17:14, said:

underestimate how hard it is for foreigners to devise the motives and intentions of local regulators [/size]

the word you were looking for is "devine".

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-28, 17:54, said:

the word you were looking for is "devine".

Are you sure about that?

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2015-March-28, 18:54, said:

Are you sure about that?

Hmm. Maybe not. I do see certain posters from other jurisdictions "devising" motives and intentions. But, I can't imagine them working hard at it. I think it just comes natural to them.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2015-March-28, 18:54, said:

Are you sure about that?

LOL

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-28, 17:54, said:

the word you were looking for is "devine".

McKean's Law:

Quote

Any correction of the speech or writing of others will contain at least one grammatical, spelling or typographical error.

FYI, the correct spelling is "divine".