[dake50]

Recently my partner has perverted our 1NT:10-12 bal with three openings with a single in one 28-board session. Must I now alert opponents that I know her tendency to vary the balanced agreement? Or was this just her deviations bunched into one session?

Aside. If this is our de facto agreement: any 10-13 is this GCC legal? Mid-chart/Super Chart/ Disallowed?

[hrothgar]

Insufficient data to reach a meaningful conclusion

Please provide the set of all hands where

1. Partner had the option to open a mini NT
2. Partner held 9-13 HCP, balanced/semi balanced

Along with the choice of opening bids.

A couple hundred hands should be sufficient

[jdonn]

Clearly you must alert them. 3 times in one session? I have opened 1NT with a singleton in live bridge about 3 times in the last 5 years, and there are probably those who would think I should alert it.

[peachy]

Definitely alert. Also, change your system card to show this change. I don't think it is illegal in ACBL or elsewhere, but if you next begin frequent upgrading of 9HCP hands into it you will run into trouble eventually, not because your system allows frequent singletons but because under 10HCP NT openings are illegal. Once that crosses the frequency limits...

[Stephen Tu]

ACBL position:
http://www.acbl.org/...aSingleton.html

For a non-forcing NT ostensibly natural opening, supposedly at most 1% of your opening NTs can have singletons, and you can't have methods to expose the stiff.

If your partner is doing this often enough that an alert is required, presumably this is a disallowed convention in the view of the ACBL.


I think the rule is just stupid, as I do many ACBL rules.

[awm]

I don't see a problem with this particular ACBL rule.

Assuming you agree that sanctioning organizations should be able to regulate legal agreements at all (I know some on these forums disagree, but they are a distinct if vocal minority), there need to be rules regarding frequency like this. If an individual always bids a certain way, and his partner knows it, then it becomes a de facto agreement.

Here it looks like partner will essentially always open 1NT on hands including a singleton. The frequency (three boards in one session!) is so high that it doesn't make sense to describe this as a "deviation from agreements" any more. This is how the person bids. And since ACBL regulations prohibit an agreement to open 1NT on unbalanced hands (except if 1NT is a strong forcing bid) this is an illegal agreement. The directors should have a chat with partner and explain that he has to stop bidding this way so often or boards will be adjusted (and/or procedural penalties assessed).

[aguahombre]

Here are some of the problems I see for those with a 10 HCP floor for 1NT:

1)There are more hands with 9 HCP than there are hands with 14 HCP, therefore more "judgement calls".
2)There are more unbalanced hands in the 10-13 range than in higher ranges that feel notrumpish to you, or are hard to handle with a minor opening.

With many more opportunities to deviate, hence establish a new implied agreement, come more problems.

Depending upon your governing organization or the tolerance level of human directors, you then flirt with losing the ability to use conventions after notrump opening bids --among other complications.

If you conclude that I am against using judgement or weak notrumps, that is not true. You should be able to use whatever you think works for you --am just stating what probably has already occurred to you.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing a 10-12 1NT opening for many years, and I have yet to see one hand on which I would want to open a 9 HCP 1NT or a 1NT opening with a singleton.

Aside from annoying your opponents (and, potentially, tournament officials), you make life difficult for partner.

By the way, this section of the Forum is titled "Non-Natural System Discussion." There is nothing "non-natural" about a 10-12 or a 10-13 1NT opening. But I digress.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

I don't see a problem with this particular ACBL rule.

Well I do. I don't think they should be in the business of legislating what constitutes "good bridge". If people get good results from opening 1nt with small singletons, they ought to be able to do so IMO. It's a natural NF bid! Nor should they be prevented from getting the bad results. People should have the right to be crazy, as long as they disclose.

I'd be fine if they made it legal, as long as partner alerts, and can provide an accurate description of what sort of hands opener would choose to open a stiff on.

People ought to be dissuaded from doing so due to poor results, not because of arbitrary restrictions.

[Cascade]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 16 2009, 06:40 AM, said:

ACBL position:
http://www.acbl.org/...aSingleton.html

For a non-forcing NT ostensibly natural opening, supposedly at most 1% of your opening NTs can have singletons, and you can't have methods to expose the stiff.

If your partner is doing this often enough that an alert is required, presumably this is a disallowed convention in the view of the ACBL.


I think the rule is just stupid, as I do many ACBL rules.

When this has been discussed in the past it has become apparent that standard practice for at least some experts is to open 1NT with a singleton more often than that.

[awm]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 15 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

Well I do. I don't think they should be in the business of legislating what constitutes "good bridge". If people get good results from opening 1nt with small singletons, they ought to be able to do so IMO. It's a natural NF bid! Nor should they be prevented from getting the bad results. People should have the right to be crazy, as long as they disclose.

Every argument you've made here would seem to apply equally well to a 2♥ opening showing a weak two in either major. Some people think this method is "good bridge" and as long as they disclose, why shouldn't they have the right to be crazy? The bid's even "natural" in the sense that partner will often pass it and it expresses a willingness to play 2♥ opposite a (semi)-balanced hand without much in the way of values.

Of course, if you agree that 2♥ showing a weak two in either major should be allowed in all events and that ACBL (or WBF for that matter) shouldn't be in the business of legislating whether this convention constitutes "good bridge" then you're entitled to your opinion -- but you should recognize that this opinion differs from that of the vast majority of bridge players.

[bill1157]

what if you only opened 1NT when the singleton was a high honor (Q or better) and knocked out the 10 pt hands (subtract a point for the singleton honor) would that be sufficiently rare to work under the ACBL rules?

Bill

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 15 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jul 15 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

Well I do.  I don't think they should be in the business of legislating what constitutes "good bridge".  If people get good results from opening 1nt with small singletons, they ought to be able to do so IMO.  It's a natural NF bid!  Nor should they be prevented from getting the bad results.  People should have the right to be crazy, as long as they disclose.

Every argument you've made here would seem to apply equally well to a 2♥ opening showing a weak two in either major. Some people think this method is "good bridge" and as long as they disclose, why shouldn't they have the right to be crazy? The bid's even "natural" in the sense that partner will often pass it and it expresses a willingness to play 2♥ opposite a (semi)-balanced hand without much in the way of values.

I think it is a stretch to call a 2♥ opening showing a weak two-bid in either major natural.

Nor do I think "willingness to play" has anything to do with natural. I might open 2♦ to show a 4=4=1=4 hand and am perfectly willing to play in 2♦ if partner has a bunch of diamonds, but that doesn't mean the bid is natural. At least not in my opinion.

Isn't the "offer to play" or "willingness to play" a holdover from the old Laws definition of "conventional"?

[awm]

TimG, on Jul 15 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

I think it is a stretch to call a 2♥ opening showing a weak two-bid in either major natural.

Nor do I think "willingness to play" has anything to do with natural.

Again, similar arguments apply to the 1NT call. What makes opening 1NT with a singleton "natural"? A natural notrump bid is supposed to be a balanced hand, which would not include a singleton. Certainly the 1NT opening conveys a "willingness to play" in 1NT, but like you said, this doesn't have anything to do with natural.

[Cascade]

awm, on Jul 16 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 15 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

I think it is a stretch to call a 2♥ opening showing a weak two-bid in either major natural.

Nor do I think "willingness to play" has anything to do with natural.

Again, similar arguments apply to the 1NT call. What makes opening 1NT with a singleton "natural"? A natural notrump bid is supposed to be a balanced hand, which would not include a singleton. Certainly the 1NT opening conveys a "willingness to play" in 1NT, but like you said, this doesn't have anything to do with natural.

Why does 1NT need to be balanced to be natural?

What is 'balanced'? Just 4333? 4333 and 4432? 4333 and 4432 and 5332? Or some other shapes?

There has been a trend for less and less balanced hands to open 1NT over time.

Culbertson advocated at one time "The hand should have 4-3-3-3 distribution." Bidding and Play in Duplicate Contract Bridge.

Others have required that all suits be stopped.

Now it is common for hands with a small doubleton to be opened 1NT.

Some might even open 1NT from time to time with two small doubletons.

Others are happy to open 1NT with a stiff honour.

And some with a small singleton.

This is just a progression. None is more natural than any other. They all fit in a context of an overall system which is either effective or not.

[awm]

Similarly to what Cascade said...

It used to be that a 1♣ opening showed at least four clubs back in the days of Culbertson and Goren and old-fashioned Acol.

Since the advent of five-card major systems, more and more of us have been opening 1♣ with only three cards, and this is now quite common in the context of "natural" bidding.

In the last decade or so, it has become increasingly popular for a 1♣ opening to promise only two clubs such that the 1♦ opening can promise an unbalanced hand. Some people even take this so far as to open 1♣ on singleton so that 1♦ can promise five, and this approach is no longer extremely unusual even amongst otherwise "natural" bidders.

So obviously 1♣ opening which could be 4441 (i.e. any hand without five cards in any other suit) is just a natural bid right? Shouldn't be regulated, shouldn't be alerted?

Yet Cascade himself is one of the chief opponents of this position. Why is his position so different about 1NT openings?

Any standard which we define for "natural" bids will draw some arbitrary-seeming lines. And at some point some players will want to cross those lines. But as long as we believe that some regulation of methods is permissible, it will be necessary to have some definitions for what is allowed and to require that players who frequently violate those definitions stop doing so. In the case of 1NT openings, the "line" is "no singletons or voids."

[Cascade]

awm, on Jul 16 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

Similarly to what Cascade said...

It used to be that a 1♣ opening showed at least four clubs back in the days of Culbertson and Goren and old-fashioned Acol.

Since the advent of five-card major systems, more and more of us have been opening 1♣ with only three cards, and this is now quite common in the context of "natural" bidding.

In the last decade or so, it has become increasingly popular for a 1♣ opening to promise only two clubs such that the 1♦ opening can promise an unbalanced hand. Some people even take this so far as to open 1♣ on singleton so that 1♦ can promise five, and this approach is no longer extremely unusual even amongst otherwise "natural" bidders.

So obviously 1♣ opening which could be 4441 (i.e. any hand without five cards in any other suit) is just a natural bid right? Shouldn't be regulated, shouldn't be alerted?

Yet Cascade himself is one of the chief opponents of this position. Why is his position so different about 1NT openings?

Any standard which we define for "natural" bids will draw some arbitrary-seeming lines. And at some point some players will want to cross those lines. But as long as we believe that some regulation of methods is permissible, it will be necessary to have some definitions for what is allowed and to require that players who frequently violate those definitions stop doing so. In the case of 1NT openings, the "line" is "no singletons or voids."

I think you don't understand my position on the subject at all.

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 15 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 15 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

I think it is a stretch to call a 2♥ opening showing a weak two-bid in either major natural.

Nor do I think "willingness to play" has anything to do with natural.

Again, similar arguments apply to the 1NT call. What makes opening 1NT with a singleton "natural"? A natural notrump bid is supposed to be a balanced hand, which would not include a singleton. Certainly the 1NT opening conveys a "willingness to play" in 1NT, but like you said, this doesn't have anything to do with natural.

Agreed, I wasn't addressing the naturalness of a 1N opening bid (with or without a singleton), just the 2♥ opening showing either spades or hearts.

To Cascade: the ACBL GCC contains this: "A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)." I do not wish to debate whether this is a good definition or not, but it seems to me that ACBL is free to define natural how they wish and to establish regulations based upon whatever definition they choose. Don't the new Laws provide for regulation of methods without regard to whether they are natural or conventional?

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 15 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

Since the advent of five-card major systems, more and more of us have been opening 1♣ with only three cards, and this is now quite common in the context of "natural" bidding.

I've recently been reading some Bridge Worlds from 1953 in which there is a debate about whether the Roth-Stone system should be allowed in ACBL events. A comment (I forget from whom) in that debate said that a five-card major approach was in fashion early in the history of contract bridge, then fell out of favor at some point and then back into favor (thanks in large part to Roth-Stone). It's funny how sometimes the "new" methods are really the "old" methods.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Jul 16 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

awm, on Jul 15 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 15 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

I think it is a stretch to call a 2♥ opening showing a weak two-bid in either major natural.

Nor do I think "willingness to play" has anything to do with natural.

Again, similar arguments apply to the 1NT call. What makes opening 1NT with a singleton "natural"? A natural notrump bid is supposed to be a balanced hand, which would not include a singleton. Certainly the 1NT opening conveys a "willingness to play" in 1NT, but like you said, this doesn't have anything to do with natural.

Agreed, I wasn't addressing the naturalness of a 1N opening bid (with or without a singleton), just the 2♥ opening showing either spades or hearts.

To Cascade: the ACBL GCC contains this: "A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)." I do not wish to debate whether this is a good definition or not, but it seems to me that ACBL is free to define natural how they wish and to establish regulations based upon whatever definition they choose. Don't the new Laws provide for regulation of methods without regard to whether they are natural or conventional?

The laws state:

"B. Special Partnership Understandings
1. (a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain
partnership understandings as “special partnership understandings”. A
special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of
the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by
a significant number of players in the tournament.
( Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a
partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating
Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that
constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call
that has an artificial meaning.
2. (a) The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow,
disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. It
may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets, for the
prior listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use. The
Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods
of disclosure of a partnership’s methods. It may vary the general
requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference
to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (such a regulation must
not restrict style and judgement, only method). ..."

It is only Special Partnership Understandings that can be regulated. These include conventions unless designated otherwise and artificial bids. Otherwise they need to be designated as Special by the regulating authority and meet the conditions that they are 'not readily understood and anticipated.

The fact that something is defined as natural or not has little or no direct bearing on whether or not it is a 'Special Partnership Understanding'. And therefore whether or not it can be regulated.

An Artificial Call is defined as

"Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information
(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than
willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass
which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises
or denies values other than in the last suit named."

So a 1NT opening that is primarily designed to show a willingness to play in no trumps (provided partner does not have distribution to suggest another denomination) does not appear to be artificial.

'Convention' is no longer definied in the laws but in the previous laws had a similar meaning to "Artificial call' with regard to No Trump openings since we cannot have length or strength in no trumps.