2NT OPENING
WEST OPENED 2NT WITH
S 9
H K Q J 4
D A K 9 7 5
C A K J
EAST STATED '20 - 22' . E/W DULY FOUND THE OPTIMUM 3NT CONTRACT FOR A JOINT TOP.
SOUTH QUESTIONED IF WEST'S BID WAS LEGAL, AS HE HELD A SINGLETON.
I QUOTED 4G1 NOT NECESSARY TO SAY 'CONTAINS A SINGLETON' BUT NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF AN AGREEMENT ON SINGLETON'S FOR A NATURAL 2NT OPENING ON E/W 'S SYSTEM CARD.
THE BLUE BOOK IS CLEAR ON DECLARATION OF SINGLETON'S FOR 1NT OPENINGS BUT LESS SO FOR 2NT - SO I AM NOT SURE IF IT'S NECESSARY.
E/W ARE A REGULAR PARTNERSHIP. AS IN 3C1 SHOULD I HAVE AWARDED AN ADJUSTED SCORE?
Comments
Assuming this is a natural 2NT opening, 4G1 states "is not necessary to add 'may contain a singleton'" but should probably say "is not allowed to add 'may contain a singleton'", as it's important that announcements always have the same form (otherwise UI is conveyed by the choice of which announcement to make). So West would have heard exactly the announcement they were expecting, and thus wouldn't have had any unauthorised information; and the opponents wouldn't have been told anything incorrect (and announceable openings can't be alerted), and thus don't have any misinformation. So there's no room for a UI or MI adjustment, assuming that the opening counts as natural.
The definition of "natural" for a 2-notrump bid is in 4C1b, "A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that ostensibly natural no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement". I don't think an agreement that 5431 is a legal 2NT shape conveys unusual information about suit holdings (in fact, it does the opposite; it conveys less information about suit holdings than, say, an agreement that 2NT is always 5332/4432/4333, which is arguably unusual for a 2NT opening; most systems allow them to be somewhat offshape). So an agreement that a 2NT opening can have a singleton doesn't prevent it being natural. As such, it should be announced (without a "may contain a singleton"), not alerted, and the resulting announcement doesn't create any UI or MI.
At this point I'm pretty sure you shouldn't, under our current rules, award an adjusted score. If you think the system card is filled out incorrectly, then a procedural penalty might make sense (according to White Book 2.8.3.4e, the penalty should be given to a regular partnership if it caused damage at the table or if the partnership have already been warned about this). I'm not sure it's obvious that a system card that doesn't list all the possible 2NT shapes is filled out incorrectly; though (at least, I've never seen people list out 2NT shapes when filling in their system card). Perhaps people should be encouraged to list that, for both 1NT and 2NT – it can plausibly differ between partnerships – but there's only so much room on a system card and you typically want to focus on more important things like the 1NT range and what the 2-level openings mean.
Incidentally, this points to a shortcoming in our announcement rules: an announceable opening cannot be alerted, even if its meaning is potentially quite weird. That gives potential room for a deceptive system designer to create openings that will in practice misinform the opponents but where they're forced, rather than prevented, to do that by the rules.
2NT opening may contain a singleton but this does not have to be announced. Just a point range of 2NT is announceable as per the Blue Book.
If you are even contemplating issuing an adjusted score or a procedural penalty, you have to identify an infraction. Opening 2NT with a small singleton may not be everybody's cup of tea, but it is not, of itself, an infraction.
It is possible that E/W have an agreement to open this sort of hand 2NT. It is eminently possible (perhaps even probable) that they do not, but that W felt it was the least lie on a hand that does present a problem. If so then W has deviated mildly from the agreement.
Now that the situation has arisen, E/W may have a discussion as to whether opening such a hand is going to be part of their methods for the future; even if they don't, the possibility of an implicit agreement does arise.
If they do have an agreement about off-shape 2NT openings, then it should be included on the system card, and it should obviously be disclosed in answer to any questions that opponents may ask about shape constraints, but there is no obligation otherwise to volunteer information.
"Incidentally, this points to a shortcoming in our announcement rules: an announceable opening cannot be alerted, even if its meaning is potentially quite weird."
I don't understand this. An opening should be alerted if the meaning does not fall into the scope of the announcement. So a 17+ any shape forcing 1NT opening is alerted, not announced as '17+'. A strong, forcing 1C opening is alerted, not announced as 'may be zero'.
And if you play a really odd form of weak two opening, it should be alerted. A pair at the weekend were playing 2-level openings as 0-7, 4 card suit, and alerted them rather than simply announcing 'weak'. That was entirely correct, in my view.
0-7 with a 4-card suit is alertable.
0-7 with a 5-card suit, though, is (per Blue Book 4F1) announced as "weak" and cannot be alerted (4H3a bars the alert in this case, and 4B1 is clear that an alert is not required). I personally think that this is wrong, as most people expect weak twos to be somewhat constructive and a purely pre-emptive weak two is highly unexpected.
Your example of 17+ any shape forcing is also alertable rather than announceable (due to being forcing). The announcement rules are often quite specific as to what's announceable; Precision 1C, for example, is not announceable due to being forcing, and thus must be alerted. In practice there aren't many issues with "unexpected announceable openings" because the restrictions on announceability aim to keep those openings within a fairly normal range.
I think that if I were playing this I would announce it as "very weak" or the like (the Blue Book makes it clear that one can tailor one's announcements to make them more helpful). This would provide a trigger for people to look at the system card, where the agreement would of course be prominently highlighted, or to ask for the details of the actual agreement.
A Precision 1 !c is alerted because it is not natural, not specifically because it is forcing (being forcing is one of the ways that takes a one of a minor opening out of being announceable, but it is not the only one). A Precision 1 !c is not natural because it has nothing to do with clubs.
I think there is some danger of over-thinking this.
I remember reading of one time Larry Cohen and Marty Bergen were playing and Bergen opened 2H. Cohen announced it as "Weak, could be ridiculous". :-j