[blackshoe]

One comment: The focus on "1NT with a singleton" in this thread is IMO incorrect. It is not illegal in the ACBL to open 1NT with a singleton. What is illegal (see the article Art posted) is to have an agreement by which responder can determine that opener did open 1NT with a singleton. By their own testimony, although they later tried to recant, NS did have such an agreement. Unless NS can provide concrete positive evidence that 2NT has some other meaning than that originally explained, I would rule that the agreed meaning of 2NT is illegal, and adjust the score on that basis.

[olegru]

If I understand correctly, pair in question do NOT have an agreement to open 1NT with singletons. What they do have it is the agreement to treat hand with singleton Ace as balanced. If I am not mistaken there is no rigid defenition of "balanced hand", world "generally" in definition implied that some other hands except hands without singletons could be considered as balanced.
Hand in question is not less balanced compare to 6322 with empty doubleton. Because openning is natural, limitation about any convention agreements in future bidding should not be applied. Having agreement about use 2NT bid for such a very specific hand, looks extremly bad bridge for me, but not illegal. (Of course, if they have an agreement to open 1NT with different singletons, that makes 2NT illegal agreement )

[blackshoe]

The question, I think, is whether their agreement is that 2NT shows a stiff in responder's suit. That seems illegal to me, as I said earlier. Olegru, if you think it's legal, please explain why.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-27, 17:52, said:

... is illegal, and adjust the score on that basis.

How do you decide what score to adjust to if opener does not have a systemic legal bid? Apparently 2♠ systemically shows 2+, and 2NT is not legal.

[aguahombre]

 RMB1, on 2014-May-28, 02:07, said:

How do you decide what score to adjust to if opener does not have a systemic legal bid? Apparently 2♠ systemically shows 2+, and 2NT is not legal.

That is the point. Ed makes the valid point that it is not legal to have a systemic bid or "break" to show the singleton. Legal would be to lump it and accept the transfer; that is what we do. It is the price we pay for choosing between showing a balanced hand within a range and opening 1x then looking around for a rebid.

IMO, the score might be adjusted or not. The violation (using an illegal method) should be treated first to decide if the OS gained from it, then from a disciplinary angle.

There is a table result. The TD decides whether that result would have been different if opener had (for instance) accepted the transfer and continued as if there were a doubleton instead of a singleton in the focus suit -- if the result at the table using an illegal method was worse (or the same), they keep it, if better, the TD adjusts to the less favorable outcome.

1NT-2H
2S-2NT (or 3NT)
P....result stands --routine auction with non-routine Opening, no problem.

1NT-2H
2NT-P..TD compares result in 2N vs result in 2S (or maybe 3S).

etc.

[Zelandakh]

And again, what if the meaning of 2NT as defined as "max, unsuitable for spades" but the pair in practise never make this call with a small doubleton? The explicit agreement is not illegal but the implicit agreement, that it is highly likely or even certain to show a singleton, is.

Putting aside the OP for a moment, which is obviously written from a particular perspective, is it not possible that the pair in question have no agreement for a 2NT transfer break here at all but one time one of the players was embarassed about having opened with a singleton and chose 2NT as a natural call? In other words, that the real agreement is "natural but it has only come up once and on that occasion partner had a singleton ace".

Are we still in illegal territory? Would it really be possible for a TD to judge these shades of grey accurately if a pair with more rules lawyering ability were involved? Is it fair that an honest pair gets punished, potentially thrown out of the event if we agree with Richard, where the immoral SB-type probably gets away with it? What does this tell us about the current regulations? Can anyone think of a better way?

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-May-28, 03:09, said:

Is it fair that an honest pair gets punished, potentially thrown out of the event if we agree with Richard, where the immoral SB-type probably gets away with it? What does this tell us about the current regulations? Can anyone think of a better way?

I am not sure if North's 2NT bid in itself is evidence for an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. For an inexperienced player it may just be GBK that you don't play in a 5-1 fit. For a more experienced North it is not but then again, a more experienced North wouldn't have such a silly agreement, never mind assume it to be GBK.

South didn't seem to take advantage of the alleged agreement since he probably wanted to introduce hearts anyway. Otherwise he would have used Texas.

North might have based his 4♥ bid on the idea that he wanted to prevent South from bidding 4♠. In other words, he is doing the ethical thing, not assuming that his partner knows about his sigleton spades. Of course it is also possible that South showed 5-5 and simply misbid.

So if we take your approach and don't ask them about the agreement of the 2NT bid (because we think that a dishonest pair will give an answer that is favorable to themselves), I think we have to rule no damage, although we might still think that the 2NT bid is evidence of an illegal agreement. Depending on whether we think the strange 2NT bid suggests a special partnership understanding or whether he was just panicking. I am inclined to the later and just let the score stand, but recording the case.

Of course Nige1 is right that the ultimate solution is to get rid of this ridicolous regulation but OK, that is not what the discussion is about.

[olegru]

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-27, 20:42, said:

The question, I think, is whether their agreement is that 2NT shows a stiff in responder's suit. That seems illegal to me, as I said earlier. Olegru, if you think it's legal, please explain why.

I am not a certified director and could be wrong, but I simply cannot find regulation that make it illegal. Could you point it to me? Note: GCC DISALLOWED 7 have nothing to do with the current issue:

Quote

CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit.

[blackshoe]

I base the contention that an agreement that allows responder to determine that opener who opened 1NT has a singleton is illegal on the article from the ACBL website posted upthread by, I think, Agua. Is that article a regulation? I don't know - the ACBL is so cavalier about its regulatory structure that just about anything might be — or might not be.

Again, to me the question is not "do they have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton?" I DON'T CARE! The question is whether they have an agreed method by which responder can determine that opener has a singleton.

In response to Zel: yes, it's possible that NS's initial assertion that their agreement was that 2NT shows a singleton was "mis-spoken". Is this possibility more likely, or is the possibility they changed their story to wiggle out of an adverse ruling more likely? I don't know; I wasn't there — but I lean towards the latter. I wouldn't, if they, in changing their story, said "no, we mis-spoke" or similar. There's no evidence of that.

Addendum: I started a message to "rulings", and thinking about it made me realize something. A careful reading of the aforementioned article will bring up the fact that what the article actually says is that an agreement that 2NT here shows a singleton is illegal because nothing in the GCC permits it. There need not be any regulation that specifically says it's illegal. I do have a problem with that: Item 8 under "Responses and rebids" on the GCC allows "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call." That would seem to make this 2NT legal, unless someone would argue that it's not "constructive". Comments?

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2014-May-28, 07:57
Reason for edit: added thoughts

[olegru]

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-28, 07:40, said:

I base the contention that an agreement that allows responder to determine that opener who opened 1NT has a singleton is illegal on the article from the ACBL website

As a director you are going to base your decision on something you don't even know it is a regulation or not? How players were supposed to know it? Decision to cancel the board base on illegal is a very serious one and surely should be done based on something more official than somebodies opinion or some article somewhere on the ACBL site.

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-28, 07:40, said:

The question is whether they have an agreed method by which responder can determine that opener has a singleton.

1. No they don't. The do not have agreed methods for responder to determine if opener has a singleton. But sometimes bidding could go such a way that opener will have a chance to demonstrate singleton.
2. Even if they have such methods so what? Is there a regulation to prohibit pair to have such a methods?

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-28, 07:40, said:

Item 8 under "Responses and rebids" on the GCC allows "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call." That would seem to make this 2NT legal, unless someone would argue that it's not "constructive". Comments?

Exactly my point. Thanks

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-May-28, 03:09, said:

And again, what if the meaning of 2NT as defined as "max, unsuitable for spades" but the pair in practise never make this call with a small doubleton? The explicit agreement is not illegal but the implicit agreement, that it is highly likely or even certain to show a singleton, is.

If the only kind of hand that's "unsuitable for spades" is one with a spade singleton, then they're effectively equivalent. The laws treat explicit and implicit agreements the same.

[hrothgar]

 olegru, on 2014-May-28, 09:00, said:

As a director you are going to base your decision on something you don't even know it is a regulation or not? How players were supposed to know it? Decision to cancel the board base on illegal is a very serious one and surely should be done based on something more official than somebodies opinion or some article somewhere on the ACBL site.




1. No they don't. The do not have agreed methods for responder to determine if opener has a singleton. But sometimes bidding could go such a way that opener will have a chance to demonstrate singleton.
2. Even if they have such methods so what? Is there a regulation to prohibit pair to have such a methods?

Let me repeat this once again: Under the ACBL regulatory system, if you are playing in a GCC all methods that are not explicitly sanctioned are banned.
This is clearly sanctioned under the line "**Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed**""
The fact that there is no regulation explicitly prohibiting an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton is a distraction.
I appreciate that you have a fixation with this point. Get over it.

I have very little sympathy for the ACBL. They do a piss poor do explaining the regulatory system.
However, any experienced pair with half a brain knows that you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.
Moreover, most experienced pairs should know that having systemic methods to ask for singletons is viewed as having an agreement.
(There are plenty of written examples that make this point)

Finally, according to the original post, the pair stated directly that a 2S super-accept shows a singleton.
The hand in question, in fact, held a singleton.
What more do you need to accept that this was an agreement?
If you're expecting a stone tablet from Lord God Almighty, you're gonna be disappointed alot.

[CSGibson]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-May-28, 03:09, said:

Putting aside the OP for a moment, which is obviously written from a particular perspective...

The facts as stated in the OP are not in dispute - both teams agreed to what occurred at the table, and the explanations given.

What I have not stated, but which is also true, is that while the director was taking the statements, he at one point told the NT opener that he had twice opened with singletons and had similar auctions exposing the singletons while playing against him. Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D. This is a known action pair, and this was not the first recorder filled out against them for similar activity, as it transpires - if anything I had deliberately smoothed my own perspective out of the OP to try and put the NT opener in the best possible light.

[Trinidad]

 hrothgar, on 2014-May-28, 10:13, said:

Let me repeat this once again: Under the ACBL regulatory system, if you are playing in a GCC all methods that are not explicitly sanctioned are banned.
This is clearly sanctioned under the line "**Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed**""

Nice, but a natural 1NT opening is not a "method" (in the view of the GCC authors). Just assume that it is a method and you are in trouble with the rest of the regulation ...

So, you are not allowed to play a 1♠ opening promising 12-21 points and 5 spades... It is not explicitly sanctioned. Neither is a 1NT opening showing 15-17 points and any 4333, or 4432 distribution.

If you check the GCC, you would notice that the ACBL "forgot" to specifically allow all natural calls. They went through the trouble to define natural calls, but didn't do much more with that definition. It appears to be the regulators' aim to only regulate conventions. It also appears that the authors of the GCC considered "natural calls" the opposite of "conventions" and that, therefore, natural calls are not subject to regulation.

So, the question is: "Is a 1NT opening that by agreement on occasion can contain a singleton a natural call?". This question is answered specifically in the GCC definitions:

Quote

2. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced (generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons).

(Emphasis mine.)

So, the answer is "Yes", it is GCC legal to have the agreement that your 1NT opening generally does not contain a singleton (but on occasion might).

If these singletons occur about as frequently as the hands with 2 doubletons for many other pairs, you should be safe. Given that it seems perfectly acceptable to agree to open 1NT with almost any 2=2=4=5 or 2=4=5=2 (each 0.882% probability) in range, as well as quite a few 2=4=2=5, 4=2=5=2, 4=2=2=5 and (2236m) (0.470% each) hands, an occasional 4441 hand (0.748% each) should definitely be acceptable too. If players are allowed to open 2=4=5=2 hands 1NT "because I don't have good enough suits for a reverse, making it hard to rebid after a 1♠ response", the same goes for the occasional 4441 hand and a rare 5431.

The next question is whether the 2NT transfer break is allowed. As Blackshoe showed, this is specifically allowed under item 8.

Rik

[olegru]

 hrothgar, on 2014-May-28, 10:13, said:

Let me repeat this once again: Under the ACBL regulatory system, if you are playing in a GCC all methods that are not explicitly sanctioned are banned.

Let me repeat once again:
2NT bid legal because:

Quote

Item 8 under "Responses and rebids" on the GCC allows "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call.

Question if 1NT bid with the singleton Ace is legal is murky; but because too many people routinely open 1NT with singleton Ace if otherwise hand is appropriate I would not dare to call 1NT opening with singleton Ace illegal. Note, definition of balanced hand as a hand with no singletons and voids is not rigid, it include word "generally" that, as far as I understand, means that possible could exist some balanced hands with singleton and/or unbalanced hands without singletons.

Quote

However, any experienced pair with half a brain knows that you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

And experienced pair with more half a brain could regularly open with singleton if they like, but never admit it is as an implicit or explicit agreement.

Quote

Moreover, most experienced pairs should know that having systemic methods to ask for singletons is viewed as having an agreement.

As I said earlier I cannot see that pair in question had or used any methods to ASK for singleton. Possibility of refusal to accept transfer that shows specific hand does not create methods to ask for such kind of hands.

Quote

Finally, according to the original post, the pair stated directly that a 2S super-accept shows a singleton.
The hand in question, in fact, held a singleton. What more do you need to accept that this was an agreement?

Pair stated directly that a 2S super-accept shows a singleton ACE and hand in question, in fact, held a singleton ACE. Yes, I don't need anything else to accept they have and agreement that permit opening 1NT with singleton ACE and otherwise balanced hand. And I see no legal problem with that agreement.

Quote

If you're expecting a stone tablet from Lord God Almighty, you're gonna be disappointed alot.

By the way, is it just me or tone of message I replied was below the standards of polite discussion?

Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas.

[hrothgar]

 olegru, on 2014-May-28, 12:18, said:

Item 8 under "Responses and rebids" on the GCC allows "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call.

You still fail to understand the issue at hand.
No one cares about the legality of the 2NT rebid.

The fact that the 2NT response shows a singleton is only important because it documents the fact that you are opening 1NT with a singleton by agreement.

[hrothgar]

 olegru, on 2014-May-28, 12:18, said:

As I said earlier I cannot see that pair in question had or used any methods to ASK for singleton. Possibility of refusal to accept transfer that shows specific hand does not create methods to ask for such kind of hands.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

In this case, we have a bid (potentially a set of bids) that show singletons in a hand that opened 1NT.
The NT opening is illegal.

I don't give a damn about semantic discussions regarding whether 2♦ is best described as an asking bid about regarding partner's shape or a bid that shows 5+ Hearts. (It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping). It's not a fruitful discussion. It's also not an interesting discussion because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you think about this issue. It also doesn't matter what I think about this issue. The only thing that actually matters is what the ACBL has ruled on this topic and I have seen any numbers of examples that specifically state the ACBL's position on this very matter. (Hint: I'm right. You're wrong)

If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to make a little wager with you.

We can submit this as a question to the ACBL.
If you're right, I'll leave the forums for a period not less than a year.
I'm I'm write, you do the same?

How about it? You talk a good game. Let's see if you have any cojones...

[helene_t]

 hrothgar, on 2014-May-28, 12:48, said:

If you're right, I'll leave the forums for a period not less than a year.
I'm I'm write, you do the same?

Please don't play those silly chicken games. Just wager a beer or something.

[blackshoe]

 olegru, on 2014-May-28, 09:00, said:

As a director you are going to base your decision on something you don't even know it is a regulation or not? How players were supposed to know it?

I am trying to come to the correct legal ruling. We are discussing how to do that. The article contains a claim or two about ACBL regulations. I could just write to "rulings" and say "show me the regulation", but I wouldn't expect a great answer from them, either way. As for players, ignorance, sayeth the sage (and the General Conditions of Contest, if I remember correctly), is no excuse.

 olegru, on 2014-May-28, 09:00, said:

1. No they don't. The do not have agreed methods for responder to determine if opener has a singleton.

Do they not? They said they did.

[blackshoe]

Keep it civil in here, please.