[jallerton]

Jacki, on Oct 17 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

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

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

Jacki

The link explains what agreements are permitted under "The ACBL General Convention Chart".

Does the same restriction on 1NT openings apply at the ACBL Nationals (Spingold, etc.)?

[Cascade]

jallerton, on Oct 18 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

Jacki, on Oct 17 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

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

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

Jacki

The link explains what agreements are permitted under "The ACBL General Convention Chart".

Does the same restriction on 1NT openings apply at the ACBL Nationals (Spingold, etc.)?

I believe so.

There is no modification on the ACBL mid and super charts to what is allowed as a 1NT opening.

[nige1]

Suppose the rule is that you are not allowed to have an agreement with partner to open 1N with a singleton honour but in practice, when you hold such a hand in your notrump HCP range, you often do. IMO...

• You have an (implicit) illegal agreement.
  
• Your opponents will sometimes suffer damage as a consequence. Examples. Opponents will often miscount your hand eg The best line, if they were privy to your implicit agreement, may be to try to drop your singleton king offside rather than attempt an unlikely end-play.
  
• You even suffer an ethical dilemma if an opponent asks whether partner regularly opens 1N with a singleton honour. Although since such an implicit agreement is illegal, I suppose you could take righteous umbrage at the question

Such rules should be scrapped because

• Many players regard them a ludicrous.
  
• There is a strong incentive to break them.
  
• Anyway, in practice, many players ignore them.
  
• Some players (including directors) rationalize their breaking of such rules; but most players who break them do so because they don't know them.
  
• Directors seem sympathetic to rule-breakers. Unless you admit to such an agreement, the chance of being ruled against is small.
  
• Partnerships who read rules like this and try to abide by them, suffer a significant long-term disadvantage, compared with those who habitually break them. Those who comply with them are derided as masochistic secretary birds. When they lose matches as a result, they can expect no sympathy from other players and directors (see previous similar topics).

If the rules were dropped, disclosure would marginally improve because players are loth to disclose illegal agreements but are slightly less reticent about legal agreements.

[peachy]

jallerton, on Oct 17 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

Jacki, on Oct 17 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

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

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

Jacki

The link explains what agreements are permitted under "The ACBL General Convention Chart".

Does the same restriction on 1NT openings apply at the ACBL Nationals (Spingold, etc.)?

The Convention Charts are here
http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

In Superchart, wich applies at Spingold and other highest level competition, there is a general statement at the beginning of "ALLOWED" that says also allowed is:

All of the ACBL MidChart plus any other non-destructive convention,
treatment or method

then lists a few exceptions to that blanket statement.

So in Superchart, to systemically agree that hands containing singletons are opened 1NT, is ok. As far as I understand from reading the regulation.

[Cascade]

Whoops I misread this statement in the super-chart.

[pran]

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

Suppose the rule is that you are not allowed to have an agreement with partner to open 1N with a singleton honour but in practice, when you hold such a hand in your notrump HCP range, you often do. IMO...

• You have an (implicit) illegal agreement.
  
• Your opponents will sometimes suffer damage as a consequence. Examples. Opponents will often miscount your hand eg The best line, if they were privy to your implicit agreement, may be to try to drop your singleton king offside rather than attempt an unlikely end-play.
  
• You even suffer an ethical dilemma if an opponent asks whether partner regularly opens 1N with a singleton honour. Although since such an implicit agreement is illegal, I suppose you could take righteous umbrage at the question

Such rules shouled be scrapped because

• Many players regard them a ludicrous.
  
• There is a strong incentive to break them.
  
• Some players rationalize breaking such rules; but most players who break them do so because they don't know them.
  
• Anyway, in practice, many players ignore them.
  
• Directors seem sympathetic to rule-breakers. Unless you admit to an agreement, the chance of being ruled against is infinitesmal.
  
• Partnerships who study rules like this and try to abide by them, suffer a significant long-term disadvantage, compared with those who habitually break them.
  
• If the rules were dropped, disclosure would marginally improve because players are loth to disclose illegal agreements but are slightly less reticent about legal agreements.

I am not concerned about 1N openings with a singleton being illegal in ACBL (or elsewhere).

What worries me is your alleged experience with directors and the fact that you seem to favour concealed partnership understandings, at least in the case of implicit agreements? I certainly hope (for you) that you do not, because CPU has no place in bridge - we call that cheating.

I have often experienced players being ignorant of some law or regulation; then I tell them (and adjust if opponents have been damaged), and that's usually it.

Once in a championship we discovered a pair that accidentally (from apparent misunderstanding) had violated a brown sticker regulation, and this affected so many of their otherwise legal agreements that I ordered them to cease using their entire convention card and revert to the standard, very simple convention card we have worked out for beginners with no variations permitted, until they had created a new complete CC and had this approved.

[Cascade]

In my memory Nigel has argued many times against concealed partnership understandings saying that those that adhere strictly to the boundaries explicitly created by the regulations put themselves at a disadvantage to others who are willing to push the boundaries saying it is "just bridge" and the like.

In this thread others have argued that even a 100 openings with a singleton does not create an implicit agreement. With in my opinion the flimsy caveat that partner does not use the knowledge that you might have a singleton.

From other threads it seems that the standard expert practice is to open 1NT more frequently than the ACBL guideline of 1%.

Similar things happen in other situations with expert practice at times being in violation of the written regulations e.g. light third seat openings that again some dismiss as "just bridge" when the alternative is to accept that their (implicit) methods are HUM.

Its my opinion that it is those that dismissively push these boundaries that have a problem with their implicit agreements being contrary to regulations.

However it seems clearly wrong to have regulations that are loosely written and frequently broken or strained by those 'in the know' or with concealed agreements while others attempt to play strictly according to the written rule.

I strongly believe that it is the regulations that are broken. The alternative is to label many as Sven did as "cheats".

The irony in all this is that some who argue strongly for these strict regulations are the same ones who are willing to hide behind "just bridge" for their violations of the regulations and to justify their otherwise illegal implicit agreements.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on Oct 16 2010, 03:56 AM, 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. 

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.

Whether you allow for something and whether you have an agreement are not the same. If your partner has done something 100 times then you know he is liable to and you have an implicit agreement.

Furthermore, what do you mean by not allowing for it? Suppose this player is defending, and trying to count the hand. His partner has opened 1NT 100 times with a singleton. Do you really think when he his counting th hand he will say to himself "Partner cannot possibly have a singleton so I shall exclude from my projected count all hands which contain a singleton for partner"? I don't think so!

It does not matter whether you allow for it: if you know it happens it becomes a disclosable - and possibly illegal - agreement.

aguahombre, on Oct 16 2010, 07:40 AM, said:

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

No. If you know that partner might do something with a particular hand because of experience, that is a disclosable agreement.

aguahombre, on Oct 16 2010, 07:40 AM, said:

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.

Exactly: you think you ought to disclose it because it is part of your agreements.

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

Many players regard them a ludicrous.

Many players regard lots of rules as ludicrous. So what? Lots of players do not.

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

There is a strong incentive to break them.

Bosh. That applies to lots of rules: fortunately the world is not peopled by cheats, and as a way of deciding what the rules should be it stinks. There is a strong incentive to steal as a cheap way of getting food/money etc. Should we abolish th Laws on stealing?

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

Anyway, in practice, many players ignore them.

Again, no reason to change them. Just penalise the Law-breakers.

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

Some players (including directors) rationalize their breaking of such rules; but most players who break them do so because they don't know them.

True of a number of rules. Again, not a reason to change them, but a reason to educate. As for TDs, you tend to over -emphasise TDs' incompetence without evidence or justification.

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

Directors seem sympathetic to rule-breakers. Unless you admit to such an agreement, the chance of being ruled against is small.

That is just rubbish.

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

Partnerships who read rules like this and try to abide by them, suffer a significant long-term disadvantage, compared with those who habitually break them. Those who comply with them are derided as masochistic secretary birds. When they lose matches as a result, they can expect no sympathy from other players and directors (see previous similar topics).

That is silly. Players who follow the rules get a greater satisfaction from winning.

[nige1]

Bluejak takes indignant offence when others politely dispute his opinions but castigates the views of others as "lies", "bosh", "rubbish", "silly", and so on

[bluejak]

Perhaps you should read what I write rather than castigate it all without considering. Lots of people disagree with me. Sometimes they convince me I am wrong.

But if I write total twaddle then I expect people to call the rubbish I write bosh. You have a habit of writing stuff that is not true to wind people up: that is way distant from what most people write here.

Compare what you wrote and what aquahombre writes. I think he had misunderstood and I disagreed with him, because I think he is wrong. But he was not trying it on as in your post. So my response to him was written totally differently. Compare the two posts: compare the two responses.

[mjj29]

Well, I can't disagree with people who say "you shouldn't flaunt the rules because they are silly, you should still enforce them", otoh, this particular rule _is_ silly and should be changed. Good luck with that though.

Alternatively, may I suggest anyone who has a problem not being allowed to open 1NT with a singleton switch to including them in 1C. After all the ACBL allow opening 1C with "any opening hand"...

[nige1]

pran, on Oct 18 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

What worries me is your alleged experience with directors and the fact that you seem to favour concealed partnership understandings, at least in the case of implicit agreements? I certainly hope (for you) that you do not, because CPU has no place in bridge - we call that cheating.

Again, below the belt
Sven knows that, consistently, ..

• I don't condone CPUs (under any circumstances).
  
• I don't advocate breaking rules. (On the contrary, I've lost matches by conforming to such rules).
  
• I just think that such rules are daft and should be scrapped.

As for my "alleged experience with directors"
... Sven is also well aware of several discussion-group cases (e.g. "Herman Heart" and "Rule of 18/19"), where directors accused other directors, when playing, of habitually breaking the rules. As a player, I agreed with most of the accusations and, as far as I remember, so did Sven

I demurred however, in the cases where directors accused each other of cheating. IMO, the problem is that Bridge rules are too complex, subjective and fragmented.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Oct 18 2010, 07:59 AM, said:

But if I write total twaddle then I expect people to call the rubbish I write bosh.

Sorry, Bluejak, we seem to be too polite to oblige

bluejak, on Oct 18 2010, 07:59 AM, said:

You have a habit of writing stuff that is not true to wind people up:

Is that a beam in thine own eye, Bluejak?
Sometimes my views are mistaken. When I recognize a mistake, I admit it. I write stuff intended to improve the rules of Bridge

[nige1]

bluejak, on Oct 18 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

Many players regard lots of rules as ludicrous.  So what?  Lots of players do not

Law-makers should consider scrapping rules that add no value, are widely disliked, are often flouted, and are hard to apply.

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

There is a strong incentive to break them.

bluejak, on Oct 18 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

Bosh.  That applies to lots of rules: fortunately the world is not peopled by cheats, and as a way of deciding what the rules should be it stinks.  There is a strong incentive to steal as a cheap way of getting food/money etc.  Should we abolish the Laws on stealing?

A Law against stealing seems sensible. In real-life, less sensible laws are sometimes repealed. Especially if they are so rarely enforced that it is the few who comply with them who suffer.

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

Some players (including directors) rationalize their breaking of such rules; but most players who break them do so because they don't know them.

bluejak, on Oct 18 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

True of a number of rules.  Again, not a reason to change them, but a reason to educate.

Simpler rules require less education.

bluejak, on Oct 18 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

As for TDs, you tend to over -emphasise TDs' incompetence without evidence or justification.

We are grateful to directors. We admire their patience and good humour. But the rules are fragmented, over-complex, and over-subjective. It is they that cause problems for directors and players alike.

nige1, on Oct 18 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

Directors seem sympathetic to rule-breakers. Unless you admit to such an agreement, the chance of being ruled against is small.

bluejak, on Oct 18 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

That is just rubbish.

Has Bluejak read the views of people like Blackshoe in this topic? Or the views that Bluejak himself expressed in the Passing the Multi topic? I wonder how many players-per-year are ruled against by ACBL directors for having an agreement to open 1N with a singleton honour?

Incidentally, it intrigues me that law-committee members who have the means and motivation to collect statistics on rulings and appeal decisions, rarely do so. Lacking such statistics, it is hard for ordinary players to bolster impressions gleaned from experience.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Oct 18 2010, 07:17 AM, said:

If your partner has done something 100 times then you know he is liable to and you have an implicit agreement.

If you've been playing with the same partner for 50 years, and he's done something 100 times, I submit that you don't have an implicit agreement, or even an understanding. Unless those 100 times all occurred in the last six months.

The laws are, it seems to me, leaning away from talking about agreements (although they still do so at present) and towards talking about "understandings". For example, one player may think opening 1NT with a singleton is okay on rare occassions, the other may think one should never do it. They've been arguing about it for years, but have yet to come to an agreement. Still, each player has an understanding of what his partner may do.

I can't recall having opened 1NT with a singleton. I can recall maybe 1 or 2 hands in the last couple of years with which I might have done. Had I done that, I don't think you can argue that my partner and I have an implicit agreement — even if it was the same partner both times.

[StevenG]

blackshoe, on Oct 18 2010, 04:06 PM, said:

If you've been playing with the same partner for 50 years, and he's done something 100 times, I submit that you don't have an implicit agreement, or even an understanding. Unless those 100 times all occurred in the last six months.

What about the one time in the 100 that he asked you "was that bid OK?" during the post-mortem?

[blackshoe]

What about it?

I can't remember half the conversations I've had with my partner about our bidding. I'm pretty sure that if we came to an agreement about something, we put it on our card, and if we didn't come to an agreement, we did not put it on our card.

[StevenG]

It seems to me that if partner makes a bid that would be illegal if part of an agreement, then a conversation that goes "What did you think of the bid?", "Good bid, I'd make it every time" creates an agreement that makes it impossible to use the bid legally again, whereas if the reply is "Horrible. Don't ever do it again" (whatever you really think), this leaves him free to make the same bid again.

Which appears to me to be ridiculous.

[Zelandakh]

mjj29, on Oct 18 2010, 01:16 PM, said:

Alternatively, may I suggest anyone who has a problem not being allowed to open 1NT with a singleton switch to including them in 1C. After all the ACBL allow opening 1C with "any opening hand"...

That's rather difficult if you are playing strong club with a weak NT and are using 1NT specifically to get around the 4=4=1=4 problem without being forced into a mini-roman 2D or 2H opener.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Oct 18 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

If you've been playing with the same partner for 50 years, and he's done something 100 times, I submit that you don't have an implicit agreement, or even an understanding. Unless those 100 times all occurred in the last six months.

Wow, I would be amazed if my regular partner had the opportunity to open one-notrump with 15-17 HCP and a singleton honour, 100 times in 6 months. Nevertheless, if I remembered 100 such occasions in the last 6 months (or 50 years), then I would certainly consider it to be an implicit understanding. Of course, it is obvious that others abide by quite different criteria. It is another question of judgement
Just to be clear, Sven: I don't have such an agreement