[nige1]

The ACBL seem to have made a vain effort to prevent systemic understandings to open 1N with a singleton. It appears that skilled secretary birds are still likely to get away with it.

Duplicate Laws in general, and ACBL regulations in particular, are like a Rorschach Test. Directors have considerable freedom to interpret them, depending on their mood and feelings.

This inconsistency is not the fault of directors but of the rules. The rules are too sophisticated, complex, and incomprehensible. Many rules (like most system-regulations) are unnecessary.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-June-08, 19:33, said:

The ACBL seem to have made a vain effort to prevent systemic understandings to open 1N with a singleton. It seems that skilled secretary birds are still likely to get away with it.

Duplicate Laws in general, and ACBL regulations in particular, are like a Rorschach Test. Directors have considerable freedom to interpret them, depending on their mood and feelings.

This inconsistency is not the fault of directors but of the rules. The rules are too sophisticated, complex, and incomprehensible. Many rules (like most system-regulations) are unnecessary.

I disagree. Though the rules are certainly far from ideal, that is not the problem here.

The problem is that the relevant authorities within the ACBL decide on rule set A (e.g. the GCC saying that an agreement to occasionally open 1NT with a singleton is allowed) and powerful individuals within ACBL tell the public that we have rule set B (opening 1NT with a singleton is forbidden). ACBL should be more careful who they give access to the communication from the ACBL.

Another, and clearer, example is the Bobby Wolff "Convention Disruption". There is no such thing as Convention Disruption, but Bobby Wolff thinks there should be and, therefore, acts as if there is. Now, Bobby Wolff is entitled to his opinion, and we have freedom of speech, so he is entitled to voice it too. But that does not mean that the ACBL has to give him a podium and, e.g., ask him to comment on NABC appeals.

Rik

[ArtK78]

Although this has been stated a number of times throughout this thread, I thought I would mention it again.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT OPENING 1NT WITH A SINGLETON OR VOID IS PROHIBITED.

What is being stated is that there cannot be a partnership agreement to open a natural 1NT opening with a singleton or void. Having a conventional method of determining that the opening 1NT bid contains a singleton or void is prima facie evidence that the partnership has an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton or void and, therefore, that conventional method is prohibited.

I also would like to point out that this is an ACBL discussion, so any reference to other bridge organizations or events is not relevant.

[By the way, I opened 1NT with a singleton K of diamonds in a Sectional Open Pairs event 9 days ago. It worked extremely well. 1NT became the final contract, and the dummy came down with 9xxxx of diamonds. The opps could take 4 diamond tricks, but neither of them could work it out.

To the best of my recollection, this is the first time I ever opened 1NT with a singleton. At this rate, I will be 100 years old the next time.]

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-June-08, 19:33, said:

Many rules (like most system-regulations) are unnecessary.

I disagree. I do think that English system regulation is way too strict, but ACBL regulations are much more restrictive than ours -- so it could be worse. But anyway regulations are what the punters, for the most part, want.

All of the various bridge jurisdictions attempt to please their own players. And except for the SBU, none are concerned with pleasing you.

[barmar]

This month's "Bidding Box" (the ACBL Bulletin bidding competition like Bridge World's "Challenge the Champs") had a hand where the commentator said

Quote

A 1=4=5=3 pattern with 15-17 HCP and a singleton high spade honor is a textbook example of the rare hand that should be considered for a 1NT opening despire the presence of a singleton.

Interestingly, neither of the players chose to do that. They both opened 1♦; one rebid 1NT, the other reversed into 2♥. However, unlike CtC, tBB doesn't just show national/world championship players, these were both flight B pairs (the winners of the Red Ribbon Pairs and the North American Pairs Flight B).

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-June-08, 19:33, said:

The ACBL seem to have made a vain effort to prevent systemic understandings to open 1N with a singleton. It seems that skilled secretary birds are still likely to get away with it.

Trinidad, on 2014-June-08, 21:18, said:

I disagree. Though the rules are certainly far from ideal, that is not the problem here. The problem is that the relevant authorities within the ACBL decide on rule set A (e.g. the GCC saying that an agreement to occasionally open 1NT with a singleton is allowed) and powerful individuals within ACBL tell the public that we have rule set B (opening 1NT with a singleton is forbidden). ACBL should be more careful who they give access to the communication from the ACBL.

ACBL FAQ 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. [AND SO ON FOR SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS]

Trinidad takes this to mean that it's legal to agree to open 1N with a singleton. If the ACBL really intend no restriction, then why do they go on about it, at such length? Anyway, others interpret it differently. Trinidad says the ambiguity is not the fault of the rules. I disagree.

nige1, on 2014-June-08, 19:33, said:

Many rules (like most system-regulations) are unnecessary.

Vampyr, on 2014-June-09, 06:24, said:

I disagree. I do think that English system regulation is way too strict, but ACBL regulations are much more restrictive than ours -- so it could be worse. But anyway regulations are what the punters, for the most part, want. All of the various bridge jurisdictions attempt to please their own players. And except for the SBU, none are concerned with pleasing you.

A few years ago, at the EBU Brighton Congress, Mark Horton asked a room-full of players if anyone had read the orange book. Nobody confessed.

IMO, a pernicious effect of such stupid unnecessary rules is that the few of us, who do read them and comply with our understanding of them, suffer a handicap, compared with the pragmatic majority, who ignore them.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2014-June-08, 21:18, said:

Another, and clearer, example is the Bobby Wolff "Convention Disruption". There is no such thing as Convention Disruption, but Bobby Wolff thinks there should be and, therefore, acts as if there is. Now, Bobby Wolff is entitled to his opinion, and we have freedom of speech, so he is entitled to voice it too. But that does not mean that the ACBL has to give him a podium and, e.g., ask him to comment on NABC appeals.

As well as commenting officially in Appeals booklets. Bobby Wolff is a world-champion and past president of the WBF and ACBL. He has thought more than most about Bridge Law, so we should consider his conclusions. Some of his crusades may be ill-conceived but I tend to agree with him about "Convention disruption". For a recurring example, see David Burn's Ghestem Article. IMO, If players employ the "standard" official system, the director should allow for memory-lapses. Players should be free to adopt non-standard methods but they shouldn't benefit from "forgetting" them.

I hasten to affirm that, until rule-makers are persuaded, we should abide by current rules.

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2014-June-08, 21:18, said:

Another, and clearer, example is the Bobby Wolff "Convention Disruption". There is no such thing as Convention Disruption, but Bobby Wolff thinks there should be and, therefore, acts as if there is. Now, Bobby Wolff is entitled to his opinion, and we have freedom of speech, so he is entitled to voice it too. But that does not mean that the ACBL has to give him a podium and, e.g., ask him to comment on NABC appeals.

Rik

This distortion of the truth was upvoted by one of the respected contributors. So, the opinion is obviously shared; and, its fallacies should be pointed out.

Bobby and Judy Kay Wolf have been at the forefront of the concept of convention disruption for a long time. In its most basic form, CD "haters" (perhaps a poor categorization) believe strongly that our opponents have the obligation to know what their early-round bids mean, to use them as agreed, and to be able to disclose their meanings properly. This is NOT a non-existent concept; it is a requirement in the General CoC.

Coincidental and compensating misbids and/or misexplanations are evidence of CPU's; but, they are not in and of themselves punishable infractions. The Wolves and others wish they were, and that is where they get a bad rep from those who have their own agendae.

Saying that CD does not exist as a concept is absurd, no matter which side of the issue you advocate.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on 2014-June-09, 15:16, said:

Bobby and Judy Kay Wolf have been at the forefront of the concept of convention disruption for a long time. In its most basic form, CD "haters" (perhaps a poor categorization) believe strongly that our opponents have the obligation to know what their early-round bids mean, to use them as agreed, and to be able to disclose their meanings properly. This is NOT a non-existent concept; it is a requirement in the General CoC.

If the ideas behind Convention Disruption were applied equally to all early round bids, I'd find it much less problematic. However, Wolff only applies this standard to players using conventional methods. Players using "natural methods", whatever those may be, are allowed to their little forgets, cock-ups, and all around stupidity. Convention Disruptions isn't about obligations for knowing your methods. It's an attempt to institutionalize discrimination against methods that Wolff doesn't like.

Coupled with this, Wolff has long advocated "strong man" view of the regulatory structure which can loosely be summarized as "What that game really needs are good men, who will ignore the laws, and do what's right". I am an institutionalist. I view these types of arguments with skepticism at the best of times. However, when these views are coming out of the mouthes of naive bigots like Bobby and Judy Wolff, I find it even more disturbing.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2014-June-09, 18:21, said:

If the ideas behind Convention Disruption were applied equally to all early round bids, I'd find it much less problematic. However, Wolff only applies this standard to players using conventional methods. Players using "natural methods", whatever those may be, are allowed to their little forgets, cock-ups, and all around stupidity. Convention Disruptions isn't about obligations for knowing your methods. It's an attempt to institutionalize discrimination against methods that Wolff doesn't like.

Coupled with this, Wolff has long advocated "strong man" view of the regulatory structure which can loosely be summarized as "What that game really needs are good men, who will ignore the laws, and do what's right". I am an institutionalist. I view these types of arguments with skepticism at the best of times. However, when these views are coming out of the mouthes of naive bigots like Bobby and Judy Wolff, I find it even more disturbing.

No question that what you are saying represents the way they have presented some of their ideas over the years. I don't defend that. But, we don't get license to rebuff a valid concept, merely because we can attack the advocates.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-June-09, 11:35, said:

A few years ago, at the EBU Brighton Congress, Mark Horton asked a room-full of players if anyone had read the orange book. Nobody confessed.

Were these people constantly being penalised for playing methods that were not legal at Level 4? Let's assume they ere. It, since we would probably have heard something if there had been an epidemic. So for this roomful of players, the regulations were obviously suitable, since they were playing within them without malice aforethought.

nige1, on 2014-June-09, 14:22, said:

If players employ the "standard" official system, the director should allow for memory-lapses. Players should be free to adopt non-standard methods but they shouldn't benefit from "forgetting" them.

And who gets to decide the standard system? If it is me I don't mind... but anyway I agree that people should not benefit from forgetting their methods.

I also agree, to some extent, with the idea of "convention disruption". When a method, whether natural or artificial, is forgotten on a regular basis (10% of the time ? 5%?) the pair should be assumed not to be playing the method and to be giving misinformation. The problem is that it is difficult to establish, on a given basis, whether the method has been forgotten before. (I know that there have been times when a player has forgotten Ghestem -- which seems worldwide to be the main offender-- and their partner bid ethically, and I have not called the director because it seemed a bit churlish to do so while recording +800 on a parts core hand. Even were it not so, records are not, so far as I know, kept. So the occasional pair who are damaged have no real recourse unless the offenders confess honestly.)

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2014-June-09, 18:51, said:

Were these people constantly being penalised for playing methods that were not legal at Level 4? Let's assume they ere. It, since we would probably have heard something if there had been an epidemic. So for this roomful of players, the regulations were obviously suitable, since they were playing within them without malice aforethought.

AFAIR, the context was a seminar, in which Mark Horton recommended an opening bid. An audience-member claimed that the controversial "rule of n" regulations forbade an agreement to open such a hand. Nobody would admit to reading the Orange Book.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on 2014-June-09, 18:42, said:

No question that what you are saying represents the way they have presented some of their ideas over the years. I don't defend that. But, we don't get license to rebuff a valid concept, merely because we can attack the advocates.

When the position boils down to "The judgement of good men, strong and true, should be put ahead of the law", then the characteristics of those "good men" would seem to be germane to the discussion. And Bobby and Judy Wolff are a classic example why the judgement of individuals can't be allowed to over ride institutions and process.

With this said and done, I raised the same sort of issues back in the days when Kaplan was still alive, and I had far more sympathy for his point of view than I do for Wolff.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-09, 05:38, said:

Although this has been stated a number of times throughout this thread, I thought I would mention it again.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT OPENING 1NT WITH A SINGLETON OR VOID IS PROHIBITED.

What is being stated is that there cannot be a partnership agreement to open a natural 1NT opening with a singleton or void.

Indeed. And that statement is false. The GCC deals with partnership agreements, and allows the agreement to open a natural 1NT with a singleton on occasion. It also allows a structure (agreement) to reveal that singleton.

So, you are not merely allowed to open 1NT with a singleton "because you feel like it", you are also allowed to have an explicit agreement with your partner about it.

Rik

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2014-June-09, 15:16, said:

This distortion of the truth was upvoted by one of the respected contributors. So, the opinion is obviously shared; and, its fallacies should be pointed out.

Bobby and Judy Kay Wolf have been at the forefront of the concept of convention disruption for a long time. In its most basic form, CD "haters" (perhaps a poor categorization) believe strongly that our opponents have the obligation to know what their early-round bids mean, to use them as agreed, and to be able to disclose their meanings properly.

That is a distortion of the truth. They do not merely believe strongly in knowing your system and disclosing properly. Mr. Wolff has been advocating penalties for system mishaps. His position was worse than the "if it hesitates shoot it!" pack. Whenever a player forgets a convention (that mr. Wolff didn't like), he is not allowed a decent board anymore: "If it forgets, shoot it!". And there is no basis for that in the Laws or CoCs. People are simply allowed to misbid.

On top of that mr. Wolff was rather selective in his way to handle this. This means that a pair that miscounts aces or pulls the wrong bidding card when responding to Gerber and lands in a poor slam but makes it gets to keep their good score, but that the pair that uses "inverted Torino Crowbar Turbo" as their ace ask convention and miscounts or pulls the wrong card will have to get an AS and a PP, "because we have to eradicate this nonsense that is ruining bridge for everybody".

Rik

[ArtK78]

Trinidad, on 2014-June-10, 02:35, said:

Indeed. And that statement is false. The GCC deals with partnership agreements, and allows the agreement to open a natural 1NT with a singleton on occasion. It also allows a structure (agreement) to reveal that singleton.

So, you are not merely allowed to open 1NT with a singleton "because you feel like it", you are also allowed to have an explicit agreement with your partner about it.

Rik

Rik:

I think that you are the only one advocating this position. Quite frankly, I don't know why you would do this. The history of bridge in North America provides a basis for the statement that a natural 1NT opening bid should not contain a singleton or void. The statement on the convention chart that a natural 1NT opening generally contains no singleton or void and no more than 2 doubletons codifies this history, but does allow for some leeway from the standard that a 1NT opening bid should not contain a short suit. It is permitted to deviate from the standard that a 1NT opening bid does not contain a short suit. That does not mean that you can have a partnership agreement that you do open 1NT with a short suit and that you can have methods to discover that the 1NT opening bid contains a short suit.

Can I cite to a law or regulation that states that one cannot have a method to uncover a short suit in a natural 1NT opening? No. But that is the generally accepted position of the ACBL, and I don't believe that any argument that such a rule is not in writing will get you very far.

[helene_t]

I am sure Art is right, I just find it strange that ACBL doesn't write it up clearly. OK, in the Netherlands it is not written up clearly either, they just translated the HUM and BSC giberish from the WBF. But that's because nobody in the Netherlands care about system regulations. In ACBL it sounds as if somebody cares, maybe not quite as many as the discussions on this SB-infested ( ) forum might suggest, but still.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-10, 05:51, said:

Can I cite to a law or regulation that states that one cannot have a method to uncover a short suit in a natural 1NT opening? No. But that is the generally accepted position of the ACBL, and I don't believe that any argument that such a rule is not in writing will get you very far.

But my argument is not that there is no rule that forbids .... therefore it is allowed.

My argument is that there is a rule - in writing - that does allow the agreement to open 1NT with a singleton and that does allow any constructive rebid by opener (i.e. also a rebid that reveals a singleton). It is in the GCC (here) which you claimed in your post #112 (here) was governing this situation.

So exactly those people who are responsible for the rules of the game, within the ACBL, have written a rule -seemingly deliberately and consciously- that says it is allowed to agree to open 1NT with a singleton and to have an agreement for the 1NT opener to reveal the singleton with his rebid.

The fact that other people, who may be important in the ACBL but have no authority over the rules of the game - at least not as individuals, say that you are not allowed to (agree to) open 1NT with a singleton is then completely irrelevant. They are like cops standing under a 55 mph sign while ticketing everybody over 45 mph because in their opinion the speed limit should be 45 mph. Just like the USA, the ACBL have procedures that establish laws and regulations. The opinion of powerful individuals should not overrule the written laws and regulations. And if they want to change the GCC, they should just work towards that, in the appropriate place, with the people who are responsible for it, according to the appropriate procedures. But as long as the GCC is there, it simply is the document that decides on these matters, and not important individuals.

Rik

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-10, 05:51, said:

Rik:

I think that you are the only one advocating this position. Quite frankly, I don't know why you would do this.

Because the game is supposed to be played by the official rules that have been established by the appropriate (call them "democratic" if you want to) procedures. These procedures delivered the GCC.

It is not supposed to be played by the favorite rule set of somebody important, no matter how important (and nice and good intended) that somebody is.

That is how things are supposed to be in the Western world. It may well be different in North-Korea, where the rules of bridge might simply be determined by what Kim (X-Y) thinks they should be today. But I think we both prefer the democratic procedures.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on 2014-June-10, 06:59, said:

Because the game is supposed to be played by the official rules that have been established by the appropriate (call them "democratic" if you want to) procedures. These procedures delivered the GCC.

It is not supposed to be played by the favorite rule set of somebody important, no matter how important (and nice and good intended) that somebody is.

That is how things are supposed to be in the Western world. It may well be different in North-Korea, where the rules of bridge might simply be determined by what Kim (X-Y) thinks they should be today. But I think we both prefer the democratic procedures.

No offense, but you are completely clueless about bridge in the US.
You have a lot of fine theories and make a lot of nice abstract statements.
However, at the end of the day none of this bears any relationship to reality.

The ACBL is a petty and grossly incompetent organization.
I would prefer if it were otherwise.
I'm not holding my breath.