[jtfanclub]

Quote

I'd be surprised if you could find any SO where an agreement to open 1NT with all 4441 hands in range doesn't require an alert; in other words, I don't think anyone really believes that this is the "natural" meaning of 1NT (although many places are inclined to allow more artificial/conventional bids than ACBL does).

I'm required to alert my two club opening as showing 11-15 hcp and a club suit. Does that mean the natural meaning of two clubs is something other than clubs?

Even better, I'm required to alert (1♣)-2♣ only if it shows a club suit. Therefore, the natural meaning of two clubs is anything except a club suit?

Quote

So what makes a notrump bid conventional in your opinion?

"Convention: A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named. In addition, a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength, or artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named."

So, in my opinion, a conventional NT bid is one where one of these is true:
1. The bid promises a specific suit (eg. transfer openings, two-suited openings).
2. The bid has nothing to do with No-Trump as a suit (eg., any shape, Romex)
3. The response structure has a check to see if opener actually likes No-Trump.

All three have to be false fo the bid to be non-conventional, not just #2.

So, suppose I open 1NT with any 4333, 4432, 5332, 5422, 4441, or 5431 in the appropriate range.

-Is there a meaning to the 1NT not related to no-trump? No.
-Does the bid have something to do with No-Trump? Yes.
-Is there a method in our system to check and see if the 1NT is 'truly balanced' whatever that means? No.

So, it's not conventional. It would probably still need to be Alerted, because alerts are for NON-STANDARD bids, not CONVENTIONAL bids, in the ACBL. Non-conventional bids are frequently alerted in the ACBL. Such as a two club response to 1NT as showing clubs.

[david_c]

awm, on Jun 27 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

I think the view that a 1NT bid is natural if it contains no singleton or void and conventional otherwise is actually pretty reasonable. Places other than ACBL tend to be more liberal about convention regulation, but I'd be surprised if you could find any SO where an agreement to open 1NT with all 4441 hands in range doesn't require an alert; in other words, I don't think anyone really believes that this is the "natural" meaning of 1NT (although many places are inclined to allow more artificial/conventional bids than ACBL does).

Yes and no. Here in England, before we had announcements the alerting rule was

"Because of agreements which opponents are unlikely to expect, you must alert: ...

(g) a natural 1NT opening which may be made on 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-3-1 distribution."

So it was considered natural, but it was still alertable because the agreement was unexpected.

Whether it is conventional is a slightly different question, since this is [supposed to be] defined by the Law book, not by SO regualtions. Well, the Law book is not very clear. But in my opinion, the Laws do not support the interpretation that a 1NT bid containing a singleton is always conventional. There is no way that "willingness to play" translates into a strict dividing line between hands with singletons and hands without.

For what it's worth, I think the cause of problem is the Law which says SOs are only allowed to regulate conventional bids. They should be allowed to regulate all agreements. In my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable to disallow 1NT openings with a singleton, but the Laws currently do not give SOs that authority. (Though unfortunately some SOs claim that they do, and there's not much anyone can do to stop them.)

This post has been edited by david_c: 2007-June-27, 11:13

[awm]

jtfanclub, on Jun 27 2007, 11:54 AM, said:

So, in my opinion, a conventional NT bid is one where one of these is true:
1. The bid promises a specific suit (eg. transfer openings, two-suited openings).
2. The bid has nothing to do with No-Trump as a suit (eg., any shape, Romex)
3. The response structure has a check to see if opener actually likes No-Trump.

All three have to be false fo the bid to be non-conventional, not just #2.

So, suppose I open 1NT with any 4333, 4432, 5332, 5422, 4441, or 5431 in the appropriate range.

-Is there a meaning to the 1NT not related to no-trump? No.
-Does the bid have something to do with No-Trump? Yes.
-Is there a method in our system to check and see if the 1NT is 'truly balanced' whatever that means? No.

There are a number of problems with this interpretation.

First, every bid conveys information about suits other than the one named, if only by negative inference. Opening 1NT promises 3+ in a minor (for example) assuming one does not open 1NT with (45)22 (which most don't).

Second "nothing to do with notrump" is very poorly defined. How is it that a 4441 hand has "something to do with notrump" whereas a 5530 hand has "nothing to do with notrump"? Obviously any hand can be evaluated based on the "likelihood you want to play in notrump" but this is a sliding scale and the boundary between "this is notrumpy enough that it's not conventional" and "this is not notrumpy enough" needs to be set somewhere. You seem to agree that 1NT showing "10-13 hcp any shape" somehow has "nothing to do with notrump" despite the fact that it's a non-forcing bid, so you agree that there is a line here which is somehow based on distribution. Why is "no singleton or void" an unreasonable place to set this line?

Third, say you play relays over 1NT so opener can show exact shape. This is allowed by ACBL and by most SOs. If you open 1NT with all the shapes you named and you play relays over 1NT, does your 1NT opening somehow become conventional? Certainly there is now a way to tell whether 1NT opener is truly balanced, whatever that means. It seems strange that using a legal opening structure combined with a legal response structure somehow would make your methods illegal, doesn't it? And even if you don't play relays, say you have methods to show a "bad six card major" and get out in 3NT. Opener could bid 3NT with a weak doubleton in your major and a possible outside source of tricks, but usually this is just a way to avoid 4M when opener has singleton. Does this make the 1NT opener with singleton conventional? I think defining conventional in terms of the response structure rather than the meaning of the bid itself has a number of pitfalls and will only make things more convoluted and incomprehensible.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

First, every bid conveys information about suits other than the one named, if only by negative inference. Opening 1NT promises 3+ in a minor (for example) assuming one does not open 1NT with (45)22 (which most don't).

Yes, I am aware of the possibility of negative inferences. I am also aware that people have gotten past the Muiderberg restriction (2M also promising a 4 card minor) by limiting out all of the hands that don't have a 4 card minor.

I gave you the official ACBL definition, and my interpretation of that definition. Nothing in your post points to anything where my interpretation disagrees with the ACBL defintition.

Quote

Second "nothing to do with notrump" is very poorly defined.

Really? Which part of the word NOTHING is difficult to understand?

Quote

You seem to agree that 1NT showing "10-13 hcp any shape" somehow has "nothing to do with notrump" despite the fact that it's a non-forcing bid

The evaluation of the hands that fit into your 1NT category has NOTHING to do with the strain in which you wish to play, only hcp.

Quote

Why is "no singleton or void" an unreasonable place to set this line?

Because this is an imaginary line in the desert is something you made up.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually read the ACBL definition of conventional? Because I don't see any mention of it.

I'll add in an ending...

On the auction 1♦ (P) 1♥

The ACBL says this must promise 4, or it's conventional.
Everybody agrees that sometimes you have to do it with 3, due to systemic limitations.
But having 1♦-1♥-2♣ ask if partner's 1♥ bid shows 4 makes the 1♥ bid illegal.
That's what #3 is about.

You seem to be going with the assumption that having a small doubleton makes the hand more suitable for no-trump than a small singleton.

May I ask where you got this idea?

[mycroft]

JT:

1) The ACBL also has the natural/conventional/artificial mixup in its regulations, specifically the GCC. Yeah, I know, but 90% of the world doesn't understand it either.

2) Making a definition of convention that effectively expresses the Stewart-like "I know it when I see it" definition "we" all have is a nightmare. People have tried, and come up with half-page-long definitions. I would expect that almost everywhere in the world, you are going to see the words on the page modified by "I know it when I see it" to one extent or another.

3) See my earlier statement about the ruling of the WBF Laws Commission. Push this one too hard, and all you'll get is more "or after natural notrump openers that could systemically contain a singleton" added to DISALLOWED:7 of the GCC. And you'll get it not just because of all the reasons people ascribe to the ACBL Laws Commission, but because if you asked the 1000 bridge players at the Penticton Regional whether it is legal, maybe 150 would say "yes"; if you asked them whether it should be legal, that number would go down to about 50. And it's only that high because there are pro-class players there. And the ACBL LC, and the BoD, and the BoG all know that.

The ACBL does have some 800-pound gorilla attributes, but the big guns are on their side on this one.

Michael.

[Cascade]

mycroft, on Jun 28 2007, 04:13 AM, said:

1) 1NT not balanced is conventional - maybe only by abusing the letter of the definition, but you won't find many who won't agree.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Convention (for a 1NT bid) means it must have a meaning other than willingness to play in No Trumps.

My agreement with my partner is that we open 1NT on anything where No Trumps is a likely final contract and will be difficult to describe by some other means.

For us this means all balanced hands in range and many 4-4-4-1s especially black singletons which are difficult to bid and singleton honours. It also includes some 5-4-3-1 hands (bad long suit or stiff honour etc) and perhaps a few hands more extreme 6-3-3-1 with a bad suit and stiff honour, 6-3-2-2 etc.

None of this is a meaning other than willingness to play in No Trumps any more than restricting your 1NT to traditional shapes is a meaning other than willingness to play in No Trumps.

I think you are confusing conventional with traditional or some sort of perceived notion of what is standard.

[Cascade]

david_c, on Jun 28 2007, 05:00 AM, said:

In my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable to disallow 1NT openings with a singleton, but the Laws currently do not give SOs that authority.

Why would this be reasonable.

I cannot think of any reason to ban opening No Trumps with a singleton.

♠ 65432
♥ A
♦ KQJ5
♣ AQ7

Why is 1♠ a better natural bid with this hand than 1NT?

To me it is perverse to allow 1♠ and disallow 1NT.

[jtfanclub]

Mycroft:

I don't disagree with anything you say except that I don't care much about the legality of the restrictions on the 1NT opener. I don't believe that 1NT with a singleton is conventional or artificial, and therefore the regulations on it are probably illegal. However, it's not high on my 'what the heck are they thinking' list.

Highest is disallowing 2 of a minor over a 1 bid as a limit raise. Exactly why do we need a paragraph of crud to allow Drury in 3rd and 4th seat, and yet it's somehow indefensible in 1st and 2nd seat? Why is Drury allowed over 1 heart but not 1 diamond? The logic seems to be 'some expert wants to play Drury, so we'll let him'. Yeah, thanks. That makes for streamlined rules.

[skjaeran]

awm, on Jun 27 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

I'd be surprised if you could find any SO where an agreement to open 1NT with all 4441 hands in range doesn't require an alert; in other words, I don't think anyone really believes that this is the "natural" meaning of 1NT (although many places are inclined to allow more artificial/conventional bids than ACBL does).

That's not true (or you will be surprised). Here in Norway you don't have to alert a 1NT opening which promises an average+ hand which is balanced or semibalanced (semibalanced defined as 2 doubletons or 1 singleton and no doubleton).

Thus we can systemically open 1NT on 4441, 5431, 6331, 6322 and 5422 without alerting it.

However, if the lower limit for opening 1NT is 8 or 9 hcp, it's alertable whatever distribution is allowed.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 27 2007, 08:12 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 27 2007, 03:57 PM, said:

Rob F, on Jun 26 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

I bet if you give a hand like

A or K stiff ♥ AQxx ♦ KQJx ♣ AJxx

to a panel of experts almost every one of them is going to be bidding 2N (20-21).  As a matter of practice, I'm sure that the experts open 2N with a singleton more than 1% of the time, so the ACBL rule seems pretty hypocritical to me.

I'll take that bet. This is a perfect hand for a Reverse: 1♦-1♠;2♥

Just so we're clear... Are you serious suggesting reversing with

♠ A ♥ AQxx ♦ KQJx ♣ AJxx

I'm well aware that there are plenty of hands out there where you need to take some liberties. However, I think that a 2NT opening is preferable to a reverse. I agree with Rob that I'd expect an expert bidding panel to bid the same way.

Quote

Personally, I find this laughable.  There aren't all that many hard and fast rules in bridge, however, 1♦-1♠;2♥ promises longer ♦'s than ♥'s.

LOL. ...and last I checked, a NT opening _promises_ no stiff or void.
That horse you are riding is not as high as you seem to be making it.

4441's are always a bidding problem. But =especially= if 2N can have a 5cM as is fairly regular practice nowadays, opening 2N with a stiff in a Major puts outrageous pressure on System and your partnership.

Your =other= Logical Alternative is 1♦-foo;3♣. Which chews up even more space than a reverse.

In addition, this hand has 1 ♠ + 1.75 ♥'s + 2.25 ♦'s + 1.5 ♣'s expected tricks. Opening 1♦ and then reversing into ♥'s happens to =exactly= describe your 1st and 2nd largest sources of expected tricks in their proper order.

IMHO, the extra strength of the hand makes up for it being slightly off-shape.

Switch the ♥'s and the ♣'s, and I'd be strongly considering opening 1♦ followed by 3♣ as the better sequence.

If your 2N opening can never contain 5 ♠'s, then I'm considerably less nervous about opening 2N with this hand; but still might not do it.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 03:51 AM, said:

LOL. ...and last I checked, a NT opening _promises_ no stiff or void.

Say's who?

A NT opening suggests that you don't have a singleton.
However, it certainly doesn't deny a singleton.

My impression is that expert players would very much prefer to open 2NT with the hand in question rather open Diamonds and reverse into Hearts. I very much agree that either option is imperfect, however, I think that the NT opening is the best of a bad lot.

You, on the other hand, refer to this hand as a "perfect" reverse...

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

4441's are always a bidding problem. But =especially= if 2N can have a 5cM as is fairly regular practice nowadays, opening 2N with a stiff in a Major puts outrageous pressure on System and your partnership.

As is often the case, I don't follow your logic here. The main danger in opening 2nt with a stiff is that partner transfers and signs off in the stiff and you play a 6-1 when perhaps NT would have been better. Or occasionally 3M in a 5-1 if partner has a wretched hand. I don't see how allowing 5 cM could have any effect on this one way or the other. Partner presumably uses some puppet stayman variant, you say you don't have one here, show the hearts as a 4 bagger or support partner's 4 cd hearts depending on your scheme, end in 3nt otherwise. I don't see how allowing 5cd major changes partner's problems at all with regard to occasionally opening with a stiff.

But I will agree with you with the option on reversing occasionally with this shape, say the same hand with a small stiff in spades rather than the ace. With that weaker hand, to me reversing is more palatable than rebidding 2nt, or opening 1nt, or rebidding 2c. (See pinned reverses thread in the beginner/int section for arguments on whether reversing on 4-4 is sometimes reasonable).

Here, with the stiff honor, I think without having some 3 suited gadget, opening 2nt is reasonable.

[foo]

I had another suggestion for this hand: Open 1♦ and rebid 2N; downgrading the hand due to the Stiff A.
(Even though this is a serious suggestion based on logic, this should =really= fan the flames... )


...and Stephen is 100% right that this hand is an advertisement for something like The Mexican 2♦ opening.

[awm]

As far as I can tell:

(1) ACBL does not define conventional anywhere. ACBL does define natural quite specifically, and defines natural for a 1NT bid as not including any singletons or voids. It is implied (but nowhere stated) on the convention charts that conventional might be the opposite of natural, and that natural bids are generally allowed (in addition to what's specifically allowed on the charts), but there are some people who disagree with this interpretation.

(2) The Laws (which are universal to all SOs, not just ACBL) do define conventional. However the definition quoted is not very specific. In fact, due to negative inferences, it doesn't even really make sense.

One can make a coherent argument that all conventions should be legal. I know some forum posters who believe this. However, they are very much in the minority of bridge players world wide, since every SO enforces some system regulations. There are many arguments in favor of some form of regulation, primarily that (especially in events with short rounds) the game tends to degenerate into "who can spring the weirdest stuff on opponents and gain by their unfamiliarity." In fact it is possible to design methods which cannot even be disclosed reasonably in the time allotted for a round. This is essentially a short-circuit of the rules requiring full disclosure, and implies that at least in some extreme cases, methods should be disallowed.

In any case, once we have accepted that some system regulations will exist, there will have to be a line drawn somewhere dividing what is allowed from what is not. Everyone will have their opinion about where this line should be. Different countries put it in different places. This is fine in principle, but arguing about how "I like to open 1NT with small singletons so it should be allowed" or "I like to open light so drury should be allowed opposite 1/2nd seat openings" is purely a matter of opinion and counterproductive. I think it makes a lot more sense to look for places where the rules are specifically inconsistent or overly vague rather than just places where "X's favorite convention was disallowed, boohoo for him."

As far as opening 1NT, if 4441 and 5431 are okay, how about 5440? 5530? Any hand with no six-card suit? Any hand with no seven card suit? Any hand without two voids? Any of these definitions are arguably more likely to be a good hand for notrump than a hand which doesn't fit the definition. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. The logical line, and the one consistent with the laws is that opening 1NT is okay "if the hand is more suited to play in notrump than in a suit contract." But who gets to decide what's more suited to play in notrumps? If left to the individual player, then we're back to "you can open 1NT on any set of hands you want." So it makes sense for the SO to draw some line and say that "these hands are suited to play in notrumps and these are not." I believe a hand with a small singleton is less likely to belong in notrump than a hand with a small doubleton. Many simulations and hand evaluation metrics will support me on this. Obviously allowing 4432 and not 4441 is not the only place where this line could be drawn, or even the only reasonable place. But it is a reasonable place.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 27 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 03:51 AM, said:

LOL.  ...and last I checked, a NT opening _promises_ no stiff or void.

Say's who?

A NT opening suggests that you don't have a singleton.
However, it certainly doesn't deny a singleton.

You simply can not twist around this one. An "natural" NT Opening promises a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

One may bid one's hand however one wishes. Operating and Psyches are a legitimate part of the game.

But unless your system specifically allows for a shapely hand as a NT opening, any time one opens in NT with a shapely hand, that person is lying. Period.

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Jun 27 2007, 09:41 PM, said:

(1) ACBL does not define conventional anywhere.

http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 05:42 AM, said:

You simply can not twist around this one. An "natural" NT Opening promises a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

One may bid one's hand however one wishes. Operating and Psyches are a legitimate part of the game.

But unless your system specifically allows for a shapely hand as a NT opening, any time one opens in NT with a shapely hand, that person is lying. Period.

Arguing over semantics is pointless.

Most players understand that certain hands with singletons should systemically be opened with a NT bid. Individuals might disagree about the specific examples, but the the basic concept is pretty well established.

Does this mean that a natural 1NT opening denies a singleton?
Who the hell cares...

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 05:30 AM, said:

I had another suggestion for this hand: Open 1♦ and rebid 2N; downgrading the hand due to the Stiff A.
(Even though this is a serious suggestion based on logic, this should =really= fan the flames... )

I think that you're simply sidestepping the main point of the discussion:

If you believe that the hand is too weak for a 2NT opening, add another Jack or Queen or whatever you feel is necessary to get it into the right range. In a similar vein, if you think that the hand is too strong, alter the hand accordingly.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 27 2007, 10:57 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 05:42 AM, said:

You simply can not twist around this one.  An "natural" NT Opening promises a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

One may bid one's hand however one wishes.  Operating and Psyches are a legitimate part of the game.

But unless your system specifically allows for a shapely hand as a NT opening, any time one opens in NT with a shapely hand, that person is lying.  Period.

Arguing over semantics is pointless.

Most players understand that certain hands with singletons should systemically be opened with a NT bid. Individuals might disagree about the specific examples, but the the basic concept is pretty well established.

Does this mean that a natural NT opening denies a singleton?
Who the hell cares...

This is not merely about semantics.

I have related the original meaning of NT openings: that Opener did not have a suit good enough to offer as a trump suit or a hand where a trump suit would be useful; yet was powerful enough that the odds favored making "n" tricks over Book even considering those factors.

Thus the =original= and therefore most "natural" definition of a NT Opening is based on a hand unsuitable for play in a suit. What hands are those?
a= Obviously not shapely hands. For those benefit from the presence of a trump suit.
b= Equally obviously not hands containing suits that are likely to create a decent trump suit opposite most hands Responder could have. Thus we are talking about suits of reasonably short length and relatively poor to very poor suit quality if "long-ish"

Sometimes one is endplayed into having to lie about one's hand. That's just the way Bridge is. Then you strive to tell the least lie, but that in no way makes such a lie "systemic" nor does the fact that you might tend to tell the same lie in other similar circumstances have any bearing on the original definition of a bid. For you are lying, after all.

What SO's evidently do not want is for NT bids to be so wide ranging as to either strength or shape systemically that the response structure involving them effectively becomes a form of Psychic Control. The authoritative view seems to be that such systemic choices and methods would result in reducing the overall quality of Bridge played ATT. This is consistent with other such rulings like not allowing Drury in all seats or not allowing other forms of controlled psyches or not allowing Destructive methods (Bearing in mind that I do not always agree with Officaldom when they rule something Destructive).

[jtfanclub]

foo, on Jun 27 2007, 11:23 PM, said:

I have related the original meaning of NT openings: that Opener did not have a suit good enough to offer as a trump suit or a hand where a trump suit would be useful; yet was powerful enough that the odds favored making "n" tricks over Book even considering those factors.

Thus the =original= and therefore most "natural" definition of a NT Opening is based on a hand unsuitable for play in a suit.

Ummm...I just grabbed my 1949 Goren and it says nothing of the sort.

The concept of No Trump in Goren's day was PROTECTION, caps his.

-Three suits well stopped.
-Any doubleton (at most one) headed by an ace or king.

But I don't see anything in his book about suit quality.

In fact, this was a sample hand from Quiz #1:

AKJ96
A95
AQT
A8

He says to open it 2NT, and yet no reasonable person would argue that the spades are of poor quality, or that the spades look to be useless as trump.

By all means, grab an older source and quote me something.