[mycroft]

What is your reasoning for "I chose to make a call I know would be illegal if we did have this agreement with a new partner"?

I deviated from "normal" - not grossly, just a little bit - in a way that I know isn't permitted by blackletter regulation in this game. But of course, that's okay because it wasn't an agreement?

Whether I like this regulation or not; whether I think the line's in the right place or not; whether I think the ACBL rank and file would have been comfortable with, say, the EBU regulations on this, if it had been brought in as a "new rule" instead of the one we have - is all beside the point. How do the regulators say "this far and no further, if you want to use judgement, don't play right to the line"? And if the answer is "they don't", where do you suggest they put the line so that players can use judgement, and still not be "this far and no further"? Again, I'm not saying anything about where they put the line. But either there's a way, or there's no line. I'm not usually impressed with slippery slope arguments, but this one has 60 years of experience showing that *every* attempt will be pushed.

And given that I have dealt with, in a NABC+ event, the backlash of some of that pushing - that happened before I was able to hold cards - I'm not saying this from the "ACBL's Correct Bidding Lessons" bench.

[mikl_plkcc]

 dickiegera, on 2021-October-28, 13:32, said:

---

South opened 1NT with a singleton in clubs. The bidding continued as posted.

When dummy came I called the director pointing out that S opened 1 NT with only 1 club witch was not A or K

E/W can make 3NT

South is a former director before COVID entered the picture [stated he didn't know that rule. which I do not believe he didn't know]


What should the ruling be for the illegal bid????


Thank you

1. Was the 1NT bid announced "may contain a singleton"?
2. What's the agreement?

I believe some pairs choose to play 1NT bid as "15-17, may contain a singleton" in order to deal with these hands, and under such cases this is the correct bid.

[blackshoe]

Two things:

1. The fact that someone makes a particular bid with a particular hand does not mean that the pair has a partnership understanding to do so, except in some very specific cases in the ACBL, by fiat (I don't agree with the ACBL's approach, but it is what it is).
2. Per ACBL regs, a NT opening is Natural if it contains not more than nine cards in two suits combined, no void and not more than one singleton, which must be an Ace, King, or Queen. Note that the wording is "NT opening" so it applies equally to openings at the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 level. Even so, the open and open+ charts do not disallow NT openings at the 2 level or higher that do not meet the definition of "Natural" here.
2a. On the Open Chart, a non-forcing 1NT opening that is not Natural is not permitted. So an agreement to open 1NT on the hand in question (singleton ♣10) would be disallowed.

The question then is whether "shape" in this case refers to "one singleton" or to "one singleton which must be the Ace, King, or Queen". To my mind, which card is the singleton has nothing to do with shape, but I would not be surprised if the ACBL disagrees. The Charts all have similar wording on this subject. On the Open Chart is "If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific High Card Point or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer High Card Points or a different shape." If an agreement to open 1NT on a hand with a singleton 10 falls afoul of this, then a player opening with such a hand is considered to have an agreement to do so, whether the pair actually does have such an agreement or not.

Outside the ACBL, you can have an agreement to open 1NT with any singleton in most (all, afaik) places.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2021-November-03, 18:40, said:

If it's a long term regular partnership, maybe. New partnership, or even one that's been playing for a month or so, I disagree.

I think this is another of the many issues Bridge will have to deal with before it becomes a serious game.
New partnerships between experienced players should be held to higher levels of scrutiny than usual, not lower levels.
Imagine a new MotoGP pilot who wipes out half the bunch on the first bend and says "yeah, I discovered you can't just close the gas on a Ducati like I was used to on a Honda".
You haven't discussed anything? Play this written agreement, and pay the price when you get it wrong.
You can't follow it? Play this simpler one, or stay out of real competition until you're both ready.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2021-November-08, 13:20, said:

Two things:

1. The fact that someone makes a particular bid with a particular hand does not mean that the pair has a partnership understanding to do so, except in some very specific cases in the ACBL, by fiat (I don't agree with the ACBL's approach, but it is what it is).
2. Per ACBL regs, a NT opening is Natural if it contains not more than nine cards in two suits combined, no void and not more than one singleton, which must be an Ace, King, or Queen. Note that the wording is "NT opening" so it applies equally to openings at the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 level. Even so, the open and open+ charts do not disallow NT openings at the 2 level or higher that do not meet the definition of "Natural" here.
2a. On the Open Chart, a non-forcing 1NT opening that is not Natural is not permitted. So an agreement to open 1NT on the hand in question (singleton ♣10) would be disallowed.

The question then is whether "shape" in this case refers to "one singleton" or to "one singleton which must be the Ace, King, or Queen". To my mind, which card is the singleton has nothing to do with shape, but I would not be surprised if the ACBL disagrees. The Charts all have similar wording on this subject. On the Open Chart is "If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific High Card Point or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer High Card Points or a different shape." If an agreement to open 1NT on a hand with a singleton 10 falls afoul of this, then a player opening with such a hand is considered to have an agreement to do so, whether the pair actually does have such an agreement or not.

Outside the ACBL, you can have an agreement to open 1NT with any singleton in most (all, afaik) places.

I believe the 'problem' with singletons could easily be avoided by rephrasing the clause to: no void and not more than one singleton which in case must be an Ace, King, or Queen.

(Note the simple addition of 'in case')

[pescetom]

 pran, on 2021-November-08, 14:40, said:

I believe the 'problem' with singletons could easily be avoided by rephrasing the clause to: no void and not more than one singleton which in case must be an Ace, King, or Queen.

(Note the simple addition of 'in case')

As Blackshoe says, the real issue is whether there is any good reason to limit the singleton to AKQ in the first place.
Italy (for instance) has no 'problem' with a singleton of any rank.
And we're talking about an RA that disallows a 6-card major, unlike some others.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2021-November-04, 11:38, said:

What is your reasoning for "I chose to make a call I know would be illegal if we did have this agreement with a new partner"?

I deviated from "normal" - not grossly, just a little bit - in a way that I know isn't permitted by blackletter regulation in this game. But of course, that's okay because it wasn't an agreement?

Whether I like this regulation or not; whether I think the line's in the right place or not; whether I think the ACBL rank and file would have been comfortable with, say, the EBU regulations on this, if it had been brought in as a "new rule" instead of the one we have - is all beside the point. How do the regulators say "this far and no further, if you want to use judgement, don't play right to the line"? And if the answer is "they don't", where do you suggest they put the line so that players can use judgement, and still not be "this far and no further"? Again, I'm not saying anything about where they put the line. But either there's a way, or there's no line. I'm not usually impressed with slippery slope arguments, but this one has 60 years of experience showing that *every* attempt will be pushed.

And given that I have dealt with, in a NABC+ event, the backlash of some of that pushing - that happened before I was able to hold cards - I'm not saying this from the "ACBL's Correct Bidding Lessons" bench.

The ultimate end of this would seem to be "you may not use judgment, period".

[mycroft]

Well, yes, that's the "single card" game. But the ACBL has (carefully?) limited it to "we're giving you a fair bit of leeway from 'what we want/what people expect'; that is to allow you to use judgement with normal agreements and not cross the line. If you have chosen to play right to the line - you've already used your judgement." I don't think that's heading to an "ultimate end".

If it weren't for the 60 years of people "using judgement" to play over the line set (however stupid that line may be), I'd argue that that's draconian.

I mean, in this particular instance, they tried saying "you can't agree to open 1NT without two cards in each suit. But we all know, there are those hands that look like 4432 even though they're not, so we will allow you to use reasonable judgement." for decades, and all that happened was that a) all the punters were screaming "you can't bid 1NT with a singleton!" (and being very upset when the director let them); b) "reasonable judgement" started being "of course 7 AKT4 KJ95 KQ87 is 'balanced', and it's stupid to open anything but 1NT 15-17 with it"; c) people created systems that either required 4441s to be opened 1NT or had systemic responses that showed it, thus taking it from "judgement" to " 'implied' agreement" (implied only because they never told the opponents about this "obvious" part of their system.

And there are certainly a bunch of lines that I think are wrongly drawn (it used to be that 10-12 NT was an effective weapon because you took the entire 1 level away from the opponents, on hands that most of the room was passing. Now nobody passes 40% of the 10-12 balanced hands, the more expert the game gets, the more get opened, and if said experts are playing Precision...! So, clearly, if the bottom of a "normal" 1 bid has dropped a point and a half from 1980, we should be able to drop the bottom of a 1NT opener, yes? Plus the "10-12 is easy enough for the Basic Chart, but 9-12 is too hard for World Champions") But experience has shown that wherever the line is drawn, if you let them get a toe over, they'll take a foot.

Whether I think the "must be balanced" nature of 1NT openings is a line wrongly drawn - is a good question. Irrelevant, but a good question.

[axman]

 pescetom, on 2021-November-08, 15:14, said:

As Blackshoe says, the real issue is whether there is any good reason to limit the singleton to AKQ in the first place.
Italy (for instance) has no 'problem' with a singleton of any rank.
And we're talking about an RA that disallows a 6-card major, unlike some others.

I'm not sure what is the real issue. My thinking is that the restriction to 15 words for auction communication is a satisfactory constraint. To further constrain what might be done with those words is an unsatisfactory restraint, particularly since such restraints favor some players in order to disfavor other players. It is by judgment that lacunas in one's method of communication are resolved for better or worse. Such judgment comprises bridge and it is better that it not be restrained.

[Gilithin]

 blackshoe, on 2021-November-08, 18:09, said:

The ultimate end of this would seem to be "you may not use judgment, period".

Better: "You may use judgement but you have to disclose what you actually play". In many countries, you have to alert/announce an opening 1NT call with something like "possible singleton". As long as this is actually disclosed, what is the problem?

As others have pointed out, the real issue is banning certain logical agreements that many pairs would like to be able to use. Thus they do it anyway and (illegally) fail to disclose saying it is a deviation. This in turn causes the lawmakers to ban the deviation. The answer is to fix the original issue, the banned agreement, rather than applying a band aid to the mess that that regulation creates.

In terms of why the regulations exist, this actually comes from the top in the US. Many American experts have complained about having to face unfamiliar methods and consider it to be "guerrilla tactics" or even a form of "germ warfare". Their argument runs that these foreign pairs use a method once and then switch to keep the Americans from becoming familiar with them. Meanwhile the Americans have to learn a new defence for each method. It is a little like a chess player complaining that their opponents keep coming up with opening novelties meaning that they have to think about the position rather than being able to keep playing "book" moves to get the position they want.

Probably the best equivalence of ACBL regulations in chess though is that white may only open with 1. e4 (natural) or 1. d4 (strong ♣) and gambits (unusual preempts) may not be played for the first 4 moves. While computer chess works quite well with enforced openings, it is highly unpopular with human chess players. Why bridge authorities think the equivalent should be used for their game is beyond me. If players using unusual methods do not fully disclose, by all means throw the book at them. As long as the disclosure is complete though, let them play what they want!

[blackshoe]

First you would have to define "complete disclosure". The laws define what it is pretty well, but then RAs come up with procedures that aren't complete disclosure (alerts, announcements), leaving "complete disclosure" for when somebody asks — and then players tend to be parsimonious. I would agree that the solution is to ensure that they aren't parsimonious, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

[mycroft]

That is a position. One that many have been putting forward, and it certainly has adherents. There's even a big BW thread on it right now.

But the alternative - "no further constraints" - also "favour some players" while "disfavor[ing] other players" - in this case, those that don't put in the time to, for instance, create and memorize defences to fert 1♦-2♣ for the one game a year they play against it. Which 99% of the top of the bridge world says "isn't bridge", and 99.999+% of bridge players will never do, even if needed.

Now again, "opening 1NT with a singleton spot card" - provided you are very careful in explaining it, which I bet wouldn't often happen - is nowhere near "forcing pass opening systems". But again, wherever you draw the line - even "nowhere" - is going to be wrong for somebody.

For me, bridge is a game of doing your best within the limits provided - including "by my RA". Whether I like the limits or not.

[axman]

 mycroft, on 2021-November-09, 12:14, said:

That is a position. One that many have been putting forward, and it certainly has adherents. There's even a big BW thread on it right now.

But the alternative - "no further constraints" - also "favour some players" while "disfavor[ing] other players" - in this case, those that don't put in the time to, for instance, create and memorize defences to fert 1♦-2♣ for the one game a year they play against it. Which 99% of the top of the bridge world says "isn't bridge", and 99.999+% of bridge players will never do, even if needed.

Now again, "opening 1NT with a singleton spot card" - provided you are very careful in explaining it, which I bet wouldn't often happen - is nowhere near "forcing pass opening systems". But again, wherever you draw the line - even "nowhere" - is going to be wrong for somebody.

For me, bridge is a game of doing your best within the limits provided - including "by my RA". Whether I like the limits or not.

As David Burn opines, Bridge is not a very good game. In that vein a reason it is not a very good game, indeed a bad game is that its foundation does not rest on justice. For instance the rules reward greatly achievements that are pianola while punishing achievements that are difficult. As an example it is far easier to successfully arrive at a contract of 4S because there are more bidding stets to arrive safely and at 10 tricks it is easier to fulfill- than say 5C which needs more muscle (less likely to hold) and has comparatively fewer bidding steps available to arrive safely. And for this difference in difficulty the reward is punishment on the recap sheet.

If the hierarchy of denominations were corrected to NT being the lowest (for instance) the 3N game would become very difficult to find with so few bidding steps and might in fact in practice more often consume so many bidding steps to go past 3N to 4N. thus the player better earns his superior score. Certainly, players being practical will more often bash 3N giving defenders a better run for their money.

Combined with a correction of L77 scoring table by switching tricks scores of majors with the minors would better align scoring with justice. The easier to arrive at majors would be rewarded more in line with their lower difficulty and conversely the minors would be rewarded more in line with their higher difficulty. Again more often creating opportunities for defenders to set contracts.

A consequence of the justice principle is that self interest likely will funnel players to mostly natural bidding to save bidding steps. Artificial becomes too expensive and the immense variety that today is difficult to disclose correctly turns into something manageable that players more likely will satisfy even if there were no convention licensing. I think it is justice that such a free rein will prove bidding systems successes or failures so that the market will quickly kill off the junk further reducing brain drain. The point I am making is that the reason something is done ought to be a good reason (justice) rather than trying to make something work by twisting it into something it was not (licensing for instance) meant to be.

[mycroft]

Possibly. A better constructed scoring table would change the incentives and thus change the bidding systems and styles. And lead to other challenges, of course.

The issue I have with "no artificial restrictions"/"reconfigure the game to be just, and things will 'just' work the way we want" is that I can not see any way to rebuild the game such that "present the opponents with a challenge that, while inferior, requires so much time or effort to solve that 99% of players just won't, and win that way" does not become a viable strategy.

Not that I'm a fan of the homogeneous bidding environments - anybody regularly on the forums should know that - but push it too far and the "why do people not just play bridge, rather than bamboozling us" players do actually stop coming to games where "that pair" might show up; push it farther than that and the think-they're-experts who already say "you just play this to win by confusion, not because it's good" (intended inference: "it won't work against us, just 'those other players' I want you to think I care about"; actual inference "of course, *we* can deal with this, but you're randomizing the results in ways that minimize the effect of 'skill' - you know, what we're better at than you") start succeeding in their complaints and either flock to another game or just leave, rather than putting in the time to learn how to beat that inferior, artificial, non-standard, confusing system.

And if I'm wrong here, after everybody puts in the time to beat the system du jour, Sam Dinkin just creates another one that attacks a different axis. Much of your patient effort to learn to defend "system I" is now wasted, because now you have to beat "system J". (Obviously, meta-agreements help. Obviously, there's a way to do this. Obviously, the people will know their system better than you will know your defence.)

And it might be a better game. It probably would be a better game. But the problem with bridge isn't that it's not a good game. The problem is that players are leaving (or dying) faster than new players are coming in. I agree, we'd get more younger players with fewer restrictions, especially players that would be better than average. But every pair that we get would drive out tables of the "newer bridge players" that are retirees getting back into this thing they enjoyed back then. Is it really a better game if nobody plays it? Well, I (used to) play Advanced Squad Leader. What that means as an answer to the question I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.