ACBL GCC - 3NT As "To Play"

[pbleighton]

Last night in an ACBL tourney, playing as badly as I can remember, I ran into a 3NT opening which was alerted as "play, can be a variety of hands". The hand (pulled to 4S by opener's pd) was a minor two suiter with a stiff spade.

 

After the round, I questioned the opener (Glen from these Forums) whether he thought it was GCC compliant. He said (paraphrasing from a hazy memory) that the ACBL regulated conventions, and that 3NT to play wasn't a convention, it showed a willingness to play in that place.

 

OTOH, the GCC defines a natural NT bid as "not unbalanced, generally no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons". The conventional exceptions granted for the 3NT opening bid are a solid suit or a minor single-suiter.

 

What do you think?

 

BTW, I'd be happy to see this legal, I'd like to do away with all system restrictions except for beginner games.

 

Peter

[glen]

From Laws of Duplicate Bridge - definitions

Convention 

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

If a bid shows a desire to play the contract (and for us 3NT is a strong desire to play the contract as partner is rarely to pull it), and does not convey other meanings, then it is not a convention.

 

From The Laws - the Play - see near the bottom

Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility.

Therefore non-conventions are not regulated by the ACBL, except for light openings at the one level. However the ACBL can decide to restrict in various ways any and all conventions played after a non-conventional bid. At this time the only convention we play over 3NT is 4♣ Gerber, and everything else (including 4♦ I guess) is to play. So the ACBL could decide that Gerber cannot be used over our 3NT opening.

 

So the GCC regulates conventions, and 3NT to play is not one.

[hrothgar]

From Laws of Duplicate Bridge - definitions

Convention 

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

If a bid shows a desire to play the contract (and for us 3NT is a strong desire to play the contract as partner is rarely to pull it), and does not convey other meanings, then it is not a convention.

 

From The Laws - the Play - see near the bottom

Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility.

Therefore non-conventions are not regulated by the ACBL, except for light openings at the one level. However the ACBL can decide to restrict in various ways any and all conventions played after a non-conventional bid. At this time the only convention we play over 3NT is 4♣ Gerber, and everything else (including 4♦ I guess) is to play. So the ACBL could decide that Gerber cannot be used over our 3NT opening.

 

So the GCC regulates conventions, and 3NT to play is not one.

Hi Glenn

 

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as sophistry.

 

As I've noted in some other postings, I'm not particulary amused by rules lawyering. I don't tend to worry much regarding whatever convoluted explanations that you might used to justify your bidding; rather I believe that the regulations should be based on the set of hands with which you choose a particular action.

 

I have a couple significant concerns with your explanation:

 

1. I don't think that you're providing sufficient disclosure. I have no clue regarding the precise set of hands that qualifies for this opening. I recognize that you might make this opening with either strength or a good running suit along with a couple stoppers or even a minor two suiter where you just feel like stirring things up. I have no problem with this type of opening. However, you need to be able to do a better job describing it. Just as a "random 1♠ overcall" of a strong club opening is rarely truely random, I question whether there might be something deeper buried within the definition of your "3N to play"

 

2. Your justification for the 3NT opening rests on the fact that partner can (and will) pass this with appropriate hands. It would be interesting to get a better understanding what type of hands would/would not advance over this 3NT opening.

 

It occurs to me that this might be a good hand for Bridge Browser. It would be interesting to see the set of hands where Glen (or one of his partners) chose a 3NT opening...

[Echognome]

Unlike Richard, I actually don't have much of a problem with this type of opening. Richard, let me put it this way. Suppose you played a non-forcing 1NT over a standard 1M opening. Can you describe all of the hand types for that 1NT response? This could be many balanced or unbalanced hand types. Hands with a long single-suit, etc. But yet we find it legal because it's an offer to play 1NT. The point is that I don't really care what hands you put in the 3NT opening, but it's certainly fair game to ask for clarification as to what hand types there are usual.

[glen]

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as sophistry.

Actually 3NT to play is quite crude.

 

1.  I don't think that you're providing sufficient disclosure.  I have no clue regarding the precise set of hands that qualifies for this opening.  I recognize that you might make this opening with either strength or a good running suit along with a couple stoppers or even a minor two suiter where you just feel like stirring things up.  Furthermore, I have no problem with this type of opening.  However, you need to be able to do a better job describing it.

The white box provided by BBO has a text limit, so "to play, can be a variety of hands" is about the best one can do for the initial alert. Some opponents do further query, ("is this gambling?", or "what types?") in which case it is explained as "to play, can be based on a source of tricks or sources of tricks, may or may not have stoppers or length in all suits, partner is to rarely pull this" - this is too long to type into the white box.

 

Your justification for the 3NT opening rests on the fact that partner can (and will) pass this with appropriate hands.

No, the justification rests on the fact that we want to play in 3NT.

[brianshark]

Speaking outside the laws (as I don't know them as well as you guys), and in my own personal opinion, the 3NT opening is highly suspicious.

 

I too would like to know what kind of hands partner is expected to pull as it will help me understand what kind of bid it is. Also, have you defined anywhere a set of opening hands that will qualify for this wide-ranging 3NT?

 

Is partner expected to pull with balanced 0 counts? Do you expect to make 3NT in such deals where you opened with minor-2-suiters? How is your partner supposed to investigate slam when you've taken up 3-levels of bidding with your opening and haven't described anything much about your hand at all?

 

I'm really eager to know more about how you play it because it seems that this opening is either illegal, or a crazy convention to play.

[hrothgar]

Unlike Richard, I actually don't have much of a problem with this type of opening.  Richard, let me put it this way.  Suppose you played a non-forcing 1NT over a standard 1M opening.  Can you describe all of the hand types for that 1NT response?  This could be many balanced or unbalanced hand types.  Hands with a long single-suit, etc. But yet we find it legal because it's an offer to play 1NT.  The point is that I don't really care what hands you put in the 3NT opening, but it's certainly fair game to ask for clarification as to what hand types there are usual.

Hi Matt:

 

Let me make something very clear: I don't have any problem with this opening per-see. I use quite similar methods myself. Most notably, playing MOSCITO (or for that matter Precision) if partner opens 1M a 3N advance is (essentially) "to play". The 3N advance shows any hand where responder believes that 3NT is likely to be the best contract.

 

My concern is not with the opening, but rather the disclosure surrounding it. For example, my MOSCITO convention card defines the auction

 

1♥ - (P) - 3N as

 

"To Play": Typically shows offensive strength for 3NT. Occasionally a preemptive Spade raise. (Rarely both minors with Spade tolerance)

 

If you are going to use these types of methods, you have an obligation to be able to accurately describe what your bids show.

[glen]

1) I too would like to know what kind of hands partner is expected to pull as it will help me understand what kind of bid it is.

 

2) Also, have you defined anywhere a set of opening hands that will qualify for this wide-ranging 3NT?

 

3) Is partner expected to pull with balanced 0 counts?

 

4) Do you expect to make 3NT in such deals where you opened with minor-2-suiters?

 

5) How is your partner supposed to investigate slam when you've taken up 3-levels of bidding with your opening and haven't described anything much about your hand at all?

 

6) I'm really eager to know more about how you play it because it seems that this opening is either illegal, or a crazy convention to play.

I've numbered your questions/points above to make it easier to reply to.

 

1) Partner is expected to pass. However partner can try for slam, via Gerber or a natural 4NT if they believe that their hand might mesh well with a hand that wants to play 3NT to produce a slam. Partner can also bid a slam to play.

 

2) No. The only thing in the notes is "to play, rarely pulled".

 

3) No, partner is expected to pass on most hands. The previous hand I opened 3NT (with a 5-3-3-2 with 5♦s and a bunch of points I did not count) partner passed with 5♥s to the Queen, and nothing else. I had 3♥s so we missed our ♥ fit as it were, and this went down two, where it should have been going down more.

 

4) Yes. Note the minor two-suiter was not 5-5, but 6-4 so I hoped the 6 card suit might help out in tricks.

 

5) Slam investigation is quite poor - we've played 3NT cold for a grand.

 

6) I'm pleased to see eagerness to find out more about this approach, but we really don't have much more details on it, except when somebody would be kind enough to do a bridge browser report.

[hrothgar]

Your justification for the 3NT opening rests on the fact that partner can (and will) pass this with appropriate hands.

 

No, the justification rests on the fact that we want to play in 3NT.

Let use assume, for the moment, that I define a 3NT opening as a NAMYATS type opening, showing a solid 7-8 card major.

 

I would be thrilled to declare this hand in 3NT (opposite the right dummy, of course). However, despite the fact that I "want" to declare 3NT, it seems clear that partner is going to end up pulling my opening a remarkably high percentage of the time...

 

If I were ever asked to rule on this type of method, I'd want to have copies of your system notes or better yet a BRBR summary of your actually bidding history to look for patterns...

[glen]

Let use assume, for the moment, that I define a 3NT opening as a NAMYATS type opening, showing a solid 7-8 card major.

At this point you have a convention, since your 3NT bid conveys other meanings. It does not matter if your 3NT is also to play.

 

If I were ever asked to rule on this type of method, I'd want to have copies of your system notes

You already have a copy of our system notes in this regard:

 

3NT is to play, rarely pulled

Elsewhere in the notes, 4♣ is always Gerber over notrump. 4NT is always a non-forcing slam invite over notrump.

 

That's it.

[hrothgar]

Let use assume, for the moment, that I define a 3NT opening as a NAMYATS type opening, showing a solid 7-8 card major.

At this point you have a convention, since your 3NT bid conveys other meanings. It does not matter if your 3NT is also to play.

 

If I were ever asked to rule on this type of method, I'd want to have copies of your system notes

You already have a copy of our system notes in this regard:

 

3NT is to play, rarely pulled

Elsewhere in the notes, 4♣ is always Gerber over notrump. 4NT is always a non-forcing slam invite over notrump.

 

That's it.

As I mentioned earlier, it would be interesting to do a Bridge Browser study...

 

Can you make any recommendation that we could use to narrow the search?

 

Does this definition for a 3NT opening only apply in certain seats?

 

Are there any "keys" that we could use to recognize partnerships where this 3NT opening does/does not apply?

[jtfanclub]

It's certainly legal- any bid that conveys the sole information that 'I want you to pass, partner' is legal, certain opening 1-bids excluded.

 

Like Hrothgar, I am suspicious, though. Does this person really bid 3NT a 24 hcp hand? If so, I'm all for it. If it's always some variant of Gambling, they really ought to put an upper limit on the hcp in the explanation.

[Ant590]

Hi,

 

Me and someone I have played with for a couple of years play a 'natural' 3NT opener. We decided some time back to forgo any strong 2 level suited bids, and were not men enough to learn a strong club system. So we added NAMYATS and a 3NT 'to play' for a hand that is worried that a one-level bid might get passed out.

 

I believe it has come up three times in 12 months, each time being a balanced hand of roughly 24 points. We have a modicum of system over it, but generally play pairs so 3NT is often a fairly decent spot, even if we have a fit on the side. We feel that the destruction we can cause with our 2-level bids (Rough 2s etc) gains us more MPs than we lose when we play opposite such a 3NT with a big fit on the side.

 

Obviously we aren't great players, so my testimony bears little weight.

 

Ant.

 

Edit: Of course the assumed fit style pre-empts we play are not allowed in the US, which is a shame as they rock

[jdonn]

From Laws of Duplicate Bridge - definitions

Convention 

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

If a bid shows a desire to play the contract (and for us 3NT is a strong desire to play the contract as partner is rarely to pull it), and does not convey other meanings, then it is not a convention.

 

From The Laws - the Play - see near the bottom

Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility.

Therefore non-conventions are not regulated by the ACBL, except for light openings at the one level. However the ACBL can decide to restrict in various ways any and all conventions played after a non-conventional bid. At this time the only convention we play over 3NT is 4♣ Gerber, and everything else (including 4♦ I guess) is to play. So the ACBL could decide that Gerber cannot be used over our 3NT opening.

 

So the GCC regulates conventions, and 3NT to play is not one.

 

Once Peter edits his post, I'll remove this: the alert was "to play, can be a variety of hands", and not "to play, may a variety of hands".

I see, so by describing this bid in terms of its intention rather than disclosing the hands that make the bid, you feel you can circumvent the regulations designed to apply to the bid. Do you know what "bridge lawyering" is?

 

You have to describe a bid in terms of the types of hands that make it, not in terms of what you hope partner will do. People who play 3NT shows a solid minor are hoping their partners will pass too. A "meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named" does not mean you are hoping to play in other denominations, it could simply be that the bid shows anything about your hand. By your logic playing 1♠ p 3NT as a splinter bid in any suit is not a convention (since it shows a willingness to play in the last denomination named), so long as you hide any other aspect of what the bid shows from your opponents.

[awm]

I don't think this type of opening is okay. Suppose we play the following with similar justification:

 

"Our 2♥ opening is to play. It suggests that I believe declaring 2♥ undoubled will be a good result, regardless of whether it makes. Partner is expected to pass with the vast majority of hands, but if he holds a very good fitting hand for hearts he is to bid 2♠ as a non-forcing inquiry, and with a hand including 15+ hcp he may bid 2NT as a forcing inquiry or make a forcing, natural suit bid."

 

It seems clear that the 2♥ call will in fact be passed by a substantial majority of hands. It may be passed as often as Glen's 3NT opening. But it also seems clear that we're playing "2♥ multi" which is not only disallowed in the ACBL but also illegal in most WBF events.

 

This seems to me like arguing around the letter of the laws to get something that clearly is intended to be disallowed to be allowed. It's also not very good disclosure. I suppose you could look at things from the point of view that "any non-forcing bid that's going to be passed pretty often must be allowed" but I expect that "to play" idea is intended to justify things like raising partner's "known" major suit on less than four cards, attempting to sign off in partner's known or presumed suit on a preference auction (or in response to multi), and so forth.

[glen]

You have to describe a bid in terms of the types of hands that make it, not in terms of what you hope partner will do.

Since we do it on all types of hands, how would you suggest one describe it in the little white box? At this time, we don't even know what are all the types and when they might or might not occur - for example on the hand I opened against Peter, I might not have opened it 3NT the day before, and I might not open it 3NT tomorrow, but I might open it 3NT the day after that. Besides describing it as "a variety of hands, that may be based on a source of tricks or sources of tricks, and may or may not have stoppers or length in all suits" (too long for a white box) what would you suggest, and does this longer explain really help anyways?

 

People who play 3NT shows a solid minor are hoping their partners will pass too.

3NT showing a solid minor is conveying a specific meaning. Also if the opponents now bid (such as double) responder will have a good idea what action to take.

[jtfanclub]

I suppose you could look at things from the point of view that "any non-forcing bid that's going to be passed pretty often must be allowed"

 

That is absolutely not the case. You cannot, for example, have your pre-emptive 2♥ opening promise 5 hearts and 4+ clubs in GCC, even though the main thing you're showing is a heart suit. You cannot have your 1NT opening show 9-12, unbalanced, with a club suit.

 

The key is that a bid is legal if ALL IT SHOWS is a signoff or pre-empt in the suit bid. A bid which is signoff but gives additional information about other suits is conventional, and therefore may or may not be legal.

 

If somebody uses 3NT as simply signoff, could have any 13 cards where you can make 7-8 tricks, is legal. But if it shows a 4-suit gambling, that's illegal, and making a description that sounds like it could have a 24 count but in fact is a 4-suit gambling NT is illegal.

[cherdano]

Glen, if opponents asked for more information about 3N, what would be your answer? (And no, I don't care that you don't have more in your system notes.)

[glen]

Glen, if opponents asked for more information about 3N, what would be your answer? (And no, I don't care that you don't have more in your system notes.)

Please see my postings above where I answer this - also please feel free to suggest descriptions that would be clearer to the opponents. Also note we do not play any rescue system if doubled. 4♣ would still be Gerber, 4NT a slam try, redouble is undiscussed (I assume it would be to play redoubled), everything else to play, and if opener bids anything, that is to play.

 

Btw Peter's starting post now says "play, can be a variety of hands" - it was "to play, can be a variety of hands"

 

Note that one can also play a 2♥ opening as unknown values, with ♥s, to play. The ACBL does not restrict this. It does greatly restrict what you can play over this, as in:

CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit.

So no conventional anything after you open this type of 2♥ regardless of what the opponents do. Also if you continue to open 2♥ only within a specific range, or with specific hand types, then you must disclose this tendency to the opponents.

[jdonn]

You have to describe a bid in terms of the types of hands that make it, not in terms of what you hope partner will do.

Since we do it on all types of hands, how would you suggest one describe it in the little white box? At this time, we don't even know what are all the types and when they might or might not occur - for example on the hand I opened against Peter, I might not have opened it 3NT the day before, and I might not open it 3NT tomorrow, but I might open it 3NT the day after that. Besides describing it as "a variety of hands, that may be based on a source of tricks or sources of tricks, and may or may not have stoppers or length in all suits" (too long for a white box) what would you suggest, and does this longer explain really help anyways?

 

Yes it helps, by (potentially) showing that the bid may be illegal. And who are you to say it wouldn't help the opponents anyway. Is your argument really "we have no idea what the bid shows and our partner has no idea what to do, therefore the rules meant to protect all players do not apply to us"?

 

"If you win through bridge lawyering ... and the like, your accomplishment is to me quite unimpressive."

 

- Zia Mahmood

[hrothgar]

If I were ever asked to rule on this type of method, I'd want to have copies of your system notes

You already have a copy of our system notes in this regard:

 

3NT is to play, rarely pulled

Elsewhere in the notes, 4♣ is always Gerber over notrump. 4NT is always a non-forcing slam invite over notrump.

 

That's it.

This type of explanation would be a lot more convincing if you weren't quite so prolific in your writings about "Everything That Matters", Bidding Systems, and the like. It's obvious that you spend a lot of time thinking about this type of stuff.

 

Here, completely coincidentially we find a glaring hole in your work and your ability to document your systems. I don't know if you are deliberately shying away from working on studying this 3NT opening because

 

1. Its complicated

2. It not in your interest to do so

 

Either way, I find the behaviour very problematic...

 

I'm not worried about the fact that I might play against you some day in any kind of serious tournament. I doubt that this would ever happen. What does disturb me is that I make use of similar methods and my ability to do so could be curtailed because of the way that you are approaching this opening.

 

Its all fine and dandy if you want to play this type of opening. However, if you are going to do so you need to go out of your way to provide comprehensive disclosure. "I don't have enough experience with the opening to describe it" doesn't cut it with me. Your web site indicates that you're a programer. If nothing else, you should be able to build some scripts that describe your bidding system. I find this to be an excellent way to get practical experience determining boundary conditions and the like.

[kenrexford]

I'm into this thing late, so I admit to not having reviewed all replies.

 

I'm not liking the chances of 3NT in 1st/2nd/3rd seat with this definition.

 

My only concern is about 3NT is pass-out seat. This is a somewhat recognized bid, where P-P-P-3NT just says I'm trying for nine tricks, dammit. Nothing else. Anything reasonable is possible, with reasonable being quite flexible.

 

The sole caveat is that Opener only may pull, and his pull should be natural.

 

I cannot quote a rule or law or GCC provision. But, bridge as a game seems to require allowance for P-P-P-3NT as "could mean anything."

[glen]

Yes it helps, by (potentially) showing that the bid may be illegal. And who are you to say it wouldn't help the opponents anyway. Is your argument really "we have no idea what the bid shows and our partner has no idea what to do, therefore the rules meant to protect all players do not apply to us"?

 

"If you win through bridge lawyering ... and the like, your accomplishment is to me quite unimpressive."

 

- Zia Mahmood

You continue to mention "illegal" and "bridge lawyering" but don't advance anything to back this up, so I can't debate this with you. As to "who are you to say", I posed it as a question not as a statement, so feel free to answer the question, and feel free to offer up a better description of the bid.

 

If anything, finding "3NT to play"a problem is bridge lawyering at its worse, imposing yet again system, structure, and regulation where the Laws allow one to make a bid one hopes to make, as long as the partner knows the very same information as the opponents do.

[glen]

Its all fine and dandy if you want to play this type of opening.

Okay, so we're fine there.

 

However, if you are going to do so you need to go out of your way to provide comprehensive disclosure.  "I don't have enough experience with the opening to describe it" doesn't cut it with me.  Your web site indicates that you're a programer.  If nothing else, you should be able to build some scripts that describe your bidding system.  I find this to be an excellent way to get practical experience determining boundary conditions and the like.

As I noted above, I would like suggestions on how to better describe the bid, for those who feel that better disclosure can be provided.

 

This type of explanation would be a lot more convincing if you weren't quite so prolific in your writings about "Everything That Matters", Bidding Systems, and the like.  It's obvious that you spend a lot of time thinking about this type of stuff. 

 

Here, completely coincidentially we find a glaring hole in your work and your ability to document your systems.  I don't know if you are deliberately shying away from working on studying this 3NT opening because

 

1.  Its complicated

2.  It not in your interest to do so

 

Either way, I find the behaviour very problematic...

 

Acutally there is a 3., so its not just "either way". The 3NT to play is with my wife, who is not a programmer, or systems person, and has read just two bridge books in her life (nor intends to read any more), and does not read bridge magazines, or any bridge web site, or any of my system notes, so our brief notes, sadly, have to be kept short and simple. So our agreement is just 3NT is to play. There is no complicated part to this.

[inquiry]

I had actually thought you guys were being much too harsh on Glenn. After all, the bridge world describes a natural bid as...

 

(1) (of a call) indicating a desire to play in the named (or, if not a bid, in the last-named) strain without offering information relevant to a specific different strain;

 

Since Glen told us that 3NT was to play, and while can be a variety of hands, partner rarely pulls. I suspect the venom aimed at Glenn deals with the second half of the description and your believe that his 3NT opening bid does in fact offer some imformation related to the a specific different strain that the opponents are not privy too. But since the contract is rarely pulled, I would in general see not problem with it as concern by the ACBL rules.

 

However, in this case his partners hand was interest... his partner held

 

[hv=s=saqjxxxhk9xdqxxcx]133|100|Bidding with no opponent bidding

 

3NT-4S

all psss[/hv]

 

The fact that his partner with a vrey good hand indeed (12 hcp, great six card suit) made no attempt to investigate slam when his partner opened a "natural aka to play 3NT" seems extremely odd to me (in fact 12 tricks can be made in spades).

 

So while I agree in principle with Glenn's view concerning alerts and disclosure, I think some serious explaining on what partner can expect is necessary if partner can bid only 4♠ with this hand. Because in my view, there has to be some prior experience that caused partner to be pessimistic with this hand that is not expressed in the explainations given above.