[hrothgar]

 olegru, on 2014-June-07, 05:44, said:

Actually this is funny. Let's read this document:

What's funny is that you continue to drone on regarding your misguided impressions about what is/is not true.

There is a simple way to settle this. Contact the folks at the ACBL who provide authoritative information about this.
Let us know what they have to say...

(Hint, I already know)

FWIW, I very much appreciate your desire to have the ACBL provide authoritative documents that provide logical consistent guidance on these sorts of issues. Where we differ is that you don't seem to understand the nature of reality.

The ACBL is grossly incompetent.
They publish lots of conflicting crap.
Understanding what the actual regulations are is more of an art than a science.

With this said and done, I am 100% sure that there is near consensus amongst the powers that be wrt the issue at hand.

[ArtK78]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-07, 00:28, said:

I quickly googled his name and he seems to have been a TD in the 70's (when opening 1NT with a 5 card suit was still frowned upon).
Rik

Huh?

I have been playing since the 70s (1972, to be precise). Opening 1NT with a 5 card suit has NEVER been frowned upon. Opening 1NT with a 5 card MAJOR suit was not common, but to the best of my; knowledge it was never frowned upon.

I agree with what Richard posted. It is well known what the regulations say. It is just not possible to find them. The ACBL does not make it easy.

And the convention charts are not regulations. They are promulgated pursuant to the regulations. Saying that the convention charts are regulations is like saying that IRS Forms and instructions are regulations. They are not, but they are published in accordance with IRS regulations.

[ddrankin]

When I started directing in the ACBL many years ago, I was told that a 1 NT opening was natural if it had no singleton or void, and no more than one or two doubletons (as per the current alert chart). Opening 1 NT by agreement with any other distribution made it a conventional call, and that convention was not approved for use in ACBL-sanctioned events unless it was forcing. Conventions that are designed to uncover a singleton or void are not illegal, but will likely be taken as evidence that the pair has the agreement to open 1 NT with an unbalanced hand.

There is no automatic penalty. It is simply treated as using a convention that is not approved for the event.

Frequent openings on unbalanced hands may also be taken as evidence of having the agreement, depending on frequency and the actual hands opened. In upper level events such as the USBC trials, the players likely did not call the director, presumably because they agreed that opening 1 NT with a singleton was the best way to begin to describe the hand, and did not imply the agreement existed.

[Trinidad]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-June-07, 05:17, said:

My 1NT opening is for all 4333s, 4432s and 5332s in range plus 4441 with specifically a singleton diamond (of any size). In terms of frequency I would guess this also passes a "generally no singleton" test but I am confident most ACBL TDs would rule it illegal.

I won't argue with that (i.e. I fear that you are correct). But why would TDs disallow something that is specifically allowed in the GCC that governs this?

I can only guess that there is someone in the ACBL who writes about the rules as he thinks they should be (rather than as they are).

Rik

[Trinidad]

 ArtK78, on 2014-June-07, 06:41, said:

Huh?

I have been playing since the 70s (1972, to be precise). Opening 1NT with a 5 card suit has NEVER been frowned upon. Opening 1NT with a 5 card MAJOR suit was not common, but to the best of my; knowledge it was never frowned upon.

Sorry, my mistake. I meant to write "5 card major".

I started playing bridge in the USA (MI) in the '90s. I do not know how often we have had the TD at the table because we opened 1NT with a five card major, but as a bridge player I know how to count to 13, so it must have been more than that.

One of the times that the unforgettable Brooks Hughes was called for this, he actually yelled at me: "Did you now do it again?" after which he proceeded to rule in our favor, leaving the opponents completely stunned.

Rik

[hrothgar]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-07, 10:55, said:

I won't argue with that (i.e. I fear that you are correct). But why would TDs disallow something that is specifically allowed in the GCC that governs this?

The act of making this systemic means that you have an agreement.

(This is the same reason that lead the ACBL to remove the part of the convention card that dealt with the frequency of psyches)

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-06, 11:48, said:

A back of the envelope calculation shows that if you open all 4333s, 4432s and 5332s in range, as well as 4441s with a singleton A/K that the 1NT opening contains a singleton in less than 1% of the cases. I think that qualifies for "generally no singleton".

Under your interpretation of the words "generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons", would it be OK to play 1NT as any 4333, 4332, 5332 or 8221 shape in range? The 8221 shapes would certainly occur in less than 1% of the cases.

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-07, 00:28, said:

The document has about the same status as a post on BBF by Blackshoe: an interesting opinion on bridge laws.

The purpose of the Tech Files is to provide guidance to ACBL directors on how to interpret the Laws and regulations. A BBF posting is not in any way "blessed" by ACBL management, the Tech Files presumably are.

Just because that particular section was attributed to a particular TD it doesn't mean that it's just his personal opinion. When ACBL chose to quote him in the Tech Files, they promoted it to the opinion of ACBL.

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-06, 11:48, said:

The only sensible interpretation of the GCC is that "natural bids (as defined in the GCC) are not methods" or "natural bids are not regulated". And the GCC defines:
(So, occasionally a singleton is still natural.)

When the GCC was written, the Laws only allowed regulation of conventions, not natural calls. So the GCC never explicitly said that natural bids are all allowed, it just described the calls that are considered natural; it was implicitly understood that they were not regulated.

The 2007 Laws changed this, to allow regulation of any "special partnership understandings", and the RA gets to decide what they consider "special". But the GCC hasn't been updated to take this into account, so it still has the implicit "natural calls are allowed".

[blackshoe]

 ArtK78, on 2014-June-07, 06:41, said:

And the convention charts are not regulations. They are promulgated pursuant to the regulations. Saying that the convention charts are regulations is like saying that IRS Forms and instructions are regulations. They are not, but they are published in accordance with IRS regulations.

Pursuant to what regulations are the convention charts promulgated?

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-June-07, 12:56, said:

The purpose of the Tech Files is to provide guidance to ACBL directors on how to interpret the Laws and regulations. A BBF posting is not in any way "blessed" by ACBL management, the Tech Files presumably are.

Just because that particular section was attributed to a particular TD it doesn't mean that it's just his personal opinion. When ACBL chose to quote him in the Tech Files, they promoted it to the opinion of ACBL.

I'll buy that when you show me where the ACBL has officially stated that the Tech Files are to be treated as official interpretations.

And if they are, why in Hell are they so hard to get to?

[ArtK78]

I found the regulations. Here is a link to the regulations relating to conventions:

http://web2.acbl.org...Section%20c.pdf

Apparently, these regulations approve the convention charts which are published on the ACBL website.

I don't see anything authoritative regarding opening 1NT with a singleton or prohibitions of agreements which would discover if the 1NT opener has a shortage. It may be elsewhere.

[blackshoe]

At least some of that is obsolete, since there are no "class A conventions" any more.

The numbers refer, I believe, to agenda items from various BoD meetings over the years. I think that if you know the code you can figure out which meeting and which item, but I've no clue how it works.

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2014-June-07, 13:03, said:

When the GCC was written, the Laws only allowed regulation of conventions, not natural calls. So the GCC never explicitly said that natural bids are all allowed, it just described the calls that are considered natural; it was implicitly understood that they were not regulated.

Exactly. So, when the ACBL described the agreement to open 1NT as generally not containing a singleton and deemed it natural, they allowed the agreement.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 hrothgar, on 2014-June-07, 12:09, said:

The act of making this systemic means that you have an agreement.

Indeed it does. The GCC regulates agreements, not occasional impulsive blunders/brilliancies or miss-sorting of cards. It says that this is allowed... as long as the agreement is that 1NT generally does not contain a singleton.

The whole point is the interpretation of "generally". I think an interpretation that in practice amounts to "in more than 99% of the cases" is entirely reasonable. At least it is clear that the ACBL never wanted to forbid the agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. They would have simply left the word "generally" out.

Just for the record: I don't have anything at stake here. I have never in my life opened (or even rebid) 1NT with a singleton and I expect I never will.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2014-June-07, 12:14, said:

Under your interpretation of the words "generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons", would it be OK to play 1NT as any 4333, 4332, 5332 or 8221 shape in range? The 8221 shapes would certainly occur in less than 1% of the cases.

You read the GCC very well, particularly the word "and".

Whenever you interpret a law or regulation, you are trying to figure out what the lawmakers intended when they wrote it. Converting the intentions into text is not easy and there will be inaccuracies. In fact, it is not so easy to convert the intention that 8221s (or 9220s) are not allowed into a text that only restricts the number of doubletons, singletons and voids in a hand.

To define accurately that 8221s are not allowed, they would have had to add words and complexity to the text. This is an inaccuracy that lawmakers are likely to make.

However, it is very easy to convert the intention to ban all agreements to open 1NT with a singleton. You could write the exact same GCC but leave out the word "generally". It would be 100% clear that the agreement to open 1NT with a singleton would not be allowed. But the authors of the GCC went out of their way to add the word "generally" (which in definitions is obviously a lousy word to have since it is so vague). This added complexity must have a reason. So, they cannot have intended a blanket ban on singletons in 1NT openings.

To define accurately that singletons are banned, they could have left words out and remove complexity from the text. This is an inaccuracy that lawmakers are unlikely to make. They do not randomly add text without intending it to mean anything.

Rik

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-08, 00:19, said:

You read the GCC very well, particularly the word "and".

Whenever you interpret a law or regulation, you are trying to figure out what the lawmakers intended when they wrote it. Converting the intentions into text is not easy and there will be inaccuracies. In fact, it is not so easy to convert the intention that 8221s (or 9220s) are not allowed into a text that only restricts the number of doubletons, singletons and voids in a hand.

To define accurately that 8221s are not allowed, they would have had to add words and complexity to the text. This is an inaccuracy that lawmakers are likely to make.

However, it is very easy to convert the intention to ban all agreements to open 1NT with a singleton. You could write the exact same GCC but leave out the word "generally". It would be 100% clear that the agreement to open 1NT with a singleton would not be allowed. But the authors of the GCC went out of their way to add the word "generally" (which in definitions is obviously a lousy word to have since it is so vague). This added complexity must have a reason. So, they cannot have intended a blanket ban on singletons in 1NT openings.

To define accurately that singletons are banned, they could have left words out and remove complexity from the text. This is an inaccuracy that lawmakers are unlikely to make. They do not randomly add text without intending it to mean anything.

Yes, I'm sure that some hands with a singleton can be treated as balanced.

But I'm glad we're now talking about what the legislators intended, rather than what they actually said. You seem to be arguing that think they intended to include all 4441 shapes, because 4441 shapes are rare, and including them all still makes the hand "generally" have no singleton. But if they really meant this, they would simply have said "4333, 4332, 5332 or 4441".

Notwithstanding what they actually said, I think it's plain that what they meant was "4333, 4332 or 5332, plus a small subset of 4441s" (and possibly a small subset of some other shapes that have a singleton). That is, "generally" was intended to apply to the set of hands with a singleton, not to the totality of hands that are to be treated as "balanced".

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2014-June-08, 01:30, said:

Yes, I'm sure that some hands with a singleton can be treated as balanced.

But I'm glad we're now talking about what the legislators intended, rather than what they actually said. You seem to be arguing that think they intended to include all 4441 shapes, because 4441 shapes are rare, and including them all still makes the hand "generally" have no singleton. But if they really meant this, they would simply have said "4333, 4332, 5332 or 4441".

Notwithstanding what they actually said, I think it's plain that what they meant was "4333, 4332 or 5332, plus a small subset of 4441s" (and possibly a small subset of some other shapes that have a singleton). That is, "generally" was intended to apply to the set of hands with a singleton, not to the totality of hands that are to be treated as "balanced".

I think we completely agree. I never meant to argue that every 4441 was fine because they are rare. I intended to argue that including 2/13th of all 4441s is sufficiently rare since they would make up less than 1% of the 1NT openings (and 2/13th of the 4441 shapes ).

But now the problem has been converted to interpreting what "a small subset of 4441s" means. Is approximately 2/13 "small"? How about 1/4?

My opinions on those questions are "Yes" and "I don't know".

But at least it is clear that it is allowed to have an agreement on a 1NT opening that in some cases can have a singleton. Then - to get back to the OP - it is also clear that you are allowed to have an agreement that shows whether you have a singleton. The GCC allows under "Responses and rebids":

Quote

8. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second call.

So, as long as NS in the OP open 1NT on at most a "small subset of 4441s (or 5431s)", there is no foul.

Rik

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-08, 09:19, said:

So, as long as NS in the OP open 1NT on at most a "small subset of 4441s (or 5431s)", there is no foul.
Rik

If NS in the OP open all 4441s or 5431s that cannot be bid in another sensible manner with 1NT, there is no foul. The word "generally" protects them, and the most common meaning for that on the net was "in most cases" with the second most common meaning "without regard to exceptions". Interpreting the regulation is up to the TD.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2014-June-08, 13:07, said:

If NS in the OP open all 4441s or 5431s that cannot be bid in another sensible manner with 1NT, there is no foul. The word "generally" protects them, and the most common meaning for that on the net was "in most cases" with the second most common meaning "without regard to exceptions". Interpreting the regulation is up to the TD.

Without "regard" to exceptions seems to be relevant, too. When there is a systemic way of uncovering the exceptions, we are not without regard to them.