[Cascade]

gnasher, on Nov 28 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

nige1, on Nov 27 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

This seems to imply that you can open 1N with a singleton only if you are prepared to lie that about your implicit systemic agreements

In the same way that you can agree to use your fingers to signal your distribution, but only if you're prepared to deny the agreement when questioned.

Its quite different.

As far as I am aware it is not expert practice to use finger signals.

On the other hand it is common expert practice to open 16 HCP 4-4-4-1 and the like with a stiff king with 1NT.

This expert practice falls outside the 1% guideline in the defacto regulations and I think would very quickly constitute an implicit understanding.

Further the director (chief director maybe) that I checked this point with on the ground in San Diego said to me something like it is quite ok with a problem hand to decide to open 1NT with a stiff king for example if legimately trying to make the best bid or give the best description of your hand.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Nov 27 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

Further the director (chief director maybe) that I checked this point with on the ground in San Diego said to me something like it is quite ok with a problem hand to decide to open 1NT with a stiff king for example if legimately trying to make the best bid or give the best description of your hand.

Right - so long as nobody decides you have an agreement, implicit or explicit, you're fine.

[bluejak]

Quote

This seems to imply that you can open 1N with a singleton only if you are prepared to lie about your implicit systemic agreements.

Not at all. Regulations are not designed to deal with cheats, and I would prefer that no-one on this forum recommends cheating.

If something is illegal, it is illegal whether someone is prepared to lie or not. Whether he is prepared to lie just affects whether he is a cheat or not.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Nov 28 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

Its quite different.

As far as I am aware it is not expert practice to use finger signals.

On the other hand it is common expert practice to open 16 HCP 4-4-4-1 and the like with a stiff king with 1NT.

This expert practice falls outside the 1% guideline in the defacto regulations and I think would very quickly constitute an implicit understanding.

What on earth does "common expert practice" have to do with anything? You asked what was allowed, not what people actually do.

If it is common to agree to do this, and illegal to have such an agreement, and the players in question know that their agreement is illegal, it is no different from any other illegal agreement.

Quote

Further the director (chief director maybe) that I checked this point with on the ground in San Diego said to me something like it is quite ok with a problem hand to decide to open 1NT with a stiff king for example if legimately trying to make the best bid or give the best description of your hand.

That also seems irrelevant. You have already been told that it's OK to do it sometimes as a matter of judgement, as long as you don't agree to do it always on a particular shape and strength, and as long as the frequency of such actions is below a defined limit (albeit rather ambiguously defined). The director you spoke to seems to agree with that.

[nige1]

Nigel said:

This seems to imply that you can open 1N with a singleton only if you are prepared to lie about your implicit systemic agreements.

bluejak, on Nov 28 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Not at all. Regulations are not designed to deal with cheats, and I would prefer that no-one on this forum recommends cheating. If something is illegal, it is illegal whether someone is prepared to lie or not.  Whether he is prepared to lie just affects whether he is a cheat or not.

I feel that the following two items of advice contradict each other...

ACBL/Duplicate/Tech_Files/Tech_File_Laws_Interpretation said:

The bid of a natural notrump MUST promise a balanced hand. No agreement, either explicit or implicit, that the bid may be made with an unbalanced hand is legal;...

ACBL Club Director's Handbook said:

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:

• It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and,
  
  
• Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and,
  
  
• You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.

I don't think the latter deliberately advocates law-breaking. Whether or not it does seems to depend on how you interpret the definition an implicit agreement. I feel that advice given in this thread (and also in the thread on "EBU rule of 18") stretches the rules about implicit agreements.

For instance, IMO, after you discuss actions that you'd definitely take on specific hands, even in a forum like this, then, de facto, you have an implicit agreement with those who read it.

This is a recurrent theme that is worth attempting to resolve. (I accept, of course, that a simple way of skirting the issue would be to get rid of some of the dafter rules).

[barmar]

I've read some bridge columns that suggest opening NT with 4441 when the singleton is an Ace or King (they're far more likely to take tricks than two or three small cards). Is it really "expert practice" to open NT with smaller singletons?

Can someone calculate the percentage of 1NT and 2NT openings that fit this criteria? I know I've made these bids, but it's been a while since I had one of those hands when I was in a position to open the bidding, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's around the 1% limit.

[helene_t]

Playing weak NT, I often find it necessary to open off-shape 1NT. For example
Qxx
AQJx
QJxxx
x

In a weak-NT context this hand is not good enough to raise spades.

Also the 4441-hands with a singleton in a minor are awkward and I prefer to open almost all of the 1NT if in range.

Playing strong NT don't think I would construct a hand with a small singleton where I would prefer to open 1NT.

[bluejak]

Of course this is a matter of style. Many English players open 1♦ and rebid 2♦ without worrying. The modern style is probably to open 1♦ and raise spades, which is frequently done with three cards. But it is very rare to open such a hand 1NT, though in England it is perfectly legal to do so so long as you disclose it.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Nov 29 2009, 06:47 AM, said:

I've read some bridge columns that suggest opening NT with 4441 when the singleton is an Ace or King (they're far more likely to take tricks than two or three small cards). Is it really "expert practice" to open NT with smaller singletons?

Can someone calculate the percentage of 1NT and 2NT openings that fit this criteria? I know I've made these bids, but it's been a while since I had one of those hands when I was in a position to open the bidding, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's around the 1% limit.

I did not take account of the HCP in the hands.

If you open 1NT with all 4333, 4432, 5332 hands and 4441 with a singleton honour then the relative frequencies are:

Singleton Ace only (or king or queen only)

4333 0.220262621
4432 0.450537179
5332 0.324386769
4441 0.004813431

Singleton Ace or King

4333 0.219207481
4432 0.448378938
5332 0.322832835
4441 0.009580747

Singleton Ace or King or Queen

4333 0.218162401
4432 0.446241275
5332 0.321293718
4441 0.014302605

Singleton Ace or King or Queen or Jack

4333 0.21712724
4432 0.444123899
5332 0.319769207
4441 0.018979654

So it appears if you only ever opened 1NT with a stiff ace or king (or any two particular honours of your chosing) you would comply with the 1% regulation under this sort of scheme.

However only a minor change to the assumptions like not opening all 5332 hands with a five-card major or opening some 5431 hands (these are much more frequent than 4441) would easily take you over the limit.

Here for example is one scenario:

4333 0.214763085
4432 0.439288128
5332 0.316287452
4441 0.009386498
5431 0.020274837

With 5431 I included only five-card minors. For both 4441 and 5431 I only considered a singleton ace or king.

You can see we are nearly up to 3%. Including 5-card majors in the 5431s would take us to nearly 5%.

On the other hand including some 5422s would reduce these percentages a little.

4333 0.197474139
4432 0.403924375
5332 0.29082555
5422 0.099145074
4441 0.008630863

No five-card major in 5422.

[barmar]

Thanks for the calculations. In a strong NT context, I think many 5431 hands would be strong enough to reverse, so wouldn't have to be opened 1NT, so that should keep the percentage low.

And if some changes in style push you closer to 2%, I'm not sure I'd quibble. The 1% figure seems to be a rough guideline, not a precise line you can't cross, since I doubt most players really know their percentages so exactly. If you ask most players the frequency of any particular action they take, I expect the best you can get is a choice from never, very rare, infrequent, sometimes, frequently, always. Trying to get them to refine very rare into 1% vs 3% is asking a bit much, unless they've gone through an exercise like this.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Nov 30 2009, 07:54 AM, said:

Thanks for the calculations. In a strong NT context, I think many 5431 hands would be strong enough to reverse, so wouldn't have to be opened 1NT, so that should keep the percentage low.

And if some changes in style push you closer to 2%, I'm not sure I'd quibble. The 1% figure seems to be a rough guideline, not a precise line you can't cross, since I doubt most players really know their percentages so exactly. If you ask most players the frequency of any particular action they take, I expect the best you can get is a choice from never, very rare, infrequent, sometimes, frequently, always. Trying to get them to refine very rare into 1% vs 3% is asking a bit much, unless they've gone through an exercise like this.

The obvious problem with treating rules like that is that at some point someone will quibble.

If you don't quibble at 2% do you quibble at 3% how about 4%, 5%, 6% etc

[awm]

I think you're reading the 1% statement too literally. This is just an attempt to codify the difference between having an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton (not allowed) and occasionally violating agreements in order to open 1NT with a singleton (allowed). The distinction between agreements versus calls made at the table is a common one in virtually all bridge authorities (including ACBL).

The point is just that if a player does something with extreme frequency, to the degree that an observant partner will notice and come to make allowances for the possibility, it becomes an implicit agreement even if there's no explicit discussion. No director is going to run all Cascade's simulations and distinguish between 0.98% versus 1.01% and say the former is legal and the latter is not. It's going to be more of a judgment call about whether there is something particularly "extraordinary" about the hand, and about whether partner seems to have "fielded" the action somehow.

[barmar]

So after saying that players hardly ever open NT with a small singleton, I've now seen it done at least twice in the 8 sessions I've played so far this week in San Diego. In both cases they got away with it because responder had 5 or 6 of the suit, so we couldn't run it.

I don't think I could get away with it, the card gods hate me too much. This afternoon I opened 2NT with AQ KQJTx KQxx Kx, and ended up in 3NT after partner transferred to ♠. Naturally, LHO had ♣AQJxxxx, and I went down 3 (4♥ goes down 1 because the ♠K is offside, too).

[nige1]

barmar, on Dec 1 2009, 01:55 AM, said:

So after saying that players hardly ever open NT with a small singleton, I've now seen it done at least twice in the 8 sessions I've played so far this week in San Diego.  In both cases they got away with it because responder had 5 or 6 of the suit, so we couldn't run it.

I don't think I could get away with it, the card gods hate me too much.  This afternoon I opened 2NT with AQ KQJTx KQxx Kx, and ended up in 3NT after partner transferred to ♠.  Naturally, LHO had ♣AQJxxxx, and I went down 3 (4♥ goes down 1 because the ♠K is offside, too).

I think that directors should be more suspicious. For putative illegal agreements that surface rarely, I feel that the default legal position should be to treat such bids as illegal.

I accept that some partnerships may never have discussed them so they don't have an explicit agreement.

And many partnerships may be completely ignorant of the regulation. They just think 1N is the best bid on some hands with a singleton.

I disagree with those who advise that the director should normally rule no agreement when a particular hand or hand-type is rare. If that really is the law, however, I would recommend that partnerships independently study such legal interpretations and carefully avoid explicit discussion of such matters.

The problem with deviations about which an agreement is forbidden are that appropriate hands and opportunities are rare. If you treat each specific hand or hand-type separately, they are rarer. This means that you rarely have any history to examine. If the partnership are strangers or foreigners, they will have less local history, and are more likely to escape censure.

In practice this means, that those who abide by such daft regulations, masochistically suffer a self-imposed handicap.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Dec 1 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

I think that directors should be more suspicious.

I was an anti-submarine warfare operator in the Navy. One of the dicta in that endeavor is "Of course I'm paranoid! The question is, am I paranoid enough?!" But directing bridge is not ASW, and I don't think this dictum should apply to the game.

Quote

For putative illegal agreements that surface rarely, I feel that the default legal position should be to treat such bids as illegal.

Law 101: Players are permitted to use judgment in devising their systemic agreements, provided those agreements are in compliance with applicable law and local regulation. However, once those agreements are made, players are not permitted to use judgment in deciding to deviate from their agreements. After any such deviation the TD shall cancel the table result and award an artificial adjusted score.

I don't think so.

Perhaps you didn't intend such a wide ranging restriction, Nigel, I suppose one could insert something like "if the deviation would represent an illegal agreement" in there somewhere, but still, this "Law 101" would be a bit too much IMO.

As for the rest, I have a suspicion that at some time you either got bad advice on or took your own interpretation of some law or regulation, that interpretation turned out to be wrong, you got shafted by it, and it's left a bad taste in your mouth ever since. I may be wrong, but that's my read on things you've said and the way you've said them. If I'm right, well, I sympathize with you on the poor outcome, but not on the drive to change the rules.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Dec 1 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Perhaps you didn't intend such a wide ranging restriction, Nigel

I don't think Nigel can complain about inaccuracy in paraphrasing other people's opinions.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Dec 1 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

As for the rest, I have a suspicion that at some time you either got bad advice on or took your own interpretation of some law or regulation, that interpretation turned out to be wrong, you got shafted by it, and it's left a bad taste in your mouth ever since. I may be wrong, but that's my read on things you've said and the way you've said them. If I'm right, well, I sympathize with you on the poor outcome, but not on the drive to change the rules.

Blackshoe seems to be aware that friends and I have lost on boards, where we have slavishly followed our interpretation of the rules -- for example, when opponents took a more liberal view and opened third in hand on 5-7 HCP.

When you ask opponents about such actions, they deny any agreement and also deny knowledge of any regulation restricting such agreements.

I believe that opponents didn't have any explicit agreement; I suspect many players have what some of us would deem to be an an implicit understanding; but in any case, you rarely encounter more than a couple of such incidents so it would be futile to try to establish a pattern.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Dec 1 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Perhaps you didn't intend such a wide ranging restriction, Nigel

gnasher, on Dec 1 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

I don't think Nigel can complain about inaccuracy in paraphrasing other people's opinions.

I may fail to understand all the subtleties of gnasher's arguments; but at least I make some attempt to address the substance.

[nige1]

Cascade could advise team-mates ...

• To cancel existing partnership agreements about opening 1N with a singleton.
  
• To drop sequences that establish that a 1N opener definitely has a singleton.
  
• To confirm the kind of balanced hands on which to open 1N.
  
• Individually, to study legal advice in this forum by expert directors.
  
• To ignore the views of "paranoid" mavericks (except this post).
  
• To avoid discussion of such matters but
  
• To emphasise the importance of judgement in bidding.

[blackshoe]

There was a comment in one of George Rosenkranz' Romex books to the effect that "we treat a singleton A or K as if it were a doubleton". Of course, Romex doesn't have a natural 1NT opening, and most balanced hands are shown by a rebid of 2NT. So perhaps it's less a problem - or a different problem.