[Bbradley62]

What are the current rules about opening 1NT (or 2NT, for that matter) with a singleton?

[RMB1]

In ACBL?

[Bbradley62]

Primarily in ACBL and whatever rules apply on BBO, although I guess I'd also like to know if that's different than the rest of the world. Thanks.

[Cascade]

The ACBL GCC defines:

"A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced
(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)."

The implicit assumption in that chart is that "natural" is unregulated - unless specifically regulated e.g. sub-10 point 1NT openings.

There is also an ACBL document entitled "Opening 1NT with a singleton" that states

"It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time), Your partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton."

The regulation is unclear especially with regard to the use of the word "generally" which suggests some room for latitude.

It is unclear in the ACBL document what the 1% refers to: 1% of hands; 1% of openigs; 1% of 1NT openings.

Man of the moment - Fred Gitelman - wrote at some time on these forums that expert practice was to open 1NT fairly frequently with singleton honours etc. If you open 1NT with any 4441 hand in range with a singleton (high) honour then more than 1% of your 1NT openings will have a singleton.

The WBF system regulations have no explicit regulation restricting opening 1NT with a singleton. The only regulation that could apply to a 1NT opening is if it crosses the boundary for a HUM.

I believe that a 1NT opening that is a genuine offer to play in no trumps is not by definition a convention.

[awm]

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). They define "natural" with respect to notrump openings as "no singleton or void and at most two doubletons" and disallow bids which aren't natural except as specified.

In most other places, agreements to open 1NT with a singleton are allowed, but usually require an alert (especially if it's the only opening with a particular shape including singleton).

Normally you are allowed to open whatever you like. This includes violating agreements to open 1NT with a singleton even if you haven't agreed to do so. The issue that occasionally comes up is that if you "violate agreements" in a particular way with great frequency, partner will surely know about this possibility and it becomes an implicit agreement that must be disclosed (or perhaps banned). ACBL has a rough guideline in this case about "1% of openings."

I think Cascade's claim about "offer to play" is ridiculous and unenforceable. Any non-forcing call is an "offer to play." Does Cascade really think that my 1NT opening which shows 4-5 cards in each major with 8-10 high card points is a "natural bid" because partner can pass it without a fit, and I'm thus "offering to play in notrump" if partner's hand is suitable?

[Cascade]

I paraphrased. And I forgot that the correct word now is artificial not conventional.

Artificial is defined as:

"Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information
(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than
willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass
which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises
or denies values other than in the last suit named."

The example Adam gave is obviously artificial since it conveys additional information about specific suit lengths.

By contrast a 1NT opening that might or might not contain a singleton and is an offer to play is not artificial.

I don't see how this is ridiculous nor how it is unenforceable.

[RMB1]

Bbradley62, on Oct 14 2010, 04:47 AM, said:

Primarily ... whatever rules apply on BBO, although I guess I'd also like to know if that's different than the rest of the world. Thanks.

Does BBO have any system regulations, itself?

In the EBU you can open 1NT on 4441. 5431, 6331 and
2NT "may be played so that on occasion it may contain a singleton".

In the WBF 1NT is not covered by HUM or Brown-Sticker regulations, so is effectively unrestricted.

[nige1]

awm, on Oct 14 2010, 12:10 AM, said:

Normally you are allowed to open whatever you like. This includes violating agreements to open 1NT with a singleton even if you haven't agreed to do so. The issue that occasionally comes up is that if you "violate agreements" in a particular way with great frequency, partner will surely know about this possibility and it becomes an implicit agreement that must be disclosed (or perhaps banned). ACBL has a rough guideline in this case about "1% of openings."

The ACBL reliance on absolute frequency seems mistaken. Examples ...

• A 4441 hand in an agreed 1-notrump range of 2 HCP probably occurs about 1% of the time. Hence, even if you open them at every opportunity, you still satisfy the ACBL criterion.
• A BLML correspondent opens 1♥ whenever he holds 0-2 points in third seat after two passes. This passes the ACBL 1% criterion with ease.

A better criterion is "with what percentage of 4441s containing a singleton honour, do you open 1N". Best, however, would be to drop such daft restrictions. This would reduce the temptation for players to stoop to rationalisation and sophistry.

awm, on Oct 14 2010, 12:10 AM, said:

I think Cascade's claim about "offer to play" is ridiculous and unenforceable. Any non-forcing call is an "offer to play." Does Cascade really think that my 1NT opening which shows 4-5 cards in each major with 8-10 high card points is a "natural bid" because partner can pass it without a fit, and I'm thus "offering to play in notrump" if partner's hand is suitable?

• Cascade's claim that opening 1N with a singleton is an offer to play 1N seems reasonable because, quite often, when opponents don't bid, 1N will be the final contract.
• Opening 1N with a major two-suiter is a different kettle of fish, because, most of the time, you expect partner to correct to a different strain.

[Pict]

The ACBL regulations seem reasonable to me.

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

[1eyedjack]

RMB1, on Oct 14 2010, 08:04 AM, said:

Does BBO have any system regulations, itself?

No - BBO just provides the software platform.

The tournament host specifies any system regulations.

[Cascade]

Pict, on Oct 15 2010, 07:59 AM, said:

The ACBL regulations seem reasonable to me.

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

Why should you not be allowed to take advantage of partner having a shortage?

Opening 1NT as an offer to play but the hand may contain a singleton is not fundamentally difficult to defend against. In fact I can't see that it is any more difficult to defend against (in the bidding) than a 'balanced' 1NT. It causes more difficulty for the opening side in the bidding e.g. after 1NT 2D; 2H stiff Q opposite xxxxx is not always an adequate trump suit. In the play you might occasionally get a little surprise although that will be diminished if the offshape nature is sufficiently disclosed.

With the current rules 'experts' open 1NT freely with singletons - usually singleton honours - citing their judgement. The seem to do this without regard for the 1% guideline on perhaps three or four times that number of hands. Meanwhile lesser players are up in arms whenever someone opens 1NT with some offshape hand.

If you read a beginner book or standard text you will probably find that 1NT is for balanced hands which they define as 4333, 4432 or 5332. There maybe a further restriction about five-card majors.

That is certainly what is commonly taught where I play. Hence we describe 5422 and 6322 and five-card majors as possible 'off-shape' 1NTs.

The ACBL have a more flexible definition of balanced which allows those offshape hands. Why is that artificial boundary reasonable? It seems to me that you are suggesting by implication that allowing 4441 would be no reasonable. Perhaps this is not so and you think either regulation would be reasonable.

1NT as an offer to play but with the possibility of a singleton is as far as I can tell a WBF GREEN system. It seems more than a little weird when such a basic system is disallowed in ACBL events.

Amusing aside. Well amusing to me.

On Tuesday night I played at the club with my wife - about a once a year event. In my regular partnership we open 1NT with most 4441 hands with black singletons since they often lead to significant rebid problems otherwise. I don't have that agreement with my wife. Early in the first match I was dealt 1=4=4=4 with a stiff ♠9 and opened 1NT. She nearly had a fit when i showed out on the second round of spades and at the end of the hand asked if she needed to be alerting my 1NT openings in the future. I said no they are just natural bids.

In the second match I found myself in third seat with something like ♠ AQx ♥ Axxx ♦ xx ♣ Qxxx vulnerable against not and playing a 12-14 1NT. It seemed a little dangerous to open 1NT so maybe i should have passed however the hand was playable in the majors so I started with 1♣ intending to bid 1♥ over 1♦, raise 1♥, pass 1♠ etc. LHO overcalled 1♠ and partner made a negative double and I declared 2♥.

At the end of the hand my wife enquired "How many points did you have?" "12" and then "Were you balanced?" "yes" and the inquisition continued "Why didn't you open 1NT?" ...

"I didn't have a singleton spade"

[awm]

What does "offer to play" mean to you?

If it means that we will sometimes play in that contract, then every non-forcing bid is an offer to play.

If it means that partner is expected to pass with most weak hands lacking a known fit elsewhere, then any limited bid is an offer to play.

I don't know what this business about "conveys additional information about suit lengths" is about. Every opening conveys information about suit lengths. A balanced 1NT opening shows 2+ cards in each suit, and might deny a 5-card major (or almost certainly a 6-card major). A "natural" minor suit opening might deny a 5-card major. A "natural weak two bid" might show 1+ cards in each side suit.

I guess I don't see why a 1NT opening which shows 1-5 cards in each suit is "an offer to play", and a 1NT opening which shows 2-4 cards in each major and 2-5 cards in each minor is "an offer to play", but a 1NT opening that shows 4-5 cards in each major and 1-4 cards in each minor is somehow "not an offer to play." In each case the bid will be fairly often passed but can be removed if a major suit fit seems likely (or guaranteed) or if the values for game are present?

Some arbitrary definitions may be necessary at some point. ACBL has drawn an arbitrary line that 1NT should not have a singleton. Other places have other equally arbitrary lines, perhaps allowing 4414 but not 5512. That's fine. But this "offer to play" business seems like utter nonsense to me.

[Cascade]

awm, on Oct 15 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

What does "offer to play" mean to you?

If it means that we will sometimes play in that contract, then every non-forcing bid is an offer to play.

If it means that partner is expected to pass with most weak hands lacking a known fit elsewhere, then any limited bid is an offer to play.

I don't know what this business about "conveys additional information about suit lengths" is about. Every opening conveys information about suit lengths. A balanced 1NT opening shows 2+ cards in each suit, and might deny a 5-card major (or almost certainly a 6-card major). A "natural" minor suit opening might deny a 5-card major. A "natural weak two bid" might show 1+ cards in each side suit.

I guess I don't see why a 1NT opening which shows 1-5 cards in each suit is "an offer to play", and a 1NT opening which shows 2-4 cards in each major and 2-5 cards in each minor is "an offer to play", but a 1NT opening that shows 4-5 cards in each major and 1-4 cards in each minor is somehow "not an offer to play." In each case the bid will be fairly often passed but can be removed if a major suit fit seems likely (or guaranteed) or if the values for game are present?

Some arbitrary definitions may be necessary at some point. ACBL has drawn an arbitrary line that 1NT should not have a singleton. Other places have other equally arbitrary lines, perhaps allowing 4414 but not 5512. That's fine. But this "offer to play" business seems like utter nonsense to me.

You make some interesting and good points.

1. The problem with system regulation is that it is inherently arbitary and probably unfair to draw boundaries

2. This is especially so when the boundaries impinge on judgement e.g. Is a 4441 better placed among balanced hands in 1NT or unbalanced hands in 1♦ or 1♥ if you play four-card majors - this seems to me a judgement issue not a regulation issue; Does opening 1NT on 9 hcp (just slightly below average) have merit - again a judgement issue. When the regulations impinge on reasonably normal judgement we seem to create significant additional problems and ill-feeling.

3. There does seem to me to be a significant difference between a 1NT bid that is primarily to play but offers the opportunity to explore for a fit from a 1NT bid that primarily is descriptive showing two particular suits.

4. Further your original post as far as I noticed did not require that any particular cards (length) were held in the minors. It just said 4-5 in each major which seemed to allow for a void in either minor.

5. Nevertheless there is a problem if "shows both majors" makes the bid a convention whereas for example "denies both majors" does not. This is a problem that already exists with for example weak twos where as far as I am aware the ACBL's position is 2M = M + other is not allowed but a similar in my view restriction that a weak two denies another suit is allowed - this is what many people play as standard 2♠ six spades, denies four hearts.

6. However to me its common sense that a 1NT that shows a bunch of points and a scattered cards even if it might include some 4441s is a more natural meaning than a similar 1NT opening that shows a bunch of points and promised length in particular suits thus seriously offering those suits as alternative strains. There is a fundamental difference between we might want to play somewhere else based on partner having length in some suit or other that partner will insist on or we will negotiate via Stayman or Transfers compared with I have some hearts and spades how do you fit with me?

7. Whether "offer to play" is nonsense or not is open for discussion. However it is the wording in the laws regarding "artificial bids". An "offer to play" is qualified by being required to have not convey additional information.

8. It seems reasonable that the information in a natural no trump is that the hand contains a general spread of cards. Promised length (4+ cards) in one (or more) particular suits seems exactly the sort of additional information that by definition makes a bid "artificial".

[blackshoe]

It doesn't seem sensible to argue that because one jurisdiction has certain regulations, there's something odd about another jurisdiction that has different ones. Even, or perhaps especially, when the one is the WBF.

The real question is "what does the ACBL regulation actually mean?"

[barmar]

awm, on Oct 14 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

If it means that partner is expected to pass with most weak hands lacking a known fit elsewhere, then any limited bid is an offer to play.

Bergen raises are limited bids, but they're hardly an offer to play in the minor.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on Oct 14 2010, 09:08 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 14 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

If it means that partner is expected to pass with most weak hands lacking a known fit elsewhere, then any limited bid is an offer to play.

Bergen raises are limited bids, but they're hardly an offer to play in the minor.

And this has something to do with what?

Bergen is a bid which is not an offer to play in diamonds, shows a fit elsewhere, and is an alerted artificial call. It relates in no way to 1NT opening bids, the choices about when to open 1NT, or the fact that 1NT is an offer to play in NT.

[Mbodell]

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?"

I.e., the actionable information that partner has is that you opened 1nt. So the question is how often does he expect that to be a singleton.

To take a silly example:

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.

[Bbradley62]

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.

[peachy]

Cascade, on Oct 14 2010, 01:12 AM, said:

I paraphrased. And I forgot that the correct word now is artificial not conventional.

Artificial is defined as:

"Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information
(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than
willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass
which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises
or denies values other than in the last suit named."

The example Adam gave is obviously artificial since it conveys additional information about specific suit lengths.

By contrast a 1NT opening that might or might not contain a singleton and is an offer to play is not artificial.

I don't see how this is ridiculous nor how it is unenforceable.

I don't know what others think, but to me, a NT call is natural and *not artificial" if it is balanced. A hand with a singleton is not balanced. Whether it is an *offer to play* is a red herring. Any non-forcing opening bid becomes an *offer to play* when the bidder's partner passes it.
Also note the statement in parenthesis, shown in the definition:
(not being information taken for granted by players generally)

As far as I know, players generally take it for granted that a NT opening bid is a balanced hand.

[Zelandakh]

peachy, on Oct 15 2010, 05:12 AM, said:

As far as I know, players generally take it for granted that a NT opening bid is a balanced hand.

That rather depends on your definition of balanced doesn't it? When I learned to play bridge a balanced hand was defined as 4333, 4432 or 5m332. That is it. So by that definition a 1NT opening in SAYC is artificial since it may contain 5M332, and very often 5422 and 6322. So no, I do not expect a 1NT opening to be balanced any more.

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.