Namyats 3NT

[kfgauss]

Another suggestion is to (in addition to other means) write a Bridge World letter to the editor on this subject. I'm not really sure how influential these are, but Bridge World editorials seem associated with changes that have occurred over the years.

 

Andy

[JanM]

"Gambling" is common yes, but regarding the other allowable meaning I would bet not 1 in 10 mom and pop club players have ever even heard of a 3NT opening bid showing a four level preempt in either minor. Probably not 1 in 4 acbl members overall have ever had it bid against them.

And the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is different from the defense to gambling 3NT how? Whereas the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid will be very different from that to gambling 3NT.

[JanM]

Its unclear to me whether the ACBL President is the right spot to apply leverage.  My understanding is that the ACBL President is largely ceremonial position with very little real clout.  Equally significant, the President's tenure only lasts a year.  Even if you were able to convince the President that your position is correct he/she won't be able to do anything.  Folks will just humor him for the next six months or so.  Things will be right back to normal once the President steps down.  In order to get anything accomplished in a large bureaucracy you need to identify those individuals who have real power.  In general power is related to control over either spending or hire/fire decisions.

I think you're very wrong about the power of the ACBL president, and although you're right that the president serves for only one year, s/he usually remains on the Board after that year, so still has considerable influence. And the ACBL Board is in fact the entity that has control over spending and hire/fire decisions. Having said that, I do agree with you that the way to get things changed is not by trying to influence the ACBL president or Board, but rather by talking to the C&C committee, whose purview this is. That is probably particularly true this year, when we have an excellent President who is strongly in favor of appointing good people to expert committees and then listening to those committees.

 

Personally, I would like to see the following type of system adopted:

 

1. The Conventions Committee create a set of Convention Charts.  Associated with this, the Convention's committee has the right to dictate that players need to provide the opponent's with suggested defense to method's associated with a given Convention Chart.  Event organizers are granted the authority to chose whatever Convention Chart they want for a given event.  (If the Chief Director wants to use the Superchart for the Beginner's game and the Limited Convention Chart for the Flight A Swiss that's his choice.  I'm not sure whether he would ever be invited back, but thats another story)

 

2. Associated with this, the Convention's Committee will maintain a database containing recommended defense to different bidding conventions.  Players are not permitted to conventions that do not have an approved defense listed in the defensive database.

 

3. Players who wish to use a method that is permitted by a given convention chart but does not have a suggested defense will follow a formal submission process.  Players will submit a detailed description of the method to the Conventions Committee.  The Conventions Committee is required to provide a rough draft of a suggested defense for public comment within 6 weeks of the initial submission.  The Conventions Committee is required to provide a formal suggested defense within three months of the initial submission.  (I recommend that this entire process take place using a web based forum like the one we're using right now)

 

That sounds like what we now have, with the exception of number 3, where you suggest putting the burden of developing defenses on the Conventions Committee instead of the proponents of a method. Not only is that completely unrealistic (the members of the Conventions Committee are unpaid volunteers who normally get paid for things like developing defenses - they're not going to accept the burden of developing defenses to proposed conventions) but also the people best able to develop a defense are in fact the proponents of the method, since they are (or should be) the most knowledgeable about what sort of hands they'll have, what they'll do over different interference, what problems will be caused by the bid, etc. So the proponents have both the incentive and the ability to produce an adequate defense.

[Free]

Are we really going back to ACBL commité discussions? Plz! Create a new topic for heaven's sake...

[hrothgar]

That sounds like what we now have, with the exception of number 3, where you suggest putting the burden of developing defenses on the Conventions Committee instead of the proponents of a method. Not only is that completely unrealistic (the members of the Conventions Committee are unpaid volunteers who normally get paid for things like developing defenses - they're not going to accept the burden of developing defenses to proposed conventions) but also the people best able to develop a defense are in fact the proponents of the method, since they are (or should be) the most knowledgeable about what sort of hands they'll have, what they'll do over different interference, what problems will be caused by the bid, etc. So the proponents have both the incentive and the ability to produce an adequate defense.

I honestly don't really care who develops the suggested defenses. I suspect that the best way to work is actually some kind of cooperative development model based on an open forum, however, I consider the question "who writes the defense" a red herring.

 

The current system is designed such that the Conventions Committee to can use the Defensive Database as a chokepoint in the convention licensing system.

 

The system that I suggest requires that the Conventions Committee facilitate the development/distribution of defenses. I consider the requirement to publish defenses to legal methods critical to eliminate incentives to abuse the system.

[awm]

Since the committee is required to accept/reject the suggested defense anyway, perhaps a reasonable compromise is to have them post their reasons for rejecting a defense they found insufficient. This way the proponents of the method have some guidelines as to why their defense was rejected, and the committee can't use the requirement of a defense as a blank check to ban methods which would be otherwise legal (at least not without public scrutiny).

[jdonn]

"Gambling" is common yes, but regarding the other allowable meaning I would bet not 1 in 10 mom and pop club players have ever even heard of a 3NT opening bid showing a four level preempt in either minor. Probably not 1 in 4 acbl members overall have ever had it bid against them.

And the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is different from the defense to gambling 3NT how? Whereas the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid will be very different from that to gambling 3NT.

I forget in which one, but in one of the NABC casebooks on the ACBL site it was not too long ago your own husband had an appeal brought against him because he and Lew, one of the most established partnerships in the world, had a mixup involving what they play over a 3NT opening bid showing a minor suit preempt. It turned out they didn't even have an agreed defense over that 3NT bid. You can't say it's allowed because it allows for a simple defense when the best pairs in the world haven't even thought to agree a defense, and then have a misunderstanding due to that.

 

Anyway, that's not what you said earlier. Is the criterion it is familiar to mom and pop club players, or that there is a simple defense?

 

This whole discussion about 3NT showing a major went something like this

me: It should be allowed because it's simple to defend against

you: But it's unfamiliar to inexperienced players

me: Perhaps, but many such bids including very similar ones are already allowed

you: But it would be tough to defend against

 

I feel like I'm travelling in circles. And I feel that on both criterion it should be allowed anyway. It is simple to defend against, and they already allow similar bids that are nearly as unfamiliar to inexperienced players.

 

Oh and the defense to 3NT showing an unspecified major would be this immensely complicated scheme (which except for 4NT, something 'mom and pop' players would never bid anyway, is EXACTLY the same as they would use over a gambling 3NT).

 

All suit bids are natural. Double, and pass then double, are exactly the same as whatever the pair uses over a gambling 3NT opening bid. 4NT is minors.

[JanM]

"Gambling" is common yes, but regarding the other allowable meaning I would bet not 1 in 10 mom and pop club players have ever even heard of a 3NT opening bid showing a four level preempt in either minor. Probably not 1 in 4 acbl members overall have ever had it bid against them.

And the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is different from the defense to gambling 3NT how? Whereas the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid will be very different from that to gambling 3NT.

 

Anyway, that's not what you said earlier. Is the criterion it is familiar to mom and pop club players, or that there is a simple defense?

 

This whole discussion about 3NT showing a major went something like this

me: It should be allowed because it's simple to defend against

you: But it's unfamiliar to inexperienced players

me: Perhaps, but many such bids including very similar ones are already allowed

you: But it would be tough to defend against

 

I feel like I'm travelling in circles. And I feel that on both criterion it should be allowed anyway. It is simple to defend against, and they already allow similar bids that are nearly as unfamiliar to inexperienced players.

I did not say that 3NT = 4M is more difficult to defend against than either gambling 3NT or 3NT = 4m. What I said is that gambling 3NT is "mainstream" and that 3NT = 4m is the same as gambling 3NT (as far as the opponents are concerned), so there is no reason to treat it differently.

 

To restate my position:

1. Many Mom & Pop pairs play gambling 3NT. They would be unhappy if it were not on the GCC, so it is.

2. It is obvious to me (even if not to my former husband) that the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is the same as the defense to gambling 3NT.

3. Therefore, since gambling 3NT is allowed there is no reason not to allow 3NT = 4m preempt. It shouldn't cause a problem to relatively inexperienced, unsophisticated players because they are (or think they are) comfortable having their opponents open a gambling 3NT, so they will be equally comfortable if their opponents open 3NT showing a 4m preempt.

 

OTOH, the defense that I think most people use against a gambling 3NT (one or both 4m bids showing both majors) would be extremely inappropriate against 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid. Therefore, the fact that people are comfortable with gambling 3NT would not make them comfortable with 3NT = 4M, and for that reason it is different, in a relevant way, from gambling 3NT.

 

To put it another way: I'm not suggesting that gambling 3NT is either a good method or one that should be easier to defend against than 3NT showing a 4M bid. But it is a method that a large number of less than expert players use (I don't know why), so it was put on the GCC. And since 3NT showing a 4m preempt is essentially the same as gambling 3NT for the opponents, it makes sense that it is also on the GCC even if not so many people play it. 3NT showing a 4M bid is not the same. It is obviously included in the Midchart definitions, so long as there is an approved defense. You're right that a reasonable defense isn't complicated, but what is obvious to you might not be so obvious to everyone, which is the whole reason for having approved defenses. So submit a defense, get it on the defense database and you won't have a problem. There aren't a lot of GCC events anyway :)

[jdonn]

You are wrong about the defense most people use over a gambling 3NT. I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that <5% (I really think it's <1%) of acbl members don't have any defense at all over it, even if being able to show both majors is optimal. Over any of these bids, all these moms and pops just double with good hands or otherwise bid a suit naturally, it is irrelevent what 3NT means. I still find this whole thing completely ridiculous. I wouldn't want it on the GCC because I think there are tons of such events anyway, it's because then I wouldn't have to go through the whole process of submitting a defense. You make it sound like just snapping your fingers and poof, defense approved, but we all know it's a gigantic and long lasting pain.

 

I still find restrictions like this completely random and arbitrary, and they do nothing to protect anyone.

[pclayton]

1) I've never felt a competent pair is unprepared to play against something simple, just because they've never encountered it. Out of habit, Brian and I quickly look at our opps cc's to see if there is anything funny. Usually it takes us about 5 seconds to come up with something appropriate.

 

2) I agree with the others that the C and C members are the proper folks to lobby to effectuate change. Still, it smacks of having political 'access'.

 

3)Against Gambling or Minor Namyats 3N, we play Ripstra. I think some sort of defense against a Major Namyats would be more complicated but:

 

1. 4 of a new suit: natural

 

2. Double - takeout of spades

 

3. Delayed double of 4H - takeout

 

4. Delayed double of 4S - penalty

 

5. 4N - minors.

[JanM]

I wouldn't want it on the GCC because I think there are tons of such events anyway, it's because then I wouldn't have to go through the whole process of submitting a defense. You make it sound like just snapping your fingers and poof, defense approved, but we all know it's a gigantic and long lasting pain.

I think you are generalizing from the difficulties you have heard people having with getting a defense to transfer one bids approved. For something as simple as 3NT showing a major, the process is simple. Why don't you try an experiment - submit a defense and see whether it is "a gigantic and long lasting pain" or a straighforward process.

[cherdano]

Our 3NT opener is a 'Namyats' type hand, showing a strong playing hand (8-9 tricks) in a major with a self sufficient suit. By definition, this should be a suit which should on average play for no more than one loser opposite a small singleton. Opener should avoid opening this bid with high card controls in 2 side suits. We would tend to find a different opening for a hand like AQJT987 Ax Axx x.

Josh, not trying to belittle this "infinite" difference between 3N Namyats and 4m Namyats, but I think this is the more important part of your post. :P It's infinitely better to play Namyats with a good definition then to play it with a bad one, and I have seen many play it with a bad one. In fact, with Han I dropped it after we agreed we didn't know what it shows...

[hrothgar]

I wouldn't want it on the GCC because I think there are tons of such events anyway, it's because then I wouldn't have to go through the whole process of submitting a defense. You make it sound like just snapping your fingers and poof, defense approved, but we all know it's a gigantic and long lasting pain.

I think you are generalizing from the difficulties you have heard people having with getting a defense to transfer one bids approved. For something as simple as 3NT showing a major, the process is simple. Why don't you try an experiment - submit a defense and see whether it is "a gigantic and long lasting pain" or a straighforward process.

I find this comment incredibly frustrating:

 

Designing a defense to a transfer opening at the 1 level is MUCH simplier than designing a defense for a multi-style 3N opening.

 

The transfer opening has a known anchor suit and provides a known cue bid.

The transfer opening is at the one level, permitting many more opportunities to use simple overcalls and jump overcalls to clarify hand types.

 

The only reason that it would be "simple" to create a defense to a multi 3NT opening is if you are apply very different criteria to measure whether or not a suggested is adequate.

 

Throughout this entire process, my main complaint has been that the Conventions Committee is applying very subjective criteria when they are evaluating suggested defenses. Josh shouldn't expect any trouble getting a defense approved to his brown sticker convention. But god forbid any attempt to get a license for MOSCITO.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't want it on the GCC because I think there are tons of such events anyway, it's because then I wouldn't have to go through the whole process of submitting a defense. You make it sound like just snapping your fingers and poof, defense approved, but we all know it's a gigantic and long lasting pain.

I think you are generalizing from the difficulties you have heard people having with getting a defense to transfer one bids approved. For something as simple as 3NT showing a major, the process is simple. Why don't you try an experiment - submit a defense and see whether it is "a gigantic and long lasting pain" or a straighforward process.

You are probably right I'm generalizing based on what others have said, and my experience with how the ACBL and its associated committees work. I guess we'll see....

 

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Houston_Spr02.pdf

Case 14. Not so obvious, is it.

 

Also to prove my point about the treatment itself. Look how easy it was (other than the misunderstanding) for north to come in over 3NT (I would play 4♣ as majors, but apparently they technically had no such agreement). A lot harder over 4♦ instead.

[awm]

The appeal from the casebook brings up an interesting point that I haven't really seen addressed.

 

Suppose partner makes some bid for which you have a conventional agreement. You bid according to the agreement. Partner then makes another bid, which has a "normal" meaning under the agreement but could also indicate a "forget." You play partner for the forget. Some examples:

 

3NT(1) - 4♣(2) - P - 4♠(3)

P - 5♣(4) - All Pass

 

(1) Minor preempt

(2) Agreed as majors

(3) Preference

(4) Could be a cuebid or exclusion, but actually "I forgot 4♣ wasn't natural" and fielded.

 

1NT - 2♦(1) - P - 2♠(2)

P - 3♦(3) - All Pass

 

(1) Agreed as majors

(2) Preference

(3) Could be a cuebid or a strong 4441, but actually "I forgot 2♦ wasn't natural" and fielded.

 

Presuming that partner wasn't making faces at the spade bid or the alert, it's not clear that any unethical bids have been made. Certainly advancer was taking a risk when he decided that a forget was more likely than a cuebid. But it seems like at some point the opponents should have been informed of what was going on. In the first auction, it sounds like this is a slam going auction in the majors. The opponent responding to 3NT has no incentive to bid 5♦ here, since the auction is not about to end anyway and he has no reason to think his partner has diamonds rather than clubs (in fact rather the opposite). Shouldn't there be some information that "a forget or misunderstanding is likely here" especially since advancer decided it was more likely than anything else?

[jdonn]

The appeal from the casebook brings up an interesting point that I haven't really seen addressed.

This point has been addressed. It is legal to play partner to have forgotten something as long as there was no UI involved, and you owe the opponents no explanation. They probably should fill out a recorder form on you though.

[MickyB]

Is (1NT) 2♦ as ♦ or majors permitted? I think passing 3♦ is evidence of an implicit agreement.

[cherdano]

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Houston_Spr02.pdf

Case 14. Not so obvious, is it.

As a side note, I have to say I am impressed by the good ethics shown by Martel-Stansby in that case.

[blackshoe]

Evidence, perhaps, but not very compelling evidence.

 

If they have an agreement that 2 ♦ is either both majors or diamonds, that would be illegal under the ACBL's General Convention Chart (but might be legal under less restrictive charts or in other jurisdictions). But it seems far more likely to me that the 2 ♦ bidder just forgot they were playing it as majors. Other evidence may (probably would) be available at the table, but absent such, it is folly to assume an implicit agreement.

 

We have no way of knowing whether such "forgets" are common in any given partnership - unless note has been made of prior incidents. The English have a regulation that treats the 2 ♠ bidder's final pass in this auction as "fielding a misbid", with essentially the same consequences as fielding a psyche. There's no such regulation in the ACBL. So the TD has to use his judgement - and it seems to me that some evidence is required to support that judgement.

 

There is a club director locally who once told me "I can make any ruling I want". And so she can. But if the ruling is not in accordance with the laws, it is illegal (see Law 82B2), and she is doing her players, her club, and our game a disservice.

[JanM]

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Houston_Spr02.pdf

Case 14. Not so obvious, is it.

As a side note, I have to say I am impressed by the good ethics shown by Martel-Stansby in that case.

Good ethics, but foolishness :P

 

As I said above, I think that Lew was wrong to believe their clear agreement over gambling 3NT did not apply to 3NT showing a 4m preempt. Of course, his foolishness pales in comparison to the opponents' chutzpah.

 

At any rate, if you're right, it would argue for removing 3NT = 4m from the GCC, not for adding 3NT = 4M.

[JanM]

I find this comment incredibly frustrating:

 

Designing a defense to a transfer opening at the 1 level is MUCH simplier than designing a defense for a multi-style 3N opening.

And I'm afraid I find your position on this equally frustrating. Of course it's impossible adequately to cope with preempts (and yes, Josh, I agree that it's harder to cope with 4m natural than with 3NT showing a 4m preempt). But it is far far easier to write an acceptable defense to any 3NT opening bid than to any 1 level opening bid, because since there is so little space, and so many fewer continuations, you don't have to cover nearly as much. The defense won't deal with all the things you'd like to deal with, but that's because of the level of the opening bid, not because it isn't an adequate defense.

[pclayton]

Jan, I can't agree with this.

 

While I don't play MOSCITO, or TOSR or other systems where 1x = some other suit, the only difference between these systems and a 'natural' system is the 1st call. After the transfer opening, an opposing pair is essentially on the same footing as a pair defending a 1 bid.

 

Say, (1D) (showing hearts), 1H (takeout double of hearts) - (pass) - ? How is this any different from the sequence (1H) - dbl - (pass) - ?

 

I don't think transfer openings should be GCC, but a midchart definition is appropo.

 

Defending against 1 level transfer openings is rather simpler than defending against multi 2D, which is allowed. Its the 2-way (or more) nature of the multi that leads to so many variables.

 

Now if a 1D opening promised hearts, or a black 2 suiter (a la Suction), or something completely different, I would totally agree with you.

 

Furthermore, transfer openings are 'constructive' while multi 2D is 'destructive'. Which are going to harm 'mom and pop' more?

[MickyB]

Jan, I can't agree with this.

 

While I don't play MOSCITO, or TOSR or other systems where 1x = some other suit, the only difference between these systems and a 'natural' system is the 1st call. After the transfer opening, an opposing pair is essentially on the same footing as a pair defending a 1 bid.

 

Say, (1D) (showing hearts), 1H (takeout double of hearts) - (pass) - ? How is this any different from the sequence (1H) - dbl - (pass) - ?

Well, you can't expect to get 1100 if you pass it. Not that I disagree with your position.

[JanM]

While I don't play MOSCITO, or TOSR or other systems where 1x = some other suit, the only difference between these systems and a 'natural' system is the 1st call. After the transfer opening, an opposing pair is essentially on the same footing as a pair defending a 1 bid.

 

Say, (1D) (showing hearts), 1H (takeout double of hearts) - (pass) - ? How is this any different from the sequence (1H) - dbl - (pass) - ?

 

Defending against 1 level transfer openings is rather simpler than defending against multi 2D, which is allowed. Its the 2-way (or more) nature of the multi that leads to so many variables.

Well, actually it is relevant that advancer can't pass for penalties after 1♦-1♥(T/O)-P, because it changes the possible meanings of Pass by responder (and that's why the auction isn't really the same as 1♥-DBL). In order to have a reasonable defense, you need to know what responder's actions mean and then decide what advancer should do.

 

OTOH, I completely agree with you that multi is much more complex to defend against. The only reason it's midchart and allowed for 2 board rounds, is because so many people play it and it's been around so long. The ACBL defenses are obviously inadequate, but they've also been around for a long time. I suspect there'd be a huge outcry if multi was all at once removed from the "allowed in midchart events" classification.

 

And there is one reason to allow multi (and Namyats 3NT) and not allow transfer 1 bids - that is frequency. Multi, even as played by the most aggressive players, comes up, maybe, 2-4 times a session. As an opponent, you can reasonably decide not to worry about it in advance, even knowing that the defence probably isn't adequate, because it likely won't come up against you and if it does, the defense may work on the hands that happen to be dealt. Transfer 1 bids, OTOH, come up, probably, about every other round. So as an opponent, you can't afford to ignore them - you need an adequate defense. As a result, their use is likely to slow down the event more than the use of multi or any artificial 3NT opening.

[Walddk]

Multi, even as played by the most aggressive players, comes up, maybe, 2-4 times a session.

Much more often than that if all you require is 5+ cards and 0-7 hcp. That's a normal development worldwide. 2♦ as garbage Multi (often 5 cards), 2MA as constructive (8-10, 6 cards).

 

Roland