ACBL GCC - 3NT As "To Play"

glen · February 27, 2007

yet, her judgement and knowledge is supposed to be good enough to "know" when to open 3N?

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.

draw your own conclusion

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.

pbleighton · February 27, 2007

This has turned into a very active thread, going in different directions, but:

"Glen points out that the ACBL cannot directly regulate natural opening bids. He's right about that, but it doesn't matter. This bid is not natural. (See the definition of natural NT bids in the GCC). Whether that makes it conventional can be debated"

This is my original question. If a bid isn't natural, mustn't it be conventional, and therefore subject to regulation?

Peter

glen · February 27, 2007

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.

jtfanclub · February 27, 2007

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.

This is an 'honest' 3NT bid. It's a hand that expects to make 3NT but not 4M or 6NT across a balanced hand with 6 hcp of my choosing. That's what, less than 1% of hands? I know what that sort of hand looks like, I knew before Inquiry posted them. I doubted Office when he told me that he included ALL hands in that set, but I looked and sure enough, they're all there. I apologize for doubting him.

The bid has to be legal. If there is an explanation more descriptive that what he's said, then he should say it. You've looked at the 14 hands. You now know as much about the bid as his partner does. What do you think an accurate description of the bid would be?

pclayton · February 27, 2007

Without the Laws issues being discussed here:

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

I would think that she has more of an obligation for disclosure since the partnership has a track record of Glen opening it on a wide variety of hands and Mrs. A opening it on, well...I guess we don't know what she would have.

On the other hand, if she never opens 3N, then Glen would never have to worry about a disclosure problem. :D

glen · February 27, 2007

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 · February 27, 2007

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 · February 27, 2007

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 · February 27, 2007

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 · February 27, 2007

What happens in practice appears to be otherwise however.

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

inquiry · February 27, 2007

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.