[glen]

pclayton, on Feb 26 2007, 09:45 PM, said:

I don't have much of a problem with Glen and his wife having different rules for opening 3N.

Sorry to have to repeat this. We do not have different rules for opening 3N. We will never have different rules for opening 3N. We now have, and may continue to have, different styles, but these will not be by rules, or by guidelines etc. As well I would prefer that she adopts all my style, but no luck so far...

[fred]

officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 02:10 AM, said:

My view is that a bid that is a strong desire to play there, is non-conventional, regardless of attempts by the GCC to define "natural" one way or the other.

I agree with this. If the GCC defines "3NT=to play" as not a natural bid then something is broken with the GCC.

If your 3NT opening really is GCC-illegal, I guess you should not be playing it in GCC-events, despite how silly this seems (to me at least).

On another note, my regular partner surprised me the other day on BBO by raising my 1S opening to 4S with:

Kxx
xxx
KQxxxx
x

I do not ever recall an opponent asking me "what is 4S?" when the auction goes that way. It is not the sort of question that I would expect a non-beginner to ask (especially if 4S is not alerted).

But if I ever hear this question I will answer "he wants to play in 4S. I suppose he could have anything, but if you want I can tell you the sort of hands he has made this bid on in the past."

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Feb 26 2007, 09:34 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 26 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

6) Why would I ever say standard?  With my regular partners, the response is "5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp".  I really dont understand the point of this question.
.
.
.

This is absolute nonsense.  With my regular partners, that is the EXACT meaning.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is also a better description that "can be anything."

Really?

OK, here's a hand, less than 8 hcp, 5+ hearts. Match points

J5 Q9765 T86 975

If you were vul. vs. not, and the bidding had gone:
(P) 1♥ (P) ?

Would you bid 4♥?

Same question, reverse the vulnerability.

Same questions, but now your partner was dealer.

So, do you bid the same in all four cases?

Me, this one's easy. If partner dealt, we're not vulnerable, and they are, I bid 4♥. In all other cases, I'd wouldn't. And a partner who knows me well enough would know this. That's a tendency.

But the only case when you would have actually made the bid is not vul vs. vul and then the description of "5+ trump, less than 8 hcp" is adequate. All other hands would pass, making your attempted point irrelevant.

I am not questioning the fact that it's an "honest" bid. But given the fact that Glen does it, and his partner doesn't, combined with a lack of adequately being able to describe the bid.......

And the majority of the hands appear to fall into a category of "Usually around 18 hcp, and a solid/semi-solid 6+ card suit but may vary". I could live with this as a description...... however, the onus isn't on me to "know" what the bid means. It's on the opposing pair to provide adequate information regarding their bids. At the table, I dont have the luxury of seeing the 14-20 hands they have opened 3N with in the past. His partner has.

[pclayton]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 26 2007, 09:45 PM, said:

I don't have much of a problem with Glen and his wife having different rules for opening 3N.

Sorry to have to repeat this. We do not have different rules for opening 3N. We will never have different rules for opening 3N. We now have, and may continue to have, different styles, but these will not be by rules, or by guidelines etc. As well I would prefer that she adopts all my style, but no luck so far...

Yes Glen you are right; I saw that earlier.

What happens in practice appears to be otherwise however.

[glen]

pclayton, on Feb 26 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

What happens in practice appears to be otherwise however.

So she's adopting my style? Great news, hadn't noticed yet.

[inquiry]

Here are the hands though Jan 1 2007 (does not include the hand that started this thread from last night). I did these for the total number of plays to satisfy Richard, although I know I agree that this bid is "to play" and thus natural and legal. There were 6080 total partnership hands. Glen was the opening bidder on each of these, more than 14.

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  3NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

[awm]

The thing is, there's a difference between bidding something because:

(1) I think it is reasonably likely that I can make it.

(2) I think that playing there will be a good result opposite most hands partner could have, even though we might not make and even if we are doubled occasionally.

(3) I think playing there undoubled will be a good result opposite many hands partner could hold, but I will run to some other contract if doubled.

While it seems reasonable to rule that the first two meanings are "not conventional" and that they don't even require all that much disclosure other than "he wants to play this contract," the third meaning seems highly suspicious to me. Most people will probably not anticipate that "to play" might encompass such hands with great regularity, and even if it's well disclosed it seems to permit "chimera" preempts where you open some suit you don't necessarily have under the agreement that partner will pass unless holding a really good hand, and that if you are doubled you can run to your "real" suit; I don't think this treatment is ACBL general chart or permitted in most events even in the WBF.

Looking at the hands Glen opens 3NT on, there are a few hands at NV that really seem like they are closer to a "4m preempt" than a hand with a realistic expectation to make 3NT, and I'd be very surprised if he would sit for 3NTX with such hands. So basically he's bidding 3NT because he thinks 3NT undoubled will be a good result, which seems to be meaning (3) and somewhat dubious to me.

Other than a lack of disclosure for the 3NT opening, I don't see much difference between this bid and a 2♥ opening that says "I think playing 2♥ undoubled will be a good result unless partner has a really good hand. At vulnerable I will generally have some long suit (which may or may not be hearts) which I may run to if doubled. At nonvulnerable I could have that hand as well, or I could just have some weakish balanced junk hoping to create confusion. In any case partner is expected to pass unless holding a very strong hand." Note that this bid doesn't imply any particular suit so it doesn't say anything about a denomination other than the one named, and the intent is to play 2♥ (undoubled) and partner will pass with the vast majority of hands. This seems quite similar to some of the trashier 3NT openings (it doesn't imply length in any particular suit although it will often but not always have some long suit, and partner is expected to pass the vast majority of the time).

[glen]

If 3NT is

34% "I think it is reasonably likely that I can make it."

33% "I think that playing there will be a good result opposite most hands partner could have, even though we might not make and even if we are doubled occasionally."

33% "I think playing there undoubled will be a good result opposite many hands partner could hold, but I will run to some other contract if doubled."

is the bid conventional? If so, what adjustment to these % until the bid is not conventional?

Btw, if the above examples of 3NT openings have not convinced you yet (that there is no tight specification for this bid that we keep hidden), I've been (clearly) experimenting with what works and what does not. So far, I've drawn the small sample conclusion that having too little or too much HCP is not a good thing, while playing value is best. There has been no partnership discussion on this, nor does my partner want to read this forum, even though I told her that this thread had started today.

[blackshoe]

I will try to take time to answer Glen's questions later.

Fred,

I'm sure your judgement as to what opponents need to know about your methods is good, and in fact I have no problem with your explanation of that double, although it might take me a minute to figure out why your partner would probably bid 2C (it did here ). The problem is that not everyone is an expert, and many players leave out pertinent information when explaining, or don't understand what "full disclosure" as a principle means. I'm just trying to make sure that folks know that when they take a "practical" approach to disclosure, they need to be sure their judgement as to what opponents need to know is sound.

[blackshoe]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 09:10 PM, said:

My view is that a bid that is a strong desire to play there, is non-conventional, regardless of attempts by the GCC to define "natural" one way or the other.

Suppose the law defines rapidly weaving in and out of traffic at high speed as reckless driving. A professional race car driver might feel that it isn't reckless driving for him, because he does it on the track at even higher speeds. Nonetheless, if he does it on public roads, he is subject to being charged with violating that law.

There is, iirc, at least one jurisdiction (the English Bridge Union) in which "random bids" are deemed illegal. I'm pretty sure this 3NT opening would be ruled as a random bid in that jurisdiction, and hence illegal. Doesn't make it illegal in the ACBL of course, but.. <shrug>

Might be worth asking Mike Flader (mailto:rulings@acbl.org) or ACBL Chief TD Rick Beye (mailto:rick.beye@acbl.org) for an opinion.

[glen]

First thanks to Inquiry (especially for the posting of the hands), fred, jtfanclub, jlall, echognome, ant590, and pbleighton (who started this thread and made one strong later attempt to bring us back to the really interesting question) for reasonable viewpoints, imo.

As to those who are covered by:

"reckless driving", "lack of disclosure", "highly suspicious", "ethical responsibilities", "digging a hole", "don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap.", "if you're going play weird s***, you need to do it the right way", "the results will be illuminating", "dragging out the weird s***", "I don't believe your disclosure is adequate", "creating randomness for no particular reason", "he's using mixed strategies", "concealed partnership understanding", "bizarre as a technique, but if it works it works", "glaring hole in your work and your ability to document your systems", "you feel you can circumvent the regulations designed to apply to the bid. Do you know what 'bridge lawyering' is?", "the 3NT opening is highly suspicious", "I'm not particulary amused by rules lawyering", "crazy convention to play" and of course the "......."

If you can't understand a non-conventional, to play, game bid, what new stuff are you going to try to relate to in the future, besides what you feel comfortable with?

[cherdano]

I may have been a little too critical in the beginning, as I was assuming that Glen's partner was equally experienced. In that case, I would expect a more detailed partnership understanding about which hands get opened 3N, when partner would pull, etc. In the actual circumstances, I would even say that Glen's initial explanation was almost sufficient, as he only has to explain the partnership understanding, and his partner may not understand the bid in more detail.

However, I do think that opening 3N with this agreement on xx x KQJTxxxx xx white vs red in 3rd seat would be either a psych, or a probably illegal partnership agreement.

Arend

[jdonn]

officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 01:00 AM, said:

First thanks to Inquiry (especially for the posting of the hands), fred, jtfanclub, jlall, echognome, ant590, and pbleighton (who started this thread and made one strong later attempt to bring us back to the really interesting question) for reasonable viewpoints, imo.

As to those who are covered by:

"reckless driving", "lack of disclosure", "highly suspicious", "ethical responsibilities", "digging a hole", "don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap.", "if you're going play weird s***, you need to do it the right way", "the results will be illuminating", "dragging out the weird s***", "I don't believe your disclosure is adequate", "creating randomness for no particular reason", "he's using mixed strategies", "concealed partnership understanding", "bizarre as a technique, but if it works it works", "glaring hole in your work and your ability to document your systems", "you feel you can circumvent the regulations designed to apply to the bid. Do you know what 'bridge lawyering' is?", "the 3NT opening is highly suspicious", "I'm not particulary amused by rules lawyering", "crazy convention to play" and of course the "......."

If you can't understand a non-conventional, to play, game bid, what new stuff are you going to try to relate to in the future, besides what you feel comfortable with?

About half of those quotes are just cliches or slogans that were used to try and make a point, the other half are completely true. Your answer to people who say you should disclose what hands make the bid more accurately has changed from the earlier "you tell me what I should say" (as though it's anyone's job but yours) to the current, which is essentially "obviously you are a moron if you need more information about a bid that is intended to play". Neither answer is very useful.

I was certainly wrong about one thing. My original assumption that I sort of took for granted was that you were explaining your bid that way to try to set up an argument that the rules that might prohibit the bid don't apply (by saying that since it doesn't show anything particular about your hand it's "not a convention".) However it now seems obvious to me that the goal is at least one of
1) Wanting to play the hands instead of your partner who is a weak player, or more likely
2) Trying to create a definition that can't be proven or disproven about any particular hand to hide the fact that you and your partner are not playing the same thing. You can SAY you are, but what both of you actually bid is the real proof.

Since I'm sure you will disagree with both of those, how about this question for you. Since the evidence seems to suggest this bid is not leading to good results for your side, why DO you play this meaning for the 3NT bid as opposed to, say, 25-26 balanced?

[glen]

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 02:22 AM, said:

why DO you play this meaning for the 3NT bid as opposed to, say, 25-26 balanced?

Since 4♣ is always Gerber over NT, playing 25-26 balanced would require a system exception - in this case 4♣ would be Stayman, 4♦ a transfer etc. Instead, by playing 3NT to play, it keeps everything in sync, albeit the 4♦ response to 3NT does not happen, at least so far.

As to your "obviously you are a moron if you need more information about a bid that is intended to play", that seems a poor conclusion, unsupported by the posts. Let me repeat once more: if you can help provide a better way of disclosing the agreement, please let us know.

As to your 1) and 2), really this is not supported by anything I've posted so far. How about this: 3NT opening is used to try to play 3NT, when the hand suggests that will likely be the best spot.

[jdonn]

officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 02:31 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 02:22 AM, said:

why DO you play this meaning for the 3NT bid as opposed to, say, 25-26 balanced?

Since 4♣ is always Gerber over NT, playing 25-26 balanced would require a system exception - in this case 4♣ would be Stayman, 4♦ a transfer etc. Instead, by playing 3NT to play, it keeps everything in sync, albeit the 4♦ response to 3NT does not happen, at least so far.

You could just as easily play 4♣ as gerber and no other systems over that bid as well. It's not as though you are finding your major suit fits after the 3NT opening currently either.

Quote

As to your "obviously you are a moron if you need more information about a bid that is intended to play", that seems a poor conclusion, unsupported by the posts.

It was supported by your own post, which I was obviously paraphrasing. Or need I remind you "If you can't understand a non-conventional, to play, game bid, what new stuff are you going to try to relate to in the future, besides what you feel comfortable with?" That sounds to me like disbelief that anyone could have the gall to want to know what hands make a certain bid when it seems so obvious to you that knowing the contract the bidder likes most (before having any information outside his own hand) is sufficient.

Quote

Let me repeat once more: if you can help provide a better way of disclosing the agreement, please let us know.

Let me repeat once more. This is your job, not mine. You are the one who seems to have decided that there is no definition since any hand you feel like can make the bid. What if you just defined the bid as "when I want to", how would that be any different!

Quote

As to your 1) and 2), really this is not supported by anything I've posted so far.  How about this: 3NT opening is used to try to play 3NT, when the hand suggests that will likely be the best spot.

It is supported by
- You using the bid very many times, and your partner never using it.
- You offering no valid alternative reason for playing the bid this way (your above claim that another meaning would require you to add more conventions was a really lame excuse).

[glen]

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 02:53 AM, said:

You could just as easily play 4♣ as gerber and no other systems over that bid as well. It's not as though you are finding your major suit fits after the 3NT opening currently either.

The 25-26 balanced opens 2♣ and there are better chances to find a fit this way - soon to be more as we move to a Kokish (aka birthright) type approach.

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 02:53 AM, said:

It was supported by your own post, which I was obviously paraphrasing. Or need I remind you "If you can't understand a non-conventional, to play, game bid, what new stuff are you going to try to relate to in the future, besides what you feel comfortable with?" That sounds to me like disbelief that anyone could have the gall to want to know what hands make a certain bid when it seems so obvious to you that knowing the contract the bidder likes most (before having any information outside his own hand) is sufficient.

While it might sound to you "like disbelief that anyone could have the gall to want to know", it was intended to to focus on the negativity that you and a few others offered up against a non-conventional bid.

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 02:53 AM, said:

Let me repeat once more. This is your job, not mine. You are the one who seems to have decided that there is no definition since any hand you feel like can make the bid. What if you just defined the bid as "when I want to", how would that be any different!

While I've already told how I was doing my job before this thread started, and I've told how I will use this thread to do this job better. You, who do not like this job, have nothing to suggest so far. In other words, do you want to take shots from the sidelines, or do you want to provide any constructive assistance here?

[the hog]

This sort of bidding actually does have a reasonably good rate of success IF you limit the hands on which you open 3NT to exclude some of the wilder examples Glen opens on. One current member of Ozone, Bobby Richman, bids like this. Unless you defend very tightly, or in some cases unless you find the right lead, the contract makes because very little is revealed. Sure, there are some awful results as well though....

[glen]

The_Hog, on Feb 27 2007, 03:15 AM, said:

reasonably good rate of success iF you limit the hands on which you open 3NT to exclude some of the wilder examples Glen opens on.

This is the conclusion I've reached after the trial period covered by the hands posted above - the problem is I don't know if limiting the bid results in it being a convention, even though 3NT would still be to play (however I could now provide the opponents a better idea of what they are facing). Btw the limits would be that 3NT always promises playing value, while denying fewer than 15 HCP and not 24+ HCP.

[Gerben42]

Quote

On another note, my regular partner surprised me the other day on BBO by raising my 1S opening to 4S with:

Kxx
xxx
KQxxxx
x

I do not ever recall an opponent asking me "what is 4S?" when the auction goes that way. It is not the sort of question that I would expect a non-beginner to ask (especially if 4S is not alerted).

There are many such situations, it happens mostly when one player has already defined his hand.

In Fred's example of Joey's psyche, Fred had opened a weak NT, thus defining his hand. The actual situation is unusual in that the 3NT bidder can have so many different hands although partner has not limited his hand, but that's a personal choice, not a regulation.

Currently I am playing with more and more partners that 1NT - 3NT forces opener to pass regardless of his hand. I do not know what partner has for this bid, he could have "anything". In fact he might have a hand that does not plan to play 3NT at all but is just fooling around, like:

xx
xx
QJxxxxxx
x

What do I tell my opponents about this 3NT bid? Bridge is full of these situations and it is "just bridge".

Still, if asked what you must do is to tell opponents about previous hands partner has made the bid on, but that is about all you can.

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Feb 27 2007, 04:42 AM, said:

Here are the hands though Jan 1 2007 ...

I am intrigued.

I went to the BrBr catalogue site here
http://www.microtopi.../orderform.html
and here
http://www.microtopi.../pricelist.html

with half a view to taking the plunge (no small amount of trepidation)

and the catalog stops at hands played up to December 2004. Where do you get the subsequent ones?