[Trinidad]

 hrothgar, on 2014-June-11, 08:27, said:

No one disputes that.

The disagreement comes about when your response structure to the 1NT opening includes methods that explicitly show a singleton.

Your thought experiment should also include the following:

"Thanks for your ruling. You should also be aware that our response structure to 1NT openings includes bids that ask for singletons. How does this change your answer?"

You're going to get a VERY different answer to this question.

The GCC is a lot clearer about this: Any constructive rebid by opener is specifically allowed. And all calls after a natural 1NT are specifically allowed (with the exception for wide ranging or very weak 1NT openings).

I would never create an agreement for a hand type that occurs in 1% of the cases. But there cannot be any doubt that it is GCC legal.

Furthermore, just for the record since it is irrelevant, there is no indication that the NS pair in the OP uses a response structure that includes bids that ask for singletons. South transferred to spades and North refused the transfer which at best showed a singleton. South never used a bid that asked "Do you have a singleton?" and, though it wasn't stated explicitly, it seems clear that NS do not have a singleton asking bid.

Rik

[hrothgar]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-11, 15:31, said:

Furthermore, just for the record since it is irrelevant, there is no indication that the NS pair in the OP uses a response structure that includes bids that ask for singletons. South transferred to spades and North refused the transfer which at best showed a singleton. South never used a bid that asked "Do you have a singleton?" and, though it wasn't stated explicitly, it seems clear that NS do not have a singleton asking bid.

Sorry, I should have said relay breaks that show singletons.
Either way, the 1NT bid is illegal.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I just sent the following email to rulings@acbl.org

I expect them to reply that I need to renew my membership to get them to answer/ I may do so. My satisfaction in proving you wrong may actually exceed my disdain for the ACBL (which is saying a lot)

Quote

While playing in a recent ACBL event, I encountered an opposing pair who used super accepts over a Jacoby transfer to systemically show a singleton.

The specific auction was

1NT – (P) – 2H – (P)
2N*

The 2NT bid was alerted as showing a singleton spade. The hand in question did, indeed, contain a singleton spade. My understanding is that that it is illegal to have an agreement that a 1NT opening can show a singleton. (Deviations are fine). Moreover, as I understand matters, having systemic methods by which a singleton can be discovered constitute prima facie evidence that such an agreement exists.

I’d appreciate it if you could clarify this matter.

Regards,

Richard Willey
Q062857

[blackshoe]

You would have done better to provide the report of the facts exactly as in the OP, rather than coloring it with later interpretations.

[pran]

 hrothgar, on 2014-June-11, 15:48, said:

Either way, the 1NT bid is illegal.

Does ACBL explicitly forbid psyching an 1NT opening bid?

The only way I can understand your statement above is that they do.

(Forget any discussion about CPU and agreements to establish if there was a singleton involved, that is not the issue.)

Only today I experienced a player opening 1NT with a singleton ♠K, and during our post mortem chat he explained that he had anticipated serious problems with certain response calls from his partner if he had opened 1♥ (which would have been the regular bid with his hand).

As it happened his partner transferred to hearts ( !!! ), and on my question what he would have bid with a transfer to spades he said: "3NT of course". They had no agreements to this effect (in fact it was a casual partnership), this would just have been plain simple bridge intelligence.

[olegru]

I would prefer to add word Ace ot "top honor" after "singleton" in your question and stress that discussion is not about all hands with singletons but about hands that look balanced from the point of veiw of certan players depite of singleton honor.
Nobody is arguing that "in general" opening with singletons are not permited. Question is about specific cases.

[nige1]

Hrothgar's letter to the ACBL said:

While playing in a recent ACBL event, I encountered an opposing pair who used super accepts over a Jacoby transfer to systemically show a singleton.

 pran, on 2014-June-11, 18:26, said:

Does ACBL explicitly forbid psyching an 1NT opening bid? The only way I can understand your statement above is that they do.

IMO, Hrothgar asked about an agreement to open 1N, holding a singleton, with a response-structure, which can locate that singleton Given the regulators' apparent grasp of language, Hrothgar is an optimist to expect a coherent answer, in real-time

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2014-June-11, 18:26, said:

As it happened his partner transferred to hearts ( !!! ), and on my question what he would have bid with a transfer to spades he said: "3NT of course". They had no agreements to this effect (in fact it was a casual partnership), this would just have been plain simple bridge intelligence.

Perhaps you think it is simple bridge intelligence to have an auction:

1N-2H*
3N!!!!. I believe it to be neither simple nor intelligent.

And if I "broke" with a singleton Heart after 2D, Terry would not consider it even amusing with her heart bust or her Walsh Relay. We truly have no ability to wiggle out with our stiff and must live with it. No problem with the police this way, and I don't recall lumping a horrible result either.

[ArtK78]

 aguahombre, on 2014-June-11, 14:16, said:

And I will guess that none of your elaborate methods would have uncovered the singleton anyway..but, if they were designed to do so, there could be a problem.

I was being facetious with my discussion of our elaborate methods. Our methods are pretty run of the mill, and in no way are they geared to finding out if our 1NT opening contains a singleton or void.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2014-June-11, 20:08, said:

IMO, Hrothgar asked about an agreement to open 1N, holding a singleton, with a response-structure, which can locate that singleton

Incorrect

I asked whether a response structure to a 1NT opening that places singletons constitutes prima facie evidence that there is an agreement that the 1NT opening systemically can include a singleton.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2014-June-11, 20:23, said:

Perhaps you think it is simple bridge intelligence to have an auction:

1N-2H*
3N!!!!. I believe it to be neither simple nor intelligent.

And if I "broke" with a singleton Heart after 2D, Terry would not consider it even amusing with her heart bust or her Walsh Relay. We truly have no ability to wiggle out with our stiff and must live with it. No problem with the police this way, and I don't recall lumping a horrible result either.

Please just answer one simple question:

You have the agreement with your (casual and fairly experienced) partner that 1NT is 15-17 and 2H is transfer to spades.

Exactly how would you (choose to) understand your partner's responses 2NT and 3NT respectively when you have absolutely no explicit or implicit understanding relevant to these responses? (And what is your next call?)

[helene_t]

Richard, whatever answer you get to your query won't settle this.

First, see Blackshoe's comment.

Second, you will get the personal opinion of whoever happens to read your email. We won't know if there is any concensus or not in Memphis.

[hrothgar]

 helene_t, on 2014-June-12, 05:58, said:

Richard, whatever answer you get to your query won't settle this.

First, see Blackshoe's comment.

Second, you will get the personal opinion of whoever happens to read your email. We won't know if there is any concensus or not in Memphis.

I am well aware of Memphis's tendency to produce multiple conflicting answers. (more accurately, Horn Lakes)
I took a first step by asking rulings@ACBL.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Note: part of post deleted by mediatr
----------------------------------------------------------------

(Personally, I think that this is one of those cases where you're going to get a VERY consistent answer)

As for Blackshoe's comment:

I wanted to get an answer to a specific question.
Given the limited intellectual capabilities of the folks we're dealing with, it seemed prudent to frame the question...

[campboy]

 pran, on 2014-June-12, 05:42, said:

Please just answer one simple question:

You have the agreement with your (casual and fairly experienced) partner that 1NT is 15-17 and 2H is transfer to spades.

Exactly how would you (choose to) understand your partner's responses 2NT and 3NT respectively when you have absolutely no explicit or implicit understanding relevant to these responses? (And what is your next call?)

For 2NT I would expect that it shows a maximum hand and 4-card support. If we haven't discussed transfer breaks at all then partner may have decided 2NT and 3♠ are the only safe ones to make; I would take 2NT as stronger than 3♠.

3NT means "Oops, I accidentally on a 20-count. I have 2 spades."

In both cases my next call depends on my hand.

[nige1]

 olegru, on 2014-June-11, 07:45, said:

I would reword it a little.
2. You are allowed to agree to open 1N with specific singletons in a specific distribution and any subsequent agreement is allowed so you may define conventions to locate that specific cases.

and voids?

[Trinidad]

Post deleted. After moderation (of another post by another poster) this post doesn't serve any purpose anymore.

Rik

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2014-June-12, 05:42, said:

Please just answer one simple question:

You have the agreement with your (casual and fairly experienced) partner that 1NT is 15-17 and 2H is transfer to spades.

Exactly how would you (choose to) understand your partner's responses 2NT and 3NT respectively when you have absolutely no explicit or implicit understanding relevant to these responses? (And what is your next call?)

An intelligent partner would accept the transfer. If he doesn't, he might be intelligent, but he isn't a partner. When you make up an opening bid of 1NT because you think it solves rebid problems, you don't follow up by creating rebid problems.

[FrancesHinden]

 pran, on 2014-June-11, 18:26, said:

Does ACBL explicitly forbid psyching an 1NT opening bid?The only way I can understand your statement above is that they do.(Forget any discussion about CPU and agreements to establish if there was a singleton involved, that is not the issue.)Only today I experienced a player opening 1NT with a singleton ♠K, and during our post mortem chat he explained that he had anticipated serious problems with certain response calls from his partner if he had opened 1♥ (which would have been the regular bid with his hand).As it happened his partner transferred to hearts ( !!! ), and on my question what he would have bid with a transfer to spades he said: "3NT of course". They had no agreements to this effect (in fact it was a casual partnership), this would just have been plain simple bridge intelligence.

 pran, on 2014-June-12, 05:42, said:

Please just answer one simple question:You have the agreement with your (casual and fairly experienced) partner that 1NT is 15-17 and 2H is transfer to spades.Exactly how would you (choose to) understand your partner's responses 2NT and 3NT respectively when you have absolutely no explicit or implicit understanding relevant to these responses? (And what is your next call?)

2NT = good hand with 4 spades
3NT = hand that has discovered an extra ace

And yes, I consider both of these 'plan simple bridge intelligence'
(I've even had the second auction in an analogous position, and partner correctly read it)

[aguahombre]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-June-12, 15:44, said:

2NT = good hand with 4 spades
3NT = hand that has discovered an extra ace

And yes, I consider both of these 'plan simple bridge intelligence'
(I've even had the second auction in an analogous position, and partner correctly read it)

Absolutely, as to what those two bids should mean via GBK in an intelligent but inexperienced partnership. My response above was about what opener should do if Responder transfers to the surprise singleton; your answer reemphasizes why he should just accept the transfer instead of showing 3 more Spades or one more Ace than he was dealt.

[gnasher]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-June-12, 15:44, said:

3NT = hand that has discovered an extra ace

It might be a hand whose black suits have metamorphosised from
AKQJ xxxx
to
void AKQJxxxx