glen

I think your assessment continues to be flawed. 3NT does not show "I have a good chance of winning 9 tricks in notrump" based on the hand alone. 3NT shows "I have a good chance of making 3NT" with this hand and if partner shows up with what could be expected, give or take some. This is the same thing that it would mean if it goes 3♠(by the opponents)-3NT(by you) - first you don't alert 3NT and explain what it means, and if somebody clicked on it, you might say "natural" or "to play" (or perhaps you believe you would launch into a detailed profile of your last 100 hands to bid 3NT in this spot - good luck with that). When you bid 3NT you hope you have a good chance at making 9 tricks with normal expected help from your partner. So my 3NT shows a strong desire to play 3NT, and just 3NT, and I don't believe you have substantiated your case at all that it carries additional meaning that responder would be aware of .

I'm saying change the bid so that it has limits - thus it would be announced as to play, 15 to 23, can be a variety, some weird - then if the bid is asked about the more lengthy description. I'm wondering if the limits would make it a convention, but I don't believe so.

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.

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. 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. 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?

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.

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?

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.

Okay this may seem like BS but it is not - certainly it is a cliche. Don't follow the money, follow your heart. Fred is a prime example of the latter. Also when you have a family, spend time with them. No project is more important than the family one.

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

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...

Whatever you do, don't watch 23

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. Btw I'm willing for the bid to have restrictions on to minimums for the bid, as long as the bid does not become conventional. That is, I would be willing to play that it always shows at least nn points (such as 16 or some such number) as long as it would not become conventional.

I didn't say she knows, at this moment, when and when not to open 3NT (especially since our notes have zero examples or discussion). However over time, by watching my openings, I hope she opens 3NT on a bunch of hands. Well my conclusion, without seeing any 3NT bids by the other player, would be they are playing quite different styles. However if they opened 3NT on quite different hands, then they would be playing different methods.

First, I don't think it is a good idea to teach 3NT as a minor preempt to inexperienced players. Second, a bid that is to play, and the responses are to play, except for Gerber, is quite simple to play. Third, I think, using the results of this thread, that we will be able to better describe this bid, both in initial white box text and subsequent reply to a query. As well we look forward to any others who can help us describe this bid properly. For comparison, take a 4♥ opening white vs red in third seat by expert players. This bid is not even alerted, as it is to play. Would you like to try an attempt at describing the style used by world class players? Would you try explaining when they open 1♥, 2♥, 3♥ and 4♥ in this position?

Okay so far, but your solution is to change methods, instead of living up to the ethical responsibilities? It would more constructive to show how the ethical responsibilities could be handled in this case.

The rest of you are looking bad in what way? Besides saying WTF, and crap, and weird s*** and the rest of what you have said so far. I really don't think our 3NT non-conventional opening impacts what you can and can not play.

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

That would not prove we are not playing the same system, but just not playing the same style, which we do not. In fact our styles are not even close, given our wide difference in experience, knowledge (she's read two bridge books, I have so many bridge books I don't know where to store them) etc. Would you suggest I change my style so it is close to her's, or do you have some magic way of getting her style to emulate mine? Btw if somebody wants to, feel free to post all the responding hands to 3NT. On a side note, she has taken to doubling with values and no good bid much more than I would, or even the Italians would. This continues to produce good results for us, even though I don't usually pass the double, to the point she has convinced me, by example, to double more to give partner options.

1. We can describe the methods. You don't like that they don't have quantity and quality specifications that you are used to, but that does not mean the description is inadequate. 2. We play the same system. 3NT by my partner means the same thing as mine. 3. We provide descriptions when asked, and since the opening is not a convention, hopefully TDs would not bounce a non-conventional opening. As to bidding on whim, this is quite true, and nothing prevents this. Also my bidding at midnight is somewhat different than my bidding at 11 am, which is different than my 6:30 pm bidding, and my bidding when there is a football game on, and my bidding when I'm typing here while playing, and my bidding when I'm BBQ'ing. However claiming that the GCC does not permit this is just silly.

One additional item - it is my contention, documented in the 2nd posting in this thread, that the opening is not a convention by the definitions of the bridge laws. Therefore I don’t agree with points like "illegal convention" or is the "convention" GCC legal or not, since these assume it is a convention, which it is not imo. When one starts wanting to regulate game bids that are to play, assuming they carry no special meanings, then one is going too far.

There are four elements of disclosure: 1) What you type into the white box when you make the bid 2) What you type into the white box if they click on the bid after it is made 3) What you send privately to the opponents without them asking 4) What you send privately to the opponents when they ask. To help me understand how you feel the disclosure is inadequate could you please do two things: 1) Review previous postings on what the opponents are told (when the bid is made, and when they ask), and the four steps above and indicate for each step what is not being not adequately in your opinion, and how you would prefer it be done. 2) Assume that the sequence 1♥-4♥ is as described in the following: How should this 4♥ bid be described in each of the four steps given above?

Let's wait for the examples...

I disagree - a psyche would be a gross misstatement of values or hand shape. In this case we have no statement to misstate. Weird is just saying to the opponents, it is "unusual for you". In your Joey example, you knew that sometimes he bid 2♥ over 1NT not with 5♥s and not enough to invite game, but also on other bad hands. So it became systemic since he often enough misstated his hand. Here 3NT does not promise 5♥s, or a particular set of strength.

Please go ahead and post at least 11 (more would be better to show the variety). My partner and I play the same system, but far from the same style. I have not imposed a style on her, nor is she not allowed (or implied allowance) to make any bid (as in some pro-client approaches) - in particular I wish she would open 3NT more often, and I wish she would make weak twos on five card suits more often.

So do we like "to play, can be a variety of hands including weird ones" (perhaps too big for the white box)?