[blackshoe]

CSGibson, on 2014-May-28, 11:54, said:

The facts as stated in the OP are not in dispute - both teams agreed to what occurred at the table, and the explanations given.

What I have not stated, but which is also true, is that while the director was taking the statements, he at one point told the NT opener that he had twice opened with singletons and had similar auctions exposing the singletons while playing against him. Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D. This is a known action pair, and this was not the first recorder filled out against them for similar activity, as it transpires - if anything I had deliberately smoothed my own perspective out of the OP to try and put the NT opener in the best possible light.

I understand your intent, but if you leave out pertinent information - and this information is pertinent to the question whether they open 1NT with a singleton frequently enough to have an implicit agreement — then we cannot give an accurate ruling.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2014-May-28, 11:58, said:

So, the answer is "Yes", it is GCC legal to have the agreement that your 1NT opening generally does not contain a singleton (but on occasion might).

If these singletons occur about as frequently as the hands with 2 doubletons for many other pairs, you should be safe. Given that it seems perfectly acceptable to agree to open 1NT with almost any 2=2=4=5 or 2=4=5=2 (each 0.882% probability) in range, as well as quite a few 2=4=2=5, 4=2=5=2, 4=2=2=5 and (2236m) (0.470% each) hands, an occasional 4441 hand (0.748% each) should definitely be acceptable too. If players are allowed to open 2=4=5=2 hands 1NT "because I don't have good enough suits for a reverse, making it hard to rebid after a 1♠ response", the same goes for the occasional 4441 hand and a rare 5431.

Have you misread the regulation? It says "generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons". So comparing the frequency of 4441 and 5422/6322 hands is irrelevant because you are allowed to open 5422/6322 hands 1NT as much as you like. The meaningful comparison would be against the frequency with which people open 1NT with 7222 shape, which in my experience is very rare indeed (no-one expects the 7222 no-trump!).

[olegru]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-28, 13:54, said:

I am trying to come to the correct legal ruling.

I am not a specialist in American law - many years ago I graduated the law school in Russia - but for me "the correct legal ruling" is only ruling based on legislation. It can not be based on articles, specialists' commentaries or other nice stuff. To make a ruling I need regulation.

Your idea to write to "rulings" and say "show me the regulation" looks the perfect solution for me.

As a player, when I buy an entry I sign up to play according the bridge rules and sponsorship organization regulations. I don't have to read all articles on the ACBL site to check if they have additional requirements not listed in any official regulation.

If you are expected that "rulings" will not be able to reply on which rules or regulations were based their claims in the article; but still expect player to follow their claims, not official regulation, I don't think it is the ignorance of players. Of course if once side has right to make any ruling their want, other side do not have to much choice but obey and tried to read minds of persons who made regulation instead of regulation. But, I believe we are discussing the bridge law.

blackshoe, on 2014-May-28, 13:54, said:

Do they not? They said they did.

Again, I may be wrong, but I understood that after they have no special conventions that responder can employ to ask opener if he has singleton. He could bid Stayman, transfer to minor or to other major and singleton in opener's hand would stay undiscovered. But as it happened he transferred in suit with singleton and, as it happened, opener decided to not accept transfer that according their agreement could be done only in case if opener had the single Ace. I believe this agreement is one of the worst I saw in my live, but I really did not see anything in the laws and regulations that make it illegal. (Of course if they open 1NT only if singleton is Ace and the balanced cards. If they actually have an agreement to open 1NT on almost everything it is the completely different story, but I am basing my opinion on the original message).

By the way, I personally hate to open 1NT with singletons (except of robot tournaments of course) and always ask partners do not to it playing with me.

[helene_t]

olegru, on 2014-May-28, 15:02, said:

I am not a specialist in American law - many years ago I graduated the law school in Russia - but for me "the correct legal ruling" is only ruling based on legislation. It can not be based on articles, specialists' commentaries or other nice stuff. To make a ruling I need regulation.

This is indeed different in Anglosaxon contries. Case law plays a much more prominent role.

[CSGibson]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-28, 14:11, said:

I understand your intent, but if you leave out pertinent information - and this information is pertinent to the question whether they open 1NT with a singleton frequently enough to have an implicit agreement — then we cannot give an accurate ruling.

I don't think its completely relevent as to whether you can give an accurate ruling as to what actually happened at the table - the director won't consult you, and the ruling has already happened. Mostly I was wondering what would be the ruling on the facts as presented, and what other facts you would seek out before making a ruling.

Only when the integrity of the facts were questioned did I add the other stuff to illustrate that this is not a steamrolling of opponents or anything like that, so much as a curiousity question. Perhaps even responding to that post was a mistake, as it distracts from the main point, but I wanted to re-route this a bit to actually discussing the case, not debating the OP's accuracy.

[blackshoe]

CSGibson, on 2014-May-28, 17:04, said:

I don't think its completely relevent as to whether you can give an accurate ruling as to what actually happened at the table - the director won't consult you, and the ruling has already happened. Mostly I was wondering what would be the ruling on the facts as presented, and what other facts you would seek out before making a ruling.

Only when the integrity of the facts were questioned did I add the other stuff to illustrate that this is not a steamrolling of opponents or anything like that, so much as a curiousity question. Perhaps even responding to that post was a mistake, as it distracts from the main point, but I wanted to re-route this a bit to actually discussing the case, not debating the OP's accuracy.

What, exactly, was your purpose in making the original post, then?

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2014-May-28, 14:51, said:

Have you misread the regulation? It says "generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons".

You are right. Thanks. Nevertheless, the word "generally" in the regulation clearly indicates that a 1NT opening that occasionally contains a singleton is natural.

Rik

[billw55]

CSGibson, on 2014-May-28, 11:54, said:

The facts as stated in the OP are not in dispute - both teams agreed to what occurred at the table, and the explanations given.

What I have not stated, but which is also true, is that while the director was taking the statements, he at one point told the NT opener that he had twice opened with singletons and had similar auctions exposing the singletons while playing against him. Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D. This is a known action pair, and this was not the first recorder filled out against them for similar activity, as it transpires - if anything I had deliberately smoothed my own perspective out of the OP to try and put the NT opener in the best possible light.

So essentially, this pair habitually cheats. Not in the sense of coughing or toe tapping - but by playing illegal methods. It may (or may not) be a dumb rule, but it is still a rule and breaking it on purpose for advantage is cheating.

[helene_t]

Passing a forcing bid reveals a psyche or, depending on how forcing it was, maybe just a slightly subminimal hand. This is GBK. The pair might be cheating but so far it seems more like they are being overly helpful. Or maybe they are a pair of provos who want to tease the TD.

[barmar]

CSGibson, on 2014-May-28, 11:54, said:

Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D.

Isn't it GBK that passing a forcing response implies you psyched your opening?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-May-29, 09:01, said:

Isn't it GBK that passing a forcing response implies you psyched your opening?

It is. That, or you don't know your system. So the pass does not require an alert, in itself. The problem is that this pair apparently frequently psychs, which leads to implicit understandings, some of which, as in this case, may be illegal. There are also prhibitions against frivolous and unsportsmanlike psyching. See Psychic Bidding, although that's a "rulings faq", not, apparently, a regulation. I had thought there was something in the General CoC about these kinds of psychs, but I did not find it when I just looked.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-28, 14:05, said:

Keep it civil in here, please.

People tend to lose the rag when trying to interpret rules that are fragmented, sophisticated, ambiguous, self-contradictory, and (arguably) unnecessary but it would be more productive if they vented their frustration on rule-makers.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I haven't heard "lose the rag" before.

[nige1]

ArtK78 quoted the ACBL website Rulings FAQ, which said:

Opening 1 NT with a Singleton* There is not now, nor has there ever been, any regulation which prohibits a player from opening (or overcalling) a natural NT with a singleton if sound bridge judgment dictates doing so.
What IS prohibited is any agreement that such bids do not promise balanced hands. Example: A forcing club system with five‐card majors and diamond openings promising 3+ may force 1NT on 4‐4‐1‐4 or 3‐4‐1‐5
Repeated openings with a singleton by any player will tend to create this implicit and illegal agreement with his partner, and he may be proscribed from the practice if his reputation precedes him.
Players may use their bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton provided that: It is a rare occurrence (no more 1% of the time, partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit, and there are no agreements which enable the partners to discover a singleton.)
When a NT opening hand contains a singleton or void, the Director needs to look into the overall system to determine whether an infraction has occurred. Petitions such as "I just felt like it" or "It seemed the right thing to do" should be looked at askance, and the burden of proof that the action was "good bridge" is on the bidder.
If these tests fail to support the bid, then the opponents should be protected from damage.
It might be appropriate to assess a procedural penalty for violation, particularly if the offender has a history of transgressions of a similar nature.
NOTE: There is one conventional 1NT opening permitted on the General Chart. It is a forcing 1NT opening indicating a hand of 16+ HCP which may be balanced or unbalanced. An example is the Dynamic 1NT, a cornerstone of the Romex system. Because it is a forcing bid conventional responses are allowed to this specific 1NT opening.
Also, there two types of conventional unbalanced notrump overcalls permitted. The first is a two-suited takeout, i.e., the Unusual Notrump, if used at the one level by an unpassed hand (aka Sandwich Notrump) or as non-jump overcall, it requires an alert. The second is a three-suited takeout similar to a takeout double. This always requires an alert.

*Taken from ACBLscore Tech Files, located in Tournament Mode of ACBLscore. Attributed to John "Spider" Harris.

The "offenders" might be OK with

• "Players may use their bridge judgment to open 1N with a singleton" and
• Singleton A occurs "no more 1% of the time" that they open 1N, on average. Perhaps even ....
• "Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit".

However their actions appear to flout

• "Repeated openings with a singleton by any player will tend to create this implicit and illegal agreement with his partner"
• "There should be "no agreements which enable the partners to discover a singleton".

olegru, on 2014-May-28, 15:02, said:

As a player, when I buy an entry I sign up to play according the bridge rules and sponsorship organization regulations. I don't have to read all articles on the ACBL site to check if they have additional requirements not listed in any official regulation.

AFIK, players and directors should be aware of the latest laws, minutes, local regulations, and conditions of context (at least).
But can anybody answer Olegru's query? Is this a proper ACBL regulation?

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2014-May-29, 10:54, said:

But can anybody answer Olegru's query? "Is this a proper ACBL regulation"?

It's more proper than most...

One of the ACBL's greatest failings is the organizations inability to produce a single authoritative regulatory work.
We have nothing equivalent to the EBU's orange book, white book etc.
I have long argued that we'd be better over throwing the bums out and adopting the EBU's system lock, stock, and barrel.

In this case, the verbiage that Art points to can be found in any number of (semi authoritative) ACBL sources.
I've never heard of a director or a reputable authority disagreeing with this interpretation.

Sadly, that's about as good as well get here in North America.

(There's always the option to contact Horn Lake and see what they have to say about this specific case. As always, I recommend asking 3-4 times to make sure that the same answer comes back)

[CSGibson]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-28, 23:22, said:

What, exactly, was your purpose in making the original post, then?

To get a sense of what the ruling and process for the ruling would be when presented a similar case, as done in the OP, and to share what I think is an interesting situation that the director staff did not immediatly know how to resolve with this group as an interesting problem.

My thought is that the OP should be treated as 100% fact, and that if you need extraneous information, you would ask for it, same as a director presented the case at the table would. The fact that this scenerio closely mirrors an actual situation I experienced at the table is irrelevent to the ruling IMO.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-May-29, 10:54, said:

But can anybody answer Olegru's query? Is this a proper ACBL regulation?

No. The GCC and the Alert chart are the regulations. A nice article written by an individual is not, not even if it is an important individual.

helene_t, on 2014-May-28, 16:09, said:

olegru, on 2014-May-28, 15:02, said:

I am not a specialist in American law - many years ago I graduated the law school in Russia - but for me "the correct legal ruling" is only ruling based on legislation. It can not be based on articles, specialists' commentaries or other nice stuff. To make a ruling I need regulation.

This is indeed different in Anglosaxon contries. Case law plays a much more prominent role.

That may be the case, but an individual writing an article does not make case law. Even if John Roberts (Chief Justice of the USA) writes an article it may be interesting reading, but it is not case law.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on 2014-May-29, 11:26, said:

That may be the case, but an individual writing an article does not make case law. Even if John Roberts (Chief Justice of the USA) writes an article it may be interesting reading, but it is not case law.

The I guess all the North American's are living in a state of anarchy, because there is no such thing as formal case law.
The only thing that we have is a large, contradictory set of random articles, semi official pronouncements, and dim memories of what a given director did the last time this problem came up.

[blackshoe]

CSGibson, on 2014-May-29, 11:11, said:

To get a sense of what the ruling and process for the ruling would be when presented a similar case, as done in the OP, and to share what I think is an interesting situation that the director staff did not immediatly know how to resolve with this group as an interesting problem.

My thought is that the OP should be treated as 100% fact, and that if you need extraneous information, you would ask for it, same as a director presented the case at the table would. The fact that this scenerio closely mirrors an actual situation I experienced at the table is irrelevent to the ruling IMO.

Fair enough. Now, fifty-some posts into the thread, have we given you what you were looking for, or did we screw the pooch? If the latter, I'll try to go back to the OP, start over, and give you that sense - at least as I see it.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2014-May-29, 11:42, said:

The I guess all the North American's are living in a state of anarchy, because there is no such thing as formal case law.
The only thing that we have is a large, contradictory set of random articles, semi official pronouncements, and dim memories of what a given director did the last time this problem came up.

There are AC decisions. They are case law.

The North Americans are not living in a state of anarchy since there are regulations. In this case the regulation explicitly states that a 1NT opening is natural if it by agreement generally does not contain a singleton.

I certainly think it would be good to write explicitly somewhere in the regulation that natural calls are not regulated. But it isn't hard to derive this from the context.

What does happen in North America is that regulations are regularly overlooked, ignored, forgotten, or TDs aren't even aware of their existence. Instead the views of a few people with an opinion (let's call them "respected rebels") are taken as the final word on the matter - even though these individuals don't have jurisdiction. So, yes, there is anarchy, not because there are no regulations - but because many choose to ignore the regulations... and get away with it.

Rik