[gnasher]

 hrothgar, on 2014-June-12, 07:02, said:

------------------------------------------------------
Quoted post deleted by moderator
------------------------------------------------------

This is an internet discussion forum. Why on earth should you expect us to do anything other than opinionate, speculate and whine?

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2014-June-12, 15:38, said:

Deleted by moderator.

It's remarkable that Hrothgar's posts are so

• Consistent.
• Often approved by moderators and other posters.

 gnasher, on 2014-June-12, 16:21, said:

This is an internet discussion forum. Why on earth should you expect us to do anything other than opinionate, speculate and whine?

Interesting point

[blackshoe]

Hrothgar,

Please read the two PMs I sent you before reposting your reply, for which I am currently withholding approval until David can review it, until that review occurs.

[bluejak]

I have deleted one post.

I have deleted part of another post.

I have deleted parts of further posts that quoted the deleted sections.

Please can we have some decorum. It is clear that, internet or not, some posts have gone somewhat too far without putting anything helpful into the discussion.

[hrothgar]

 bluejak, on 2014-June-12, 18:28, said:

I have deleted one post.

I have deleted part of another post.

I have deleted parts of further posts that quoted the deleted sections.

Please can we have some decorum. It is clear that, internet or not, some posts have gone somewhat too far without putting anything helpful into the discussion.

Any chance that you can bother to comment on the topic being discussed?

[RMB1]

If a pair has a way of showing a singleton after a 1NT opening:
is the call that shows the singleton an illegal agreement?
is a 1NT opening an illegal agreement if they subsequently show a singleton?
is a 1NT opening an illegal agreement even if they don't show a show a singleton on this auction?

[ArtK78]

 RMB1, on 2014-June-13, 06:33, said:

If a pair has a way of showing a singleton after a 1NT opening:
is the call that shows the singleton an illegal agreement?
is a 1NT opening an illegal agreement if they subsequently show a singleton?
is a 1NT opening an illegal agreement even if they don't show a show a singleton on this auction?

This explanation is only valid in ACBL jurisdictions.

Pursuant to ACBL authority (whether you want to call the authority regulation, opinion of those in power, historical practice or whatever), the following appears to be correct:

The agreement that the partnership has to determine if a natural opening 1NT hand has a shortness (singleton or void) is not an illegal agreement.

However, the fact that the partnership has this agreement implies that they also have an agreement that the natural 1NT opening bid may contain a shortness. It is the agreement about the natural 1NT opening bid that is illegal. One is permitted to open a natural 1NT with a shortness as a deviation from standard practice (hence the use of the term "generally" in the description of the distributional requirements concerning a natural 1NT opening bid). One may not have a partnership agreement that a natural 1NT opening bid may contain a shortness.

The fact that a natural 1NT opening bid on any particular hand does not contain a shortness doesn't change the fact that if a partnership has an agreement to determine if the natural 1NT opening bid contains a shortness then the partnership has an implied agreement that the natural 1NT opening bid may contain a shortness. The agreement concerning the distributional requirements of the natural 1NT opening bid is still an illegal agreement.

I have been very careful in this explanation to use the phrase "natural 1NT opening bid" or some variation on that phrase. None of this discussion applies to any conventional 1NT opening bid, such as the Dynamic 1NT opening bid of the Romex system.

EDIT: The foregoing is my understanding of the way things ARE. For a very well framed argument about the way things should be, see David Yates' post timestamped about 11:00pm EST Thursday, June 12, on this bridgewinners thread: http://bridgewinners...ingleton/#new_1

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I received the following response from the ACBL.

Couple quick observations

1. From the looks of things, the ACBL recommends punting this type of decision down to the local club
2. The penalties that the ACBL discuss are far more draconian than the ones that I suggested

Quote

Hello, Richard. Thank you for your question.

At the ACBL Rulings FAQ (http://www.acbl.org/...rs/rulings-faq/), there is an article about opening or overcalling a natural 1NT with a singleton. Here are some excerpts from the article:

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.

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.)

(http://web2.acbl.org...h-Singleton.pdf)

So, in an ACBL-sanctioned game, a partnership is not allowed to have an agreement that a natural 1NT opening or overcall may have a singleton. This includes club-level ACBL-sanctioned games with masterpoints being awarded for overall positions in several locations. The ACBL General Convention Chart (http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf) lists the allowable conventions that may be used.

However, at other club games, players are allowed to use "off the chart" conventions with the prior approval of Club Management. On the other hand, I would find it very unlikely that Club Management would allow a partnership to have an agreement that natural 1NT openings or overcalls may have a singleton, but if they did they should make it clear that it can only be used within the four walls of that club, and even then many of the special games (such as STaCs or ACBL-wide games) would require adherence to the GCC and our regulations.

When this sort of situation occurs, call the Director and tell him the situation. If the opponents are using a convention that is not allowed, then the Director can assign an adjusted score on the board and perhaps even give a procedural penalty to the opponents if they have a history of using disallowed or illegal conventions. Continued usage of such a convention could easily bring about ethics charges. From our regulations in that area:

Offense:

E4 Play a convention, system, or treatment knowing it is illegal (CDR 3.2 and 3.7)

Recommended Discipline:

90 days probation and or up to 60 days Suspension*



Mandatory Masterpoint Penalties:

10-50% of Disciplined Player’s total masterpoint holding.

http://web2.acbl.org...urrent-Code.pdf

I hope this helps you.

[ArtK78]

 hrothgar, on 2014-June-16, 07:41, said:

FWIW, I received the following response from the ACBL.

Couple quick observations

1. From the looks of things, the ACBL recommends punting this type of decision down to the local club
2. The penalties that the ACBL discuss are far more draconian than the ones that I suggested






I hope this helps you.

I don't think that the penalties are draconian for a partnership that KNOWINGLY plays an illegal convention. Once a partnership has been informed that a particular convention is not permitted and they continue to play it, it is no longer a matter of opinion - it is a matter of fact. I would think that knowingly playing an illegal convention after being told that it is not permitted would be a serious breach of the General Conditions of Contest governing all ACBL events; however, having reviewed the ACBL General Conditions of Contest, I don't see any specific reference to directly violating a directive of a league official. I suppose it is just assumed that if you are told you cannot play a convention by a league official who has authority to make such a determination, if you do continue to play the illegal convention it would be a violation.

This is a matter for conduct and ethics. The concept that such a partnership would be subject to suspension and forfeiture of masterpoints is not something that is really that hard to understand.

I did review the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations and found that the cited sections and recommended sanctions are correct. Section 3 is titled "Grounds for Discipline." CDR 3.2 states that a violation of ACBL Regulations is grounds for discipline. As the convention rules are part of ACBL Regulations, playing an illegal convention would be grounds for discipline even without prior warning. CDR 3.7 is much more general. It states that grounds for discipline include "Actions or behavior unbecoming a person participating in an ACBL sanctioned tournament or event; or a person attending (at the time and site of) an ACBL sanctioned tournament or event or ACBL activity (including a unit or district activity)."

The penalties for knowingly playing an illegal convention are specifically spelled out in Appendix B, ACBL Disciplinary Sanction Guidelines, Part B, Ethics, Offense E4 - Play a convention, treatment or system knowing it is illegal (citing CDR 3.2 and 3.7). As stated in the e-mail to Richard, the sanction is 90 days probation and/or up to 60 days suspension, and a possible masterpoint penalty of 10% - 50% of the disciplined player's total masterpoint holding.

While the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations states that it applies to all participants in any ACBL event (including non-members), it seems to me that the General Conditions of Contest for all ACBL Events should have some reference in it that all participants in an ACBL event agree to be subject to the rules and regulations governing the events, including the Code of Disciplinary Regulations. But that is just the lawyer in me speaking.

[Mbodell]

 ArtK78, on 2014-June-16, 09:03, said:

I don't think that the penalties are draconian for a partnership that KNOWINGLY plays an illegal convention. Once a partnership has been informed that a particular convention is not permitted and they continue to play it, it is no longer a matter of opinion - it is a matter of fact.

I would agree with you if we actually had a somewhat consistent and well crafted legal structure or explanation of rules or clearly defined authority to whom decisions could be appealed and published. However we don't have that. What one TD tells you one day a different TD tells you another. What one official from an official @acbl.org email address tells you one day, someone else contradicts you a different day. When one thing is explained one way (I.e., 5 card suit with a side 4+ suit) gets ruled one way, but when the exact same agreement is described another way (I.e., 5 card suit in an unbalanced hand) it gets ruled another way. When one less well known or liked person asks the question, they get one answer. When a famous and well respect player asks the question, they may get the different answer. In that world it is hard to imagine coming down harsh on someone if a bunch of times they are told the convention is ok, but other multiple times they've been told it isn't ok.

[aguahombre]

What Richard received from "ACBL" in answer to his inquiry quoted accurately the ACBL FAQ's on the subject. But, as much as I believe it should be a logical extension, I don't see how the person who responded got to:

"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.)"

It seems there is a linkless jump to the part I put in bold, which in turn would be the only way we could then apply the CDR if a pair uses its methods to discover the singleton.

Can someone provide the missing link in case law or interpretation?

[nige1]

 Mbodell, on 2014-June-16, 13:57, said:

What one official from an official @acbl.org email address tells you one day, someone else contradicts you a different day. [SNIP] When one less well known or liked person asks the question, they get one answer. When a famous and well respect player asks the question, they may get the different answer. In that world it is hard to imagine coming down harsh on someone if a bunch of times they are told the convention is ok, but other multiple times they've been told it isn't ok.

Until rule-makers simplify and clarify, we must endure the consequences

 aguahombre, on 2014-June-16, 14:12, said:

What Richard received from "ACBL" in answer to his inquiry quoted accurately the ACBL FAQ's on the subject. But, as much as I believe it should be a logical extension, I don't see how the person who responded got to: "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.)" It seems there is a linkless jump to the part I put in bold, which in turn would be the only way we could then apply the CDR if a pair uses its methods to discover the singleton. Can someone provide the missing link in case law or interpretation?

It seems logical that later understandings predicated on earlier illegal understandings should also be illegal.

[aguahombre]

 nige1, on 2014-June-16, 15:11, said:

It seems logical that later understandings predicated on earlier illegal understandings should also be illegal.

Yes, it does; and I wish that would cut the mustard. However, the quoted stuff does not establish the opening of 1NT some very low percent of the time when there are rebid issues as an illegal understanding. So, it seems to me the method of discovering the deviation would have to be pronounced illegal separately in order to invoke the CDR sanctions referenced above. The ACBL respondent to Richard's inquiry seems to have pronounced such systemic continuations illegal, but the material he quotes does not go there.

[nige1]

 aguahombre, on 2014-June-16, 15:33, said:

Yes, it does; and I wish that would cut the mustard. However, the quoted stuff does not establish the opening of 1NT some very low percent of the time when there are rebid issues as an illegal understanding. So, it seems to me the method of discovering the deviation would have to be pronounced illegal separately in order to invoke the CDR sanctions referenced above. The ACBL respondent to Richard's inquiry seems to have pronounced such systemic continuations illegal, but the material he quotes does not go there.

ACBL FAQ said:

So, in an ACBL-sanctioned game, a partnership is not allowed to have an agreement that a natural 1NT opening or overcall may have a singleton.

Here we go again My understanding is that you may open 1N with an exceptional unbalanced hand but it must be a surprise to partner. No understanding is allowed. If you agree that some of opener's rebids reveal a singleton or void, then such shortages are hardly unexpected.

[blackshoe]

A FAQ is not a regulation, unless the authority producing the FAQ specifically designates it as such. My opinion, of course, but I think it's valid (of course I do, or I wouldn't be saying it. ). The ACBL has not, to my knowledge, so designated the "Rulings FAQ".

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-June-16, 16:27, said:

A FAQ is not a regulation, unless the authority producing the FAQ specifically designates it as such. My opinion, of course, but I think it's valid (of course I do, or I wouldn't be saying it. ). The ACBL has not, to my knowledge, so designated the "Rulings FAQ".

We're just going around in circles.

The ACBL convention regulations are extremely vague. If you try to use them alone, it's practically impossible to answer questions like this. The only way to use them is to consult supplementary documents like the FAQ and Tech Files, which explain how ACBL directing staff is supposed to interpret the regulations. It's understood that ACBL makes these documents available precisely for this purpose. What's the point of being pedantic and repeating that these aren't really official regulations? They're the closest thing we have, since the actual regulations are incomplete without them.

[blackshoe]

I'll say it again: if the ACBL wants the Tech Files (and the FAQ) to be authoritative sources of interpretation of laws and regulations, they should say so explicitly.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-June-16, 18:33, said:

I'll say it again: if the ACBL wants the Tech Files (and the FAQ) to be authoritative sources of interpretation of laws and regulations, they should say so explicitly.

There's probably some technical reason why they can't make them truly official, because they didn't come out of the appropriate committee. So making them de facto regulations is as good as you're going to get.

If you want the regulations to be applied consistently, these documents provide the source of that consistency, since the regulations themselves cannot do that.

[blackshoe]

What are we saying here? That the relevant committee members aren't doing their jobs? I know they're volunteers, but that's no reason to let them get away with so much slacking off.

[barmar]

What we're saying is that ACBL just isn't that interested in formalizing this. What they have is "good enough".

Call it incompetent if you like, but it's what we have, and as directors we have to make do. You can't just ignore the Tech Files and FAQs because they're not "official".