[CSGibson]

---

ACBL, 20 point VP swiss. The lead was the ace of diamonds, and south soon wrapped up 6 hearts. Before the lead, the alerts were explained, and S carefully explained that 2N showed a singleton spade, probably the Ace. After the hand, it was pointed out by E-W that it is illegal in ACBL land to have an agreement that revealed a singleton by the 1N opener, and the 1N opener disagreed, and while doing so confirmed that 2N would only be bid with a singleton spade. The director was then called.

When the director arrived, N-S agreed with the facts as presented, but then indicated that it wasn't really their agreement that 2N showed a singleton - the S player indicated that this auction had last come up 3 years ago and that the N player had a singleton ace then.

Everyone at the table is very experienced.

At the other table, the pair bidding found their way to 6N, off 1, on a start of 1♦-1♠-2N

What is the correct ruling, and what is the correct procedure to follow to determine a ruling?

[Mbodell]

I am not a director and don't play one on TV. However, I think the offending side are playing an illegal agreement, and on a board where the agreement comes up they should be entitled to at most -3 IMPs. So they scored better at the table, so their score is adjusted to -3 IMPs. The NOS is entitled to at least +3 IMPs, unless they have unconnected serious self damage. 6nt does not seem to be a horrible gambling place to end up on this hand. If E/W don't get off to a diamond of the top then on many distributions 12 tricks are there, including this one through squeezing W of exit cards and endplaying in diamonds to lead into the spade QT (or dropping the J if W pitches a spade instead) - of course unclear if it is obvious to play for this versus spades dropping, but when the diamond Q is pitched along with 3 others from W, probably worth a try (it might even be near free if E pitched the 5th club on the 4th heart since you might be endplaying E in diamond if he has Axx or ATx). So I'd give the NOS +3 IMP. If it was determined that the 6nt was a serious error and that the right contract was foo then I think the NOS gets their loss against foo, +3 IMPs (so if the "correct" contract is 3nt+2 for -660-100=-760 = -13 IMPs, then the NOS gets -10 IMPs). You then VP each side separately for the match (if you give the split scores). But here I'd give -3/+3.

[campboy]

It does not matter whether EW's teammates committed a serious error, or wild or gambling action. Law 12C1b only applies when "the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage". "Side" is defined by the laws to be "two players at a table who constitute a partnership against the other two players", so anything that happens at the other table is irrelevant.

[hrothgar]

North South appear to be playing an illegal agreement. (A damn stupid waste of a super accept as well, but that's hardly relevant)

From the looks of things, the players tried to walk this back. However, that's neither here nor there.

My understanding is that this falls under the category of a proceedural penalty, which means that the director has broad discretionary authority.
Here's how I'd rule.

Board is voided
Offending side loses this match. (Non offending side keeps their score absent this board)
Offending side's team forfeits all match awards for previous victories for this tournament
Offending side's team is ineligible to place in the overalls.
Offending side's team can win match award for future matches.

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on 2014-May-27, 05:58, said:

North South appear to be playing an illegal agreement. (A damn stupid waste of a super accept as well, but that's hardly relevant)

From the looks of things, the players tried to walk this back. However, that's neither here nor there.

My understanding is that this falls under the category of a proceedural penalty, which means that the director has broad discretionary authority.
Here's how I'd rule.

Board is voided
Offending side loses this match. (Non offending side keeps their score absent this board)
Offending side's team forfeits all match awards for previous victories for this tournament
Offending side's team is ineligible to place in the overalls.
Offending side's team can win match award for future matches.

Is the death penalty available?

Really, Richard, this sanction is not only over the top, but it is probably beyond the ability of the TD to impose. It amounts essentially to throwing this team out of the event. That is way beyond a procedural penalty. It is a disciplinary penalty, and there is no evidence that the offending side has committed any disciplinary offense.

I agree that the offending side is playing an illegal agreement, and that the proper adjustment is to void the result on the board and award 3 IMPs to the NOS. Whether the offending side is subject to disciplinary penalties depends on whether they were previously informed that this agreement was illegal and deliberately continued to play it despite the warning.

It is well known by most experienced players that, while it is not illegal to open 1NT with a singleton, it is illegal to have a partnership agreement which allows the opener to disclose that fact to his partner. I do not believe that the fact that this is well known is sufficient to give the TD the authority to impose draconian penalties against the OS.

[helene_t]

Richard: back in the days of the cold war we used to say: send them to Siberia

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2014-May-27, 05:58, said:

North South appear to be playing an illegal agreement. (A damn stupid waste of a super accept as well, but that's hardly relevant)

From the looks of things, the players tried to walk this back. However, that's neither here nor there.

My understanding is that this falls under the category of a proceedural penalty, which means that the director has broad discretionary authority.
Here's how I'd rule.

Board is voided
Offending side loses this match. (Non offending side keeps their score absent this board)
Offending side's team forfeits all match awards for previous victories for this tournament
Offending side's team is ineligible to place in the overalls.
Offending side's team can win match award for future matches.

This sounds a little extreme. Although, I really strongly dislike the apparent NS antics: change their story when the director comes over, trying to avoid a penalty for what they know is an infraction. So I wouldn't mind a strong penalty very much.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on 2014-May-27, 06:16, said:

Is the death penalty available?

Really, Richard, this sanction is not only over the top, but it is probably beyond the ability of the TD to impose. It amounts essentially to throwing this team out of the event. That is way beyond a procedural penalty. It is a disciplinary penalty, and there is no evidence that the offending side has committed any disciplinary offense.

I agree that the offending side is playing an illegal agreement, and that the proper adjustment is to void the result on the board and award 3 IMPs to the NOS. Whether the offending side is subject to disciplinary penalties depends on whether they were previously informed that this agreement was illegal and deliberately continued to play it despite the warning.

Comment 1: The death penalty is breaking up the partnership and / or expelling individuals. What I am suggesting is order's of magnitude less severe

Comment 2: We have a "very experienced" pair who has been playing together as a partnership for years.

Comment 3: The ACBL screws a lot of stuff up, but one thing that they are quite clear about is that you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton

I am a firm believer that people who break clear laws need to be made an example of.
(its how you motivate people to learn the laws and to follow them)

FWIW, back when my father was teaching college, every couple years he expel someone for plagiarism.
Saying that someone doesn't have a chance to win a tournament when they broke the rules hardly seems that harsh.

[Zelandakh]

Say the pair in question had played 2NT as a super-accept that made the 1NT hand so good it was above the usual range, with some other super-accept showing a normal maximum. Would this be a legal agreement in the ACBL? Would it still be legal if in practise the only hands that managed to qualify for that call were those with a singleton (in any suit)? How about if we only ever seemed to opened 1NT with a singleton if that stiff were in spades? The 2NT super-accept is still only showing a super-max...

Clearly the main thing that N-S did wrong is to be more helpful than they needed to be by admitting that this sequence came up before as a singleton ♠A. Most pairs would have conveniently forgotten this. If they had instead answered "No agreement on this so our meta rules say natural, a max hand unsuitable for spades" or some similar rubbish then they would have been completely ok. As experienced players they really should have known better than to answer truthfully at an ACBL event(!)

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2014-May-27, 07:22, said:

Clearly the main thing that N-S did wrong is to be more helpful than they needed to be by admitting that this sequence came up before as a singleton ♠A. Most pairs would have conveniently forgotten this. If they had instead answered "No agreement on this so our meta rules say natural, a max hand unsuitable for spades" or some similar rubbish then they would have been completely ok. As experienced players they really should have known better than to answer truthfully at an ACBL event(!)

Not sure about that Zel. The way I read the OP, NS were not at all ambiguous about the meaning of 2NT - which is a good start. But then when the director came over, they changed their mind, saying it is not really an agreement. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I did not get the vibe that NS were just trying to be ethical - rather, they were trying to avoid a penalty.

[Bbradley62]

I presume that ACBL has actually outlawed agreements allowing opening 1NT with a singleton, since everyone seems convinced of this, but I cannot find it. The GCC says:

Quote

DEFINITIONS
2. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced (generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons).

Why is the word "generally" there? It leads me to believe that there could be exceptions to this exclusion, possibly specifically a singleton A.

Edit: I open 1NT with two doubletons habitually, if there is a concentration of high cards in the doubletons. This is against ACBL rules?

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2014-May-27, 10:14

[hrothgar]

Bbradley62, on 2014-May-27, 10:11, said:

I presume that ACBL has actually outlawed agreements allowing opening 1NT with a singleton, since everyone seems convinced of this, but I cannot find it. The GCC says:

Having conventional methods to determine whether you hold a singleton is held to indicate that your 1NT opening is not natural

Anything not sanctioned by the GCC is banned.

[campboy]

Bbradley62, on 2014-May-27, 10:11, said:

Edit: I open 1NT with two doubletons habitually, if there is a concentration of high cards in the doubletons. This is against ACBL rules?

No, two doubletons is ok; three is not. Four is right out

[Bbradley62]

oh oh oh ... you are right... I wouldn't open 1NT with 2227 except when playing with robots :-)

[jeffford76]

Full disclosure: I was at the other table and failed to find Michael's strip and endplay.

I believe the correct procedure in the ACBL is to try to ascertain what the result would have been if the pair were not playing the illegal agreement. This is murky, of course, since you have to attribute them some method other than what they were currently playing.

In this case I think there are two things to consider - what would happen after a 1D opening, and what would happen after a 1NT opening without the way to find the singleton. At this point there are many possible auctions, but I think it is fairly clear that a large number of them don't end up in 6H, and I don't think the offenders get credit for making 6NT.

Thus, while the possibilities are numerous, I don't think any of the possibilities end up with a worse score than a push board for the offenders, so that's what I would assign. I don't think you're supposed to give average minus under Law 12C1(d) unless there are possibilities that they would win imps and possibilities that they would lose imps.

Separately, it is appropriate to penalize an experienced pair for playing an illegal convention. I don't know if there is a standard fine here although there should be. In a Swiss this penalty would just be a VP reduction for the offenders - it wouldn't affect the match score.

Finally it would be appropriate to investigate whether the convention had come up on any other hands in the event, but I don't think in practice much work is done on this front.

[ArtK78]

jeffford76, on 2014-May-27, 10:53, said:

Full disclosure: I was at the other table and failed to find Michael's strip and endplay.

I believe the correct procedure in the ACBL is to try to ascertain what the result would have been if the pair were not playing the illegal agreement. This is murky, of course, since you have to attribute them some method other than what they were currently playing.

In this case I think there are two things to consider - what would happen after a 1D opening, and what would happen after a 1NT opening without the way to find the singleton. At this point there are many possible auctions, but I think it is fairly clear that a large number of them don't end up in 6H, and I don't think the offenders get credit for making 6NT.

Thus, while the possibilities are numerous, I don't think any of the possibilities end up with a worse score than a push board for the offenders, so that's what I would assign. I don't think you're supposed to give average minus under Law 12C1(d) unless there are possibilities that they would win imps and possibilities that they would lose imps.

Separately, it is appropriate to penalize an experienced pair for playing an illegal convention. I don't know if there is a standard fine here although there should be. In a Swiss this penalty would just be a VP reduction for the offenders - it wouldn't affect the match score.

Finally it would be appropriate to investigate whether the convention had come up on any other hands in the event, but I don't think in practice much work is done on this front.

I don't know what the "correct procedure" should be in the case of the use of an illegal convention, but I can tell you what TDs do based on my experience - the board is thrown out and 3 IMPs are awarded to the NOS.

In the several times I have been at the table when an illegal convention was used and found out, this was the ruling in all cases. And it was not because there was no way to determine what the result would have been if the illegal agreement had not been used - it was an automatic adjustment.

[ArtK78]

There is no rule against opening any number of no trump with a singleton (or, for that matter, with a void). There is a rule against having a conventional method for determining if the notrump opener holds a singleton. It is mentioned in the discussion below.

I found this on the ACBL website under Rulings FAQ. The first topic was a 1NT opening with a singleton:

Rev. 09/14/13

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.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2014-May-27, 05:58, said:

North South appear to be playing an illegal agreement. (A damn stupid waste of a super accept as well, but that's hardly relevant) From the looks of things, the players tried to walk this back. However, that's neither here nor there.

Prevaricating offenders should get away with it, neither here nor there.

hrothgar, on 2014-May-27, 05:58, said:

My understanding is that this falls under the category of a procedural penalty, which means that the director has broad discretionary authority. Here's how I'd rule. Board is voided. Offending side loses this match. (Non offending side keeps their score absent this board). Offending side's team forfeits all match awards for previous victories for this tournament. Offending side's team is ineligible to place in the overalls.

Unfortunately, no director would ever rule that way, although it seems reasonable to consider previous boards and previous matches, when this pair might have benefited from illegal agreements.

hrothgar, on 2014-May-27, 06:52, said:

Comment 2: We have a "very experienced" pair who has been playing together as a partnership for years.Comment 3: The ACBL screws a lot of stuff up, but one thing that they are quite clear about is that you can't have an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton. I am a firm believer that people who break clear laws need to be made an example of.(its how you motivate people to learn the laws and to follow them) FWIW, back when my father was teaching college, every couple years he expel someone for plagiarism. Saying that someone doesn't have a chance to win a tournament when they broke the rules hardly seems that harsh.

Hrothgar and his father make more sense than "equity" lawyers.

Zelandakh, on 2014-May-27, 07:22, said:

Clearly the main thing that N-S did wrong is to be more helpful than they needed to be by admitting that this sequence came up before as a singleton ♠A. Most pairs would have conveniently forgotten this. If they had instead answered "No agreement on this so our meta rules say natural, a max hand unsuitable for spades" or some similar rubbish then they would have been completely ok.

Zelandakh is right that the offender's initial honesty is a mitigating factor although their subsequent back-tracking is a black-mark.

Zelandakh, on 2014-May-27, 07:22, said:

As experienced players they really should have known better than to answer truthfully at an ACBL event(!)

A complete explanation might create a significant precedent, in the UK, too

campboy, on 2014-May-27, 10:22, said:

No, two doubletons is ok; three is not. Four is right out

IMO, there should be no system restrictions, except, perhaps, for those in campboy's 3rd category.

[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2014-May-27, 12:25, said:

Prevaricating offenders should get away with it, neither here nor there. Unfortunately, no director would ever rule that way, although it seems reasonable to consider previous boards and previous matches, when this pair might have benefited from illegal agreements. Hrothgar and his father make more sense than "equity" lawyers. Zelandakh is right that the offender's initial honesty is a mitigating factor although their subsequent back-tracking is a black-mark. A complete explanation might create a significant precedent, in the UK, too IMO, there should be no system restrictions, except, perhaps, for those in campboy's 3rd category.

With all due respect, Nige, your opinion that there should be no system restrictions doesn't matter. This was an ACBL event.

This reminds me of an incident from this past Sunday. I was playing softball, and at the time of the play in question, I was the first base coach. One of the players on my team appeared to have beaten out an infield single. Everyone on my team thought he was safe. A good portion of the opposition thought he was safe. The player thought he was safe. I thought he was safe. However, the umpire said he was out. As I said to him on his way back to our dugout - "The vote was 20 to 1 - the 1 wins."

[Zelandakh]

You'll never make the big leagues Art. You are meant to get yourself tossed for that.