BBO Discussion Forums: 1nt with 4045 - BBO Discussion Forums

pescetom, on 2023-January-25, 07:19, said:

I felt like I was reading tortured language. My impression is that judgement is regulated rather than conventions.

jillybean, on 2023-January-24, 21:57, said:

Fortunately I did not spot any trace of this, which is crazy: if my agreement to open with a singleton is legal, then why on earth should it not be legal after a transfer to strive to play in another suit or (gasp) 2NT?

helene_t, on 2023-January-25, 07:51, said:

The type of events mentioned *do* allow red systems but only if they meet some ulterior limitations, including 1NT as "natural".

I found a 2015 edition and see that the '1NT natural' policy was already in place for "Junior and Intermediate" events: although some other meddling was not there yet and red systems were basically defined as anything not yellow for WBF.

pescetom, on 2023-January-25, 09:51, said:

29.6.1 Page D , between page D60 and D62

I agree that it is illogical.

I'm not 100% clear on which regulations are in use at this club, I believe 8B but people do play 2 and 3 way multi so perhaps it's not 8B or they've made an exception.
I will endeavour to find out next time I play there!

jillybean, on 2023-January-25, 12:44, said:

Thanks, whoever structured this document and numbered the pages was smoking something strong

NZB 2022 Page D , between page D60 and D62 said:

I take that as meaning that an agreement to open with a singleton is allowed but only if you agree to pass a transfer.
Which is in blatant contradiction with the other page, as well as both being absurd.
Ask your TD what is going on here, and remind him we are in 2023.

pescetom, on 2023-January-25, 09:51, said:

I think the idea is that you're allowed to open these hands, but not allowed to have methods to discover that you did this. The tradeoff for allowing it is that you must accept the risk of playing in a 5-1 fit when partner transfers.

Perhaps the answer is to stop announcing 1nt openers as 12-14 (insert your range) and simply say any shape, 12-14 or thereabouts.

barmar, on 2023-January-28, 10:51, said:

But all that makes no sense.

If we are allowed to have the agreement that 1NT may contain a singleton (or even just to deviate from an agreement that it may not, which is not what it says nor a matter that they can legislate) then we can take whatever bridge action we please when partner shows 5 cards in the singleton suit. If it is a legal agreement then we should also be allowed to devise methods for partner to discover a singleton, not that most pairs do. In the restriction arbitrarily posed, partner clearly does not have such methods, otherwise he would not have transferred to our singleton in the first place. Attempting to change denomination to avoid playing in 5-1 is not an illegal method to discover anything, just bridge.

jillybean, on 2023-January-28, 13:25, said:

Some countries announce range only, some also attempt to announce shape, some ask for alert except for predefined shapes.
All of those have their problems.
I would settle for an announcement of range only and pointing to a clear written description of agreement, as espoused by the sorely missed nige1.

pescetom, on 2023-January-28, 16:12, said:

That would be great if everyone used convention cards.

jillybean, on 2023-January-28, 16:25, said:

That would already be a step forwards, but does not substitute what nige1 requested.
He envisioned a card with clearly readable boxes that explained the most frequent difficult situations.
Just tap the rectangle corresponding to "1NT opening", "2 over 1 response" or whatever.
The equivalent online would be context-sensitive automatic explanations as in the prematurely abandoned "full disclosure" of BBO.

pescetom, on 2023-January-28, 16:01, said:

Where does the 500 pound canary sit?

Assuming you play 1NT 15…17 HCP, what’s your opening bid with
♠K1087
♥A
♦QJ73
♣AQ52?
I pull 1NT out of the box and that’s considered legal here, even if your agreement about NT is a 4333, 4432 or 5332. The same goes for a 6m332 or 5422, which are outside the range taught and considered ‘normal’. You’re supposed to alert when your opponents might not be aware of these off-shape NT’s, but they mostly find that very confusing .

sanst, on 2023-January-29, 02:48, said:

Sounds as confused as NZ to me
If you are supposed to alert, then it is an agreement not a deviation, in which case your nominal agreement of "only 4333 4432 5532" is misinformation.

Here I pull 1NT out of the box and partner alerts, because he knows full well that it might be that hand. It says so on the system card too.

pescetom, on 2023-January-29, 07:05, said:

That’s not our agreement. Our agreement is 15…17 HCP, balanced, but can be off-shape. But the 4333, 4432 and 5m332 is what was taught last century and, because many players took their lessons then, it’s considered ’standard’ by most elderly, ‘social’ players. That went well with cards that were shuffled by hand, since the distribution was far more often a balanced than is statistically right. Hardly anybody took the trouble shuffling often enough. It usually was ‘hop, hop, hop, ready!’.
With computer generated hands there are far less hands with the balanced distribution. The result is that a hand with a NT HCP range is quite often off-shape and that forces you to think twice what to open with such a hand. It’s not a simple rule like it was before, but it takes a bit of consideration and some intuition or gut feeling. I put that on my CC, but it doesn’t help my opponents much. Besides, my decision is not necessarily the same as my partner would make.
And yes Barmar, I’m prepared to play a 5-1 fit if it happens. ‘Tant pis’ as the French say. You can’t win them all . I don’t open NT with a void.

sanst, on 2023-January-29, 13:01, said:

4333 etc is still being taught and that's ok but I think teachers do the players an injustice not saying, "this is how you are going to be taught to open 1nt but be aware that experienced players will open 1nt on any shape". I still get the occasional player telling me I wasn't allowed to open 1nt with 2 doubletons.
Bridge players are taught to follow bidding rules, not to think.

This all ties in with some other hands, I think my bidding is going to become a lot easier now that I can accept that a 1nt opening can be made on any shape. Those 1nt opening rules have taken me a long time to unlearn.

As David Burn is fond of saying, you should tell 'em what you play. If your partnership understanding is that you can open 1NT with any shape, provided you have the agreed HCP range, then you should tell your opponents that. You should probably also be sure that your partnership understanding is legal where you play.

blackshoe, on 2023-January-29, 21:36, said:

I quote that but without the 'probably', even if you play in NZ
It takes less time to look up your regulations than to read all this thread, and if even that is too much then just ask a certified Director.

pescetom, on 2023-January-28, 16:01, said:

It's a deliberate compromise. They used to not allow this opening as an agreement at all, but so many players were making these openings as a "deviation" that they gave in and legalized it. The restrictions minimize the impact on the opponents.

Quote

Regulators are allowed to regulate allowable agreements. So they can say that you can't use a transfer break to indicate that you're short in the suit that they were transfering to.

Then there's also the issue of whether this is actually a playable method. If responder has a weak hand, can you really find a better fit without getting too high? But that's not really the point of the regulation (you don't need to prohibit bad methods).

Maybe it's not such a good idea to prohibit this. Knowing that declarer has a singleton could be helpful to the defense. I guess the regulators decided it wasn't enough of an advantage.

barmar, on 2023-February-06, 17:06, said:

"Maybe it's not" indeed.

Yes they have a right to regulate allowable agreements, but why abuse it in this unreasonable way? What is the objective of such regulation: "yes you can have an agreement to open with a singleton, but if Responder transfers to that suit then you can't attempt to locate a better denomination in which to play". "Oh, and we prohibit even the the possibility that Opener's rebid of 2NT is natural to play"? Why do this at all?
If their belief is that non balanced hands in NT are bad for bridge in some way, then why not ban the singleton in the first place? Or forbid transfers and Stayman come to that ("you said you were willing to play in NT, so do so").
It makes no sense to me.
If we do not play transfers (feasible in weak NT land, I guess) then can opener change denomination if responder bids opener's singleton suit?
What is the difference, except that they can't regulate the second situation?

pescetom, in an attempt to keep law discussions in the laws forum.

pescetom, on 2023-February-27, 09:29, said:

pescetom, on 2023-February-27, 13:41, said:

The discussion over in the Bridge Related Discussion forum where I made a remark regarding opening 1nt on 4045 was not referring to an 8B tournament. Now that I am aware that NZ 8B tournaments prohibit off shape 1nt openings, I would of course adhere to the rule. In other tournaments and club games (NZ & NA) it is not clear that same restriction applies, or if it is, breaking it is condoned.