[helene_t]

Bbradley62, on Oct 15 2010, 06:07 AM, said:

Thanks for your feedback, everyone. What I'm reading is that in ACBL games I should expect that 1NT openers do not have a singleton (although I might occassionally get surprised) but in any other game they very well might have a singleton.

No, in most (all?) jurisdictions a non-alerted 1NT opening is expected not to contain a singleton.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Oct 15 2010, 07:18 PM, said:

Bbradley62, on Oct 15 2010, 06:07 AM, said:

Thanks for your feedback, everyone.  What I'm reading is that in ACBL games I should expect that 1NT openers do not have a singleton (although I might occassionally get surprised) but in any other game they very well might have a singleton.

No, in most (all?) jurisdictions a non-alerted 1NT opening is expected not to contain a singleton.

The enlightened New Zealand regulation says:

"A natural NT bid is defined as one that shows a preparedness to play in NT, and conveys no specific information about your suit holdings."

We do not alert such natural openings.

We do prealert our NT range. In addition my partner and I prealert our frequent offshape NT openings. We also describe on our convention card all (or at least most) natural no trump bids as "balanced or nearly balanced".

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally, there is a substantial body of players who will never open 1N with a singleton but consider opening 2N with a singleton quite normal. The reasons are pretty obvious, but I just thought I would throw that in.

[bluejak]

Pict, on Oct 14 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

The ACBL regulations seem reasonable to me.

Without methods, how can you take advantage of knowing that partner might be, say, 5431.

When defending?

[Bbradley62]

helene_t, on Oct 15 2010, 02:18 AM, said:

Bbradley62, on Oct 15 2010, 06:07 AM, said:

Thanks for your feedback, everyone.  What I'm reading is that in ACBL games I should expect that 1NT openers do not have a singleton (although I might occassionally get surprised) but in any other game they very well might have a singleton.

No, in most (all?) jurisdictions a non-alerted 1NT opening is expected not to contain a singleton.

There seem to be many BBOers who routinely open 1NT with singleton honors. I mostly play in Individual events, where alerting would be weird since it's not a partnership agreement.

[helene_t]

Maybe players are more prone to hogging the hand (for example by opening an off-shape 1NT) in indys?

[suprgrover]

Mbodell, on Oct 14 2010, 11:48 PM, said:

nige1, on Oct 14 2010, 09:51 AM, said:

A better criterion is "with what percentage of 4441s containing a singleton honour, do you open 1N".

I disagree. I think the better criterion is "with what percentage of hands which open 1nt do you have a singleton?"

If you defined 1nt to be only 1=4=4=4 hands with 15-16 points where the stiff spade is the king (and you never opened 1nt with anything else, even normal balanced stuff) then your agreement covers less than 1% of all hands, and less than 1% of 4441 hands (and probably only around 1% of all 4441 with a singleton honor - only 5% are K=444 and then we are limited to 15-16 points which is probably less than 1/5 of those hands). But that agreement is no good, I claim, because partner expects you to always hold the stiff K of spade when you open 1nt.

But if you opened K=444 with 15-16 hcp hands 1nt in the context of a 15-17 balanced nt that includes 4333, 4432, 5332, 5m422, and 6m322 now far less than 1% of your 1nt opening bids will be with a stiff K and I think you are in your "ok" style agreements.

Here's the problem. The ACBL has that 1% criterion. But it also says that "generally" NT openers should not have singletons either. And it also says that you cannot agree to always open hands with singletons int he NT range with natural NT openers.

Frankly, the ACBL would be better off seeing what other NBOs have done and see what has worked the best, because what it has isn't working very well. There are lots of players who never open 1NT or 2NT with a singleton. There are lots who almost never open 1NT with a singleton but will open 2NT with a 4441 or perhaps a 5431 hand. And then there are some who will open 1NT with a singleton at the drop of a hat. They all can point to ACBL official or quasi-official pronouncements for why they do it.

[aguahombre]

Isn't all this fairly silly? It really doesn't matter if opener is offshape if it is what he/she deems to be the correct opening.

What matters is whether responder will allow for a singleton, or whether the pair has a sytem to expose it. If they don't, this is all moot.

Even if the player has done this a hundred times with this partner, it is probably not an agreement which is alertable or questionably illegal.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on Oct 16 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

Isn't all this fairly silly? It really doesn't matter if opener is offshape if it is what he/she deems to be the correct opening.

Agree. I believe it is a mistake for the regulations should not regulate judgement.

Quote

What matters is whether responder will allow for a singleton, or whether the pair has a sytem to expose it.  If they don't, this is all moot.

Why should it matter if you have a method to find a singleton?

I don't understand that.

Quote

Even if the player has done this a hundred times with this partner, it is probably not an agreement which is alertable or questionably illegal.

I don't think you understand "implicit agreements". When you have an implicit agreement your obligations, to disclose and comply, are the same as if you have an explicit agreement.

[aguahombre]

Wayne, I understand implicit agreements. They are firstly agreements. If partner never uses this allegedly implicit agreement for anything, it is nothing.

It would be a problem if pard declined to use a Texas xfer, or you had some other inquiry to check for a singleton. Otherwise, it is no agreement at all.

If an opponent inquires about your style of NT openers, then a statement about how often a singleton has occurred might be appropriate; but that doesn't make it part of your system unless you allow for it.

[Cascade]

In a way I agree with some of what you wrote.

If something is not an agreement then it cannot be an "implicit agreement".

However the laws of bridge specifically state that repeated deviations from explicit agreements lead to implicit agreements which need to be disclosed.

"Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system."

I would think that 100 such deviations in this context would in almost every instance create an "implicit agreement".

I don't think that fact that you or your partner chooses not to use the information has much, if any at all, bearing on whether or not you have an "implicit agreement".

[FrancesHinden]

1eyedjack, on Oct 15 2010, 08:52 AM, said:

Incidentally, there is a substantial body of players who will never open 1N with a singleton but consider opening 2N with a singleton quite normal. The reasons are pretty obvious, but I just thought I would throw that in.

Yes, I'm aware people do it, but personally I'd rather open 1NT with a singleton than 2NT (not that I really do either)

[aguahombre]

awm, on Oct 13 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

There's a difference between opening 1NT with a singleton, and having an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton.

ACBL does not allow an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton (except if you play a romex-style forcing 1NT opening).

This was the focus of my post. Adam goes on to mention other jurisdictions which allow such agreements with disclosure. You (Wayne) have a different jursdictional reference than I do.

I am ACBL, and was speaking to the legality of frequently opening 1NT with a singleton in ACBL, if partner never allows for it during the auction. My contention is that it is legal.

[babalu1997]

this discussion is way over my head, but i still would like to know whetther the nt opener, who opens with a singlton must do so for :

1% max of all deals dealt

or or

1% of the deals dealt to him?

thanks

[blackshoe]

I would think it means 1 deal in every hundred dealt to the player, on which he would open 1NT.

[Jacki]

At the risk of repeating what someone else has already said...

http://www.acbl.org/...aSingleton.html

Jacki

[Zelandakh]

Thank you Jacki. Nice to have that cleared up and always amusing to see the hoops ACBL regulations go through to prevent players from making free choices. Now for my part, even though it is largely irrelevant as I am not in America. I play a 1NT opening as any balanced hand of (11)12-14 hcp including 5M332. Sometimes 5422s are opened 1NT, especially 2=2=4=5, and very rarely 6m322. All pretty standard but I also open ALL 4=4=1=4 hands in range 1NT - singleton diamond but no other singleton possible, not even a bare honour.

I would assume that would pass the 1% test. But here is the kicker. After a major suit transfer one specific super-accept is devoted to showing this hand type, so there is a means to uncover the singleton. I would assume that the opening is ACBL-legal but the super-accept is not. Is this right?

Equally, my understanding is that both parts would be EBU-legal providing the possible singleton is announced. Once again, is this correct? Finally, I sometimes play bridge in Germany. When I was last there they had a blanket ban on opening 1NT with a singleton. But my understanding is that this has since changed. Is there anything in the current regs there that would prhibit this agreement?

[peachy]

Zelandakh, on Oct 16 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

Thank you Jacki. Nice to have that cleared up and always amusing to see the hoops ACBL regulations go through to prevent players from making free choices. Now for my part, even though it is largely irrelevant as I am not in America. I play a 1NT opening as any balanced hand of (11)12-14 hcp including 5M332. Sometimes 5422s are opened 1NT, especially 2=2=4=5, and very rarely 6m322. All pretty standard but I also open ALL 4=4=1=4 hands in range 1NT - singleton diamond but no other singleton possible, not even a bare honour.

I would assume that would pass the 1% test. But here is the kicker. After a major suit transfer one specific super-accept is devoted to showing this hand type, so there is a means to uncover the singleton. I would assume that the opening is ACBL-legal but the super-accept is not. Is this right?

Equally, my understanding is that both parts would be EBU-legal providing the possible singleton is announced. Once again, is this correct? Finally, I sometimes play bridge in Germany. When I was last there they had a blanket ban on opening 1NT with a singleton. But my understanding is that this has since changed. Is there anything in the current regs there that would prhibit this agreement?

ACBL GCC says that if your 1NT opening is forcing and promises 16 or more HCP )can be balanced or unbalanced) then it is ACBL legal but needs to be alerted. If it is not forcing, then it is ACBL illegal to agree that 4-4-1-4 hands (regardless of which singleton it is) open 1NT. If you read the text that Jacki linked, it is said there clearly. If you read the ACBL GCC, it is clear there as well that it is not allowed.

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on Oct 17 2010, 02:06 AM, said:

Equally, my understanding is that both parts would be EBU-legal providing the possible singleton is announced. Once again, is this correct?

Yes

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on Oct 15 2010, 06:50 AM, said:

I would also suggest that 4441 is no less balanced than either 5422 or 6322, all being 2 cards away from 4333. And how anyone could argue that 4441 was more unbalanced than 7222 (still no singleton) is beyond me.

Quite. That's why the EBU definition of a "natural" 1NT opening now includes 7222 (in fact the write-up implies 7222 with a minor, which is not what I intended when I raised it, but as I only ever open 7222 1NT with a long minor, I was not bothered).