Namyats 3NT

[hrothgar]

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.

My understanding has always been that you aren't permitted to define your methods based on the opponent's response. If you permit this to happen, you create a "chicken and the egg" paradox. The classic example has always been

 

"We're play light preempts"

"Then we play penalty doubles"

"If you play penalty doubles, then we play sound preempts"

"If you're playing sound preempts, then we play takeout doubles"

 

The solution to this problem has always been based on resolving bids in chronological order. The opening side defines the meaning of its preempts. Once this has been done, the side that is defending choses a definition for double.

 

The exact same principle is at work here:

 

I start by defining the meaning of my 1♦ opening.

The defending side then defines a meaning for actions in direct seat.

Once the defending side has chosen appropriate meanings for its direct seat actions, the MOSCITO partnership determines what type of advance schedule we'll use.

[JanM]

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

I don't know about going down to 0, but Woolsey-Stewart, who play very aggressive multi, and are always telling me I should have opened one on a hand where I passed, still don't have that many in a session. Take a look at a set of hand records, for one side, where the opponents didn't open the bidding first, and see how many hands there are with a 5 card Major and 3-8 HCPs (and even the most aggressive would not open some of the 5332's Vul), and I'm still going to bet on no more than 2-4 per session.

[JanM]

My understanding has always been that you aren't permitted to define your methods based on the opponent's response.  If you permit this to happen, you create a "chicken and the egg" paradox.  The classic example has always been

 

Sorry, I failed to communicate - I'm not suggesting that after finding out how the opening side defines Pass (and DBL and bid) after 1♦(♥)-1♥ (T/O), the overcalling side can change the meaning of 1♥. (I was there when the issue arose and the rule that you can't do that was instituted). What I'm suggesting is that in order to know what advancer's bids after 1♦(♥)-1♥ (T/O)-P/DBL/bid mean, the overcalling side has to know what responder's bids mean, which makes developing a defense more complicated than it might seem at first glance.

[joshs]

In no particular order:

 

When I submitted a defense to Kaplan Inversion it took over 3 months for the approval to occur, and later the defense to KI disappeared from the defense database. Maybe the process is better now, but maybe it isn't.

 

The frequency of Mid-chart events depends on where you live. When I lived in DC, the unit game, all the flight A sectional events, etc were all mid-chart. Here in southern california most sectional events and regional events are GCC. The flight A NAOPs were advertised as GCC (but a few players ignored the regulations in the actual event).

 

I do have to say its a pain to have to play 2 (sometimes radically) different systems because of the CC rules. If you can't play a method often enough, its really not worth it to play it at all. Imagine the advantage a pair who gets to play multi and against multi all the time has at nationals when facing a pair that only sees those conventions at nationals. There are situations where the more experienced player has a significant advantage. In order for methods to truly be propogated in a fair manner, they need to be allowed in enough events that players become familiar with them. This is not a chicken and egg problem. You have to allow methods before players become familiar with them. Wehn we started allowing midchart conventions in albuquerque sectionals and unit games, all of a sudden 1/4 of the field started experimenting with them. I think that is good.

 

Basically the current mapping is:

Superchart: Spingold, Vandy, Team Trials, Washington DC's round robin league :)

Midchart: National Events, Some Regional Events, Sectional events in enlightened areas

GCC: Most everything else

 

 

I think there should be 5 different categories:

Open (e.g. Flight A) Team Events

Open (e.g. Flight A) Pairs Events

Restricted Teams Events

Restricted Pairs Events

Novice events (but novices never know what is and isn't allowed so there is not much point in this category...)

 

So players can get used to facing "non mom and pop" conventions at local open events and not have to wait until nationals roll around.

 

 

 

Finally, since I have seen many mom and pop players open 2C strong on the hands that Donn proposes opening 3N on, I can't see how having another "strong" opening bid can possibly inconvenyance anyone. Especially since mom and pop play the following defense to gambling 3N:

x "I think you are stealing from me"

4C Natural

4D natural

4H Natural

4S Natural

4N Never used

5m Natural

 

Of course the same defense applies to 3N as a major suit pre-empt. In fact its even a good defense vs that convention.... So personally, I think this is one convention that I would put in the GCC or in my parlence allow in resticted team and maybe in restricted pair events.

[jdonn]

For what it's worth, 8 days and counting and still waiting for a reply. I included a polite request to at least be told the message had been received, and was/wasn't on tap to be considered.

 

The email address I sent it from will only exist for another month. I don't like my odds.

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answers.

Via the Web site of the Flemish Bridge federation I asked if this opening is allowed in Liga1.

To give you some idea of what Liga1 is in Flanders; we have:

National Belgian Level:

- Eredivision, Nat 1, Nat 2, Nat 3

Flanders level (under Balgian level):

- Liga1, Liga2, District1, District2

 

After 1 day I received following answer:

"This opening is strong, so falls not under the brown convedntions.

Becuase this is not an elementary convention and also not included

in the list of permitted conventions for Liga2, it is not allowed in Liga2."

==

...and a second reaction to this:

"a small correction:

opening 3NT never falls in brown convention, because they only relate to openings

2C to 3S. So this convention is not bown.

Because question was for Liga1, the above remark concerning allowed conventions is not important.

Moreover I think that because this convention can be described as "gambling", this convention should als be allowed in Liga2"

====

I don't really understand this last emark about "gambling", but the answer is clear. Allowed in Liga1. Not allowed in Liga2 where we have a stict list of allowed conventions, but seems it would be added to this list for Liga2 if somebody would ask for it.

[Free]

Thanks all for the answers.

Via the Web site of the Flemish Bridge federation I asked if this opening is allowed in Liga1.

To give you some idea of what Liga1 is in Flanders; we have:

National Belgian Level:

- Eredivision, Nat 1, Nat 2, Nat 3

Flanders level (under Balgian level):

- Liga1, Liga2, District1, District2

 

After 1 day I received following answer:

"This opening is strong, so falls not under the brown convedntions.

Becuase this is not an elementary convention and also not included

in the list of permitted conventions for Liga2, it is not allowed in Liga2."

==

...and a second reaction to this:

"a small correction:

opening 3NT never falls in brown convention, because they only relate to openings

2C to 3S. So this convention is not bown.

Because question was for Liga1, the above remark concerning allowed conventions is not important.

Moreover I think that because this convention can be described as "gambling", this convention should als be allowed in Liga2"

====

I don't really understand this last emark about "gambling", but the answer is clear. Allowed in Liga1. Not allowed in Liga2 where we have a stict list of allowed conventions, but seems it would be added to this list for Liga2 if somebody would ask for it.

Lol, read the second reply... :)