ACBL GCC - 3NT As "To Play"

[inquiry]

Well, I am growing exhausted on this thread. I have reached my conclusion, others have reached theirs... but let me add some final comments.. using two examples...

 

 

2C-P-2D-P

3NT

 

1D-P-1H-P

3NT

 

(2H)-3NT

 

(3H)-3NT

 

If you asked about each of these auctions, and got an explaination "to play, a variety of hand types" would you consider them "conventional". On each, the 3NT bidder is bidding a contract he would be willing to play.

 

I think it would be a sad day that when a player makes a bid in a strain and at a level that conveys the information that "this is the contract that I want to play" that such a bid would be judged to be illegal. Oh there could be some exceptions if the bid was a frequent psyche, but I am arguing this is not the case here. Glen is hoping (expecting) to play 3NT for each of these bids. I can't imagine any organization can regulate against such a bid that means exactly what it says, and heaven forbid we outlaw the ability to bid to the contract we want to play naturally.

[hrothgar]

I think it would be a sad day that when a player makes a bid in a strain and at a level that conveys the information that "this is the contract that I want to play" that such a bid would be judged to be illegal. Oh there could be some exceptions if the bid was a frequent psyche, but I am arguing this is not the case here. Glen is hoping (expecting) to play 3NT for each of these bids. I can't imagine any organization can regulate against such a bid that means exactly what it says, and heaven forbid we outlaw the ability to bid to the contract we want to play naturally.

Try trotting out a Frelling 2♦ or an Ekrens 2♥ opening in an ACBL tournament and let me know what happens...

[inquiry]

I think it would be a sad day that when a player makes a bid in a strain and at a level that conveys the information that "this is the contract that I want to play" that such a bid would be judged to be illegal. Oh there could be some exceptions if the bid was a frequent psyche, but I am arguing this is not the case here. Glen is hoping (expecting) to play 3NT for each of these bids. I can't imagine any organization can regulate against such a bid that means exactly what it says, and heaven forbid we outlaw the ability to bid to the contract we want to play naturally.

Try trotting out a Frelling 2♦ or an Ekrens 2♥ opening in an ACBL tournament and let me know what happens...

Both bids suggest TWO suits, yes? The definition of natural I gave (taken from link from the ACBL.org page) was...

 

"a call indicating a desire to play in the named strain without offering information relevant to a specific different strain."

 

Ekren 2D is not even close to natural as it shows both majors and not a desire to play in diamonds at all. You are full of what you said glen was if you are seriously putting this forward as a natural opening by the definition used.

 

And both Frelling and Erken are based upon "assumed fit". Frelling at least promises diamonds (so that part appears natural), but it also promises a side 4 card major (allowing responder to jump even in a four card major if he holds both). Thus failing the definition of a natural bid (since it offers inforamation relevant to a specific different stain).

 

If these two bids are your example of how a bid can be both natural and conventional you mentioned on the previous page, then that entire argument falls flattly on its face.

[hrothgar]

 

>Ekren 2D is not even close to natural as it shows both majors and

>not a desire to play in diamonds at all. You are full of what you said

>glen was if you are seriously putting this forward as a natural opening

>by the definition used.

 

If you review the original quote, I made reference to an Ekren type 2♥ opening.

 

>If these two bids are your example of how a bid can be both natural and

>conventional you mentioned on the previous page, then that entire argument

>falls flatly on its face.

 

You might not like it, but these two bids are both natural and conventional. A Muiderberg 2♠ is another classic example.

 

You don't need to talk my word on this. Feel free to go to the Bridge laws mailing list or David Stevenson's Bridge Talk forums and ask the question yourself.

 

This was all settled a long time ago

[inquiry]

I missed that you said erken 2♥, as I think of these as both 2♦ bids. But both fail the legal definition of a natural bid, since both suggest a different strain in addition to the one bid (see the definition of a "natural call").

 

This is not to suggest that a bid can not be both natural and conventional. The definition of a convention is:

 

Definition of Convention

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 highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

 

So, while for example, a 1♠ bid that is both natural and 100% forcing (then fantunes system) would be conventional. It is conventional despite being natural because it DOES NOT suggest playing 1♠ as a final contract. In fact, you can not.

 

But in the examples here, 3NT is not suggesting another strain and is to play that precise contract. It is 100% natural despite having a singletons or voids since it is suggesting 3NT as a final contract.

 

Since Glen means to play 3NT. He is not suggesting another strain and his partner is not acting upon it. Now, he has some unusual agreement perhaps about the hand that can be held, and he meets his requirement to provide an alert to these agreements. But, since the bid fits the definition of a natural bid, I see no way the ACBL or any other sponsoring organization can regulate it under the laws of bridge. They can only regulate conventions, and this one is not. The AGREEMENT is GLen wants to declarer 3NT, regardless of the hand he holds. That agreeement is simple and legal. It is a matter of judgement and experience. I disagree with him usign this bid on the grounds that it is not the best bridge strategy (IMHO), but it surely and simply has to be legal.

[mike777]

After seeing the sample hands, i would say:

 

3NT shows a hand with 3-6(7 non.vul) loser usually (but not necessarily) unbalanced or semibalanced. If the hand contains long suits, it might have less HCP.

great and what does a "loser" mean. There are several definitions.

Please give me 15 minutes to pull out my dictionary before I bid.

1) Is this bid GCC or midchart legal?

2) Are the opp playing the same system if over a year one bids it 21 times and the other never?

3) Is there a full and complete explanation?

4) Are other laws in play?

I think you are familiar with LTC?

 

1) I don't care, but that would be full disclosure.

 

2) As long as partners 3NT bid does not have a different meaning, i think it's legal.

 

3) Yes there is, i posted one.

 

4) No, LAWS are not involved just *regulations* from a SO.

Yes, I know LTC that is one of many definitions of how to count losers, there are others, lol.

Also despite what is posted on the forums LTC applies with a known fit.

[hrothgar]

I missed that  you said erken 2♥, as I think of these as both 2♦ bids. But both fail the legal definition of a natural bid, since both suggest a different strain in addition to the one bid (see the definition of a "natural call").

The definition of "natural" that you provide sidesteps the Muiderberg 2♠ example. Even so, this definition is not relevent to the discussion at hand.

 

The definition that you offer originated on The Bridge World's web site. You can find the original citation at http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...y&f=glossn.html

 

The definition that the Bridge World offers has no legal standing. (Its a great magazine, but they haven't had much to do with the Laws since Kaplan passed away)

 

The word "natural" is never definied in the Laws.

 

As far as I know, the ACBL has never published an official definition for the term. (They have published "requirements" that a natural bid must show 3+ cards in a minor and 4+ cards in a major. Furthermore, I'm not disputing that the ACBL's web site might link to the Bridge World definition, however the ACBL's GCC says something very different

 

1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows

three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards

in that suit. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced

(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

 

2. An overcall in a suit is considered natural if, by agreement, it shows four

or more cards in the denomination named.

 

Note that this is significantly different than the definition that you provided and corresponding with my interpetation.)

 

In contrast, the EBU Orange Book does explictly define the word natural. The definition offered is much the same as the one that you cite:

 

Natural Suit bid: A bid showing length in the suit and saying nothing about any other suit. Length is at least four cards unless explicitly stated otherwise. In many situations, especially on later rounds, a natural suit bid may show at least three cards in that suit.

[glen]

There seems to be three points of confusion that have crept into this discussion.

 

First there is the natural versus conventional point. Natural actually does not matter here, just whether a bid is conventional or not. A 3NT bid to play, and with no additional meanings, is not conventional.

 

Second there is this idea of “willingness to play” 3NT being defined as having “good chance for 9 tricks”. Let’s look at a 4♥ opening in third seat white vs. red:

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s7hjt65432dt762c2]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

This hand has very slim chances of making 10 tricks opposite a passed hand partner. However the 4♥ opening bid is not conventional as it is a “willingness to play” 4♥, and does not have additional meanings.

 

So “willingness to play” does not necessarily mean expecting to make the contract.

 

Third, running out of a contract does not imply there was no “willingness to play” the contract. For example one might open 1♣ on:

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s7hjt65432dt762c2]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

If it now goes 1♣-Double-Pass-Pass-?, opener might decide to bid 1♥ here, which does not imply there was no initial “willingness to play” 1♣, just that there is no “willingness to play” 1♣ after the subsequent bidding has indicated the contract will likely be a disaster.

 

So to sum up these points:

- A bid is not conventional if it is a willingness to play there without additional meanings;

- The chance of success in the contract will not determine “willingness to play”;

- Subsequent run outs do not, by themselves, imply there was no “willingness to play”.

 

Now I realize that for some accepting these points will not come easy, even though they can be demonstrated with countless examples from everyday bridge. I just ask that if you do reply, please provide reasoning with your opinions and blanket statements, and that you avoid swearing if possible. Also I do understand that many would prefer that the Laws state a bid is not conventional if there is a “willingness to play” and it is natural, with some definition of natural.

 

As to hrothgar, who believes “it seems clear that 3NT carries other meanings”, now that you have been “illuminated” by the hands, I challenge you to suggest one or more “other meanings” that may be carried in 3NT, besides it being “to play”. If an “other meaning” you select is of the “might have” variety, please indicate when a “might have” makes a bid conventional, while a might have an awful hand does not make the 4♥ bid given above conventional.

[hrothgar]

As to hrothgar, who believes “it seems clear that 3NT carries other meanings”, now that you have been “illuminated” by the hands, I challenge you to suggest one or more “other meanings” that may be carried in 3NT, besides it being “to play”. If an “other meaning” you select is of the “might have” variety, please indicate when a “might have” makes a bid conventional, while a might have an awful hand does not make the 4♥ bid given above conventional.

There is a big difference between the 3NT opening that you are using and the 4♥ that you posit.

 

I have no objection if you want to open 4H on a hand like

 

S 7

H JT65432

D T762

C 2

 

I will even agree that this is a natural bid provided that you are bidding in a deterministic matter. However, once you start deliberately randomizing your bids, you are introducing a very significant change to your methods.

 

I would go so far as to argue that adopting a mixed bidding strategy is sufficient to change a bid from natural to conventional.

 

Don't get me wrong: I am very much in favor of adopting and using mixed strategies during the bidding game. I've posted about them on numerous occasions. I use them myself. But I don't pretend that this is a "natural" type of method.

[DrTodd13]

Sure, people know that 4♥ can be weak and you aren't expecting to make it but if you bid 3N and say "to play," I can guarantee you that people are not going to be expecting you bidding 3N on hands where you know there is no hope of making it.

 

I agree that any non-determinism makes something natural and unconventional into something natural and conventional. If the rules/definitions don't reflect this then the rules need to be changed.

[LH2650]

First there is the natural versus conventional point.  Natural actually does not matter here, just whether a bid is conventional or not.  A 3NT bid to play, and with no additional meanings, is not conventional. 

No, this is a convention and is not GCC legal.

 

In the GCC, under "Definitions", may be found:

 

"A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced

(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)."

 

The examples shown make it clear that this definition is not being met.

 

Anyone who thinks that the ACBL doesn't regulate to this definition should research opening 1N with a singleton.

[inquiry]

First there is the natural versus conventional point.  Natural actually does not matter here, just whether a bid is conventional or not.  A 3NT bid to play, and with no additional meanings, is not conventional. 

No, this is a convention and is not GCC legal.

 

In the GCC, under "Definitions", may be found:

 

"A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced

(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)."

 

The examples shown make it clear that this definition is not being met.

 

Anyone who thinks that the ACBL doesn't regulate to this definition should research opening 1N with a singleton.

You may think the ACBL language, which has to do with alerts actually (see not only the GCC which you quote, but also their document on alerts, where this sentence is lifted verbatim) forbids this 3NT opening bid or makes it illegal. You would be wrong.

 

The international rules of bridge 1) defines a conventional bid, and 2) expressely deals with what a sponsoring organization (ike the ACBL) can and can not restrict. First, THE definition of a conventional bid as per the LAWS of BRIDGE...

 

This is copied word-for-word from Chapter I, "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.

2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.

Obvious the second part deals with conventional signals during play.. Please explain where Glen's use of 3NT opening bid fits anywhere in the first definition. You will not be able too.

 

Then there is LAW 40, which is found in Chapter V "The Auction""

 

Section E of law 40 expressedly says what sponsoring organizations CAN do related to regulating auctions and in particular pay close attention to A (psyches can not be banned), B (bids that might be based upon special special partnership agreements must be disclosed in the ways described by the sponsoring organization -- aka alerts). And most importantly, see section "D" which expressedly states what can be regulated (conventional bids and plays ... defined in the defintion section, and opening bids with a "king" less than "average strength."). In fact no bridge organization, ACBL, EBU, etc have the legal right to restrict the opening of 3NT on these hands... only that (in accordance with 40B their "special partnership understanding" is appropriately disclosed (in acbl by alerting).

 

E. Convention Card

A. Right to Choose Call or Play

A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

 

B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.

 

C. Director's Option

If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score.

 

D. 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.

 

E. Convention Card

1. Right to Prescribe

The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method).

2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card

During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own

[hrothgar]

First there is the natural versus conventional point.  Natural actually does not matter here, just whether a bid is conventional or not.  A 3NT bid to play, and with no additional meanings, is not conventional. 

No, this is a convention and is not GCC legal.

 

In the GCC, under "Definitions", may be found:

 

"A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced

(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)."

 

The examples shown make it clear that this definition is not being met.

 

Anyone who thinks that the ACBL doesn't regulate to this definition should research opening 1N with a singleton.

This is a very good point:

 

Ben posted 22 hands where Glen opened 3NT. 11 of these hands contain singletons, eight of which are singleton honors (A, K, or Q). One of the remaining 3 hands has a stiff Jack.

 

The typical hand type for this opening looks to be a

 

12 - 18 HCP, 6-7 card minor with a stiff honor...

 

In contrast, seven of the remaining hands have (approximately) the same HCP strength with a 6322 or 7222 pattern.

 

A very small number of hands fall into the strong balanced/semi balanced category

[jdonn]

You could just as easily play 4♣ as gerber and no other systems over that bid as well. It's not as though you are finding your major suit fits after the 3NT opening currently either.

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.

You are missing the point. I have pointed out that I some of the reasons I think you may be playing a bid with the definition you have given this one are

- An attempt to avoid rules that might bar you from playing this bid if it were a 'convention'.

- An attempt to avoid rules that prohibit partners from playing a different system.

Since I knew you would disagree with those assertions I wanted to give you a chance to defend yourself and say why you do play this 3NT bid. 25-26 balanced was just intended as a simple alternative example, but whatever alternative chosen is not relevent. Your answer to that suggestion was 'if we played that method we would have to play conventions we don't want to play', which was ridiculous.

It was supported by your own post, which I was obviously paraphrasing. Or need I remind you "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?" That sounds to me like disbelief that anyone could have the gall to want to know what hands make a certain bid when it seems so obvious to you that knowing the contract the bidder likes most (before having any information outside his own hand) is sufficient.

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.

I don't have negativity against that or any bid so long as your reasons for playing it are proper, which I have certainly doubted (or at least doubted your ability to be able to demonstrate) but never mind that. My problem was with your complete lack of disclosure since you seemed to be refusing to tell your opponents (or us) the hands you open 3NT with. You then wanted us to tell you what you should tell your opponents. Tell them what sorts of hands you open 3NT with! Now that we have seen them you could say something like 'may be balanced in so and so range, or unbalanced with a long minor in so and so range and no four card major', something like that which describes what the hands may be. That would be completely fine, rather than your explanation which was about as useful as 'when I feel like it'.

Let me repeat once more. This is your job, not mine. You are the one who seems to have decided that there is no definition since any hand you feel like can make the bid. What if you just defined the bid as "when I want to", how would that be any different!

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?

I certainly had avoided trying to assist, since I don't care for the attitude you showed regarding explaning your bid. Rather than playing with semantics about 'convention' and 'natural' and quoting a bunch of rules that you think justify what you were doing, why not just explain your bids better than you think you have to? It leaves no doubts at all that your intentions are pure and you aren't trying to hide anything, assures that your opponents can not be disadvantaged against a bid that is surely unfamiliar, and frankly should help you feel good about yourself.

[glen]

Your answer to that suggestion was 'if we played that method we would have to play conventions we don't want to play', which was ridiculous.

How can you call it "ridiculous" to not want to play a method because it would impose playing conventions with it? Okay, you can throw out "ridiculous" if you want, but it makes no sense to do so.

I don't have negativity against that or any bid so long as your reasons for playing it are proper, which I have certainly doubted (or at least doubted your ability to be able to demonstrate) but never mind that.

"I don't have negativity ... as long as" - this certain seems to be that you are agreeing that you are negative on this, but "never mind that".

My problem was with your complete lack of disclosure since you seemed to be refusing to tell your opponents (or us) the hands you open 3NT with.

Where is it where I refused to tell my opponents, or you, the hands I open 3NT with?

You then wanted us to tell you what you should tell your opponents.

Since you throw out expressions such as "complete lack of disclosure" (compare to using "not full disclosure"), I wanted to know what you felt was proper disclosure, which you now, finally (after "your job, not mine" etc.), do with:

Tell them what sorts of hands you open 3NT with! Now that we have seen them you could say something like 'may be balanced in so and so range, or unbalanced with a long minor in so and so range and no four card major', something like that which describes what the hands may be. That would be completely fine, rather than your explanation which was about as useful as 'when I feel like it'.

Of course now that you have assisted, it seems it was with some regrets:

I certainly had avoided trying to assist, since I don't care for the attitude you showed regarding explaning your bid. Rather than playing with semantics about 'convention' and 'natural' and quoting a bunch of rules that you think justify what you were doing, why not just explain your bids better than you think you have to? It leaves no doubts at all that your intentions are pure and you aren't trying to hide anything, assures that your opponents can not be disadvantaged against a bid that is surely unfamiliar, and frankly should help you feel good about yourself.

Love the "should help you feel good about yourself" - what is this shot at me about? As to this thread, I've asked repeatedly for how better to explain the bid, and have indicated that I will use this help. Do you disagree with this statement?

[glen]

Sure, people know that 4♥ can be weak and you aren't expecting to make it but if you bid 3N and say "to play," I can guarantee you that people are not going to be expecting you bidding 3N on hands where you know there is no hope of making it.

Please note that the 3NT bid was never described, in the short white box made available, as just "to play". As to "bidding 3N on hands where you know there is no hope of making it", I've actually aimed, when I've opened 3NT, to have a good hope of making it, if partner shows up with the expected average values and shape - that is if you took my hand, put it into a dealer to produce sets of the other three hands, on those layouts where partner had their fair share of the outstanding values, I hoped that 3NT would have considerable chance of making. Thus I never bid 3NT with "no hope of making it", nor do I plan to when I open it next.

[jdonn]

Your answer to that suggestion was 'if we played that method we would have to play conventions we don't want to play', which was ridiculous.

How can you call it "ridiculous" to not want to play a method because it would impose playing conventions with it? Okay, you can throw out "ridiculous" if you want, but it makes no sense to do so.

Not wanting to play a method for that reason isn't ridiculous. Your answer was ridiculous since it was both untrue (there is far less reason to play conventions over a bid which completely describes your hand than over the actual bid which describes it very little) and since it, as you are still doing now, ignorred the point. I'll try only one last time. Why do you play the 3NT opening bid as you describe, instead of any other simple or natural alternative (the specific one being completely irrelevent)? I am not asking to suggest you don't have the right to play anything legal that you want, but merely because your answer could be enlightening to the discussion.

My problem was with your complete lack of disclosure since you seemed to be refusing to tell your opponents (or us) the hands you open 3NT with.

Where is it where I refused to tell my opponents, or you, the hands I open 3NT with?

In every early post in this thread??? I will try to paraphrase from memory, so please excuse me if I mess up specific details.

You: I think my explanation of the bid is fine.

Me: It's not because it doesn't describe which hands make the bid.

You: I don't know which hands make the bid (absurd).

and/or

You: You all tell me what I should say (I had already made clear, say what hands make the bid).

 

Lets try this in reverse. Please show me anywhere in this entire thread prior to where Inquiry showed us your hands where you were describing the hands you open 3NT with.

I certainly had avoided trying to assist, since I don't care for the attitude you showed regarding explaning your bid. Rather than playing with semantics about 'convention' and 'natural' and quoting a bunch of rules that you think justify what you were doing, why not just explain your bids better than you think you have to? It leaves no doubts at all that your intentions are pure and you aren't trying to hide anything, assures that your opponents can not be disadvantaged against a bid that is surely unfamiliar, and frankly should help you feel good about yourself.

Love the "should help you feel good about yourself" - what is this shot at me about? As to this thread, I've asked repeatedly for how better to explain the bid, and have indicated that I will use this help. Do you disagree with this statement?

Do you disagree that you were doing everything there that I said you were doing? I took no shot at you worse than both implying and saying you are engaging in bridge lawyering, which you are. The comment where you say I took a shot at you, even in hindsight I can not see how you interpreted it that way. I don't even know you, and know nothing about you outside of bridge other than that you are clearly very intelligent.

[glen]

Why do we have the agreement that 3NT is "to play, rarely pulled"? Because it takes 4 words, involves no conventions (other than the metarule on Gerber), has had zero discussion, and reflects our other uses of 3NT (so 1♠-3NT, for example, is to play, rarely pulled). If we put in 25-26, to use your example (your choice), then I might have to put an exception in where 4♣ over a 3NT opening is not Gerber, but Stayman. Anything but 3NT to play takes up more notes and more memory.

 

You might consider this "untrue", but it is the truth.

 

Btw for anybody who considers the approach less than optimal, consider that we play stolen bid doubles.

[glen]

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.

This was the fifth post in the thread. Note that when I started trying out "3NT to play" to see what might work or not (so far, inquiry tells us it is not working at all, except if opponents do something poor), I had no intended hand types to bid it on, except for the idea of "assumed points/shape" (this 'idea' was not shared with partner - as I've mentioned zero discusssion on the bid) - that is if partner had an average hand, I would have play for 3NT. You could see what I've tried it on so far. Given the results so far, should I repeat the bid with these same hand types, or should I try new ones, and give up the current ones? If I give up the current ones, and try new ones, which I would not know until I try them, how would you suggest, if you could assist me once more, to properly disclose the partnership agreement? Should I disclose what my partner might expect, based on her experience, for the bid, even though I no longer have these hand types?

 

Btw to the rest, is it just me, or was "should help you feel good about yourself" a shot? (edit: okay, this thread has been quiet for almost 12 hours now - so don't answer this and maybe we can avoid 90 more postings)

 

Here I was on Sun Jan 21 trying to describe the bid (suggestions for improvement very welcome):

 

->player1: i'm asked to describe the varieties, so here goes:

->player2: i'm asked to describe the varieties, so here goes:

->player1: can be the big balanced hand, 23 to 27 points

->player2: can be the big balanced hand, 23 to 27 points

->player1: can be with a source of tricks, in one or two suits, with or without stoppers in the other suits

->player2: can be with a source of tricks, in one or two suits, with or without stoppers in the other suits

player2: k

->player1: the source of tricks do not need to be solid, and can be broken

->player2: the source of tricks do not need to be solid, and can be broken

player1: ok

player2: long suit? no outside A?

->player1: also can have just a random collection of cards ****

->player2: also can have just a random collection of cards

->player1: there is no promise of a long suit, or long suits

->player2: there is no promise of a long suit, or long suits

->player1: there is no promise of stoppers, or not having stoppers

->player2: there is no promise of stoppers, or not having stoppers

player2: k

->player1: partner's job over 3NT is to pass, unless very unusual hand

->player2: partner's job over 3NT is to pass, unless very unusual hand

->player1: hence 3NT is to play - partner is not involved

->player2: hence 3NT is to play - partner is not involved

 

**** at some point I thought I would try this (random collection) but never did and have no intention to now

[hrothgar]

As to this thread, I've asked repeatedly for how better to explain the bid, and have indicated that I will use this help.

Here's my recommendation:

 

To start with, I think that you need to carefully consider a point that Ben raised during the early days of this thread: The definition of your three NT opening varies dramatically depending on vulnerability. (There are also some significant differences based on seat). I don't have full access to BRBR data, however, here's what things look like to me based on the sample that provided.

 

I would model the 3NT opening as three discrete bids, with different explanations for each bid. There is (virtually) no overlap between these cases.

 

3NT Type One (Fourth Seat Openings)

 

A Three NT opening shows a balanced hand with ~ 17 - 18 HCP. The meaning of the bid does not change significantly with vulnerability.

 

(There are two example hands, both of which are roughly equilvalent to a balanced 17 count)

 

3NT Type Two (NV Openings in 1st - 3rd Seat)

 

A three NT opening shows 6+ cards in either minor and (roughly) 11 - 20 HCPs. The hand is typically a 6331 or 7321 pattern with a stiff honor, however, 6322 is allowed.

 

(There are 13 example hands, all of which match this description)

 

3NT Type Three (Vulnerable Openings in 1st - 3rd seat)

 

A three NT opening shows one of two hand types:

 

Balanced/semi-balanced hands showing equivalent playing strength to a 23+ card hand. Playing strength is often based on a good 6+ card minor)

 

(We have 7 example hands - 6 of which [arguably] fit this description)

 

We also have one very random outlier that doesn't feel like any of the other vulnerable hands.

 

A63

K

KJ98643

AK4

 

For me, the most significant feature is the absence of HCPs combined with the broken suit. This one looks MUCH more like the NV openings.

[hrothgar]

Hi Glen...

 

I'm a little surprised not to see some kind of response to my last post. I spent a fair amount of time pouring over hand records last night. I think that I came up with a pretty accurate description of your 3NT opening in different seats/vulnerabilities.

 

Curious whether you're considering adopting any of this into your disclosure process...

[glen]

Hi Glen...

 

I'm a little surprised not to see some kind of response to my last post.  I spent a fair amount of time pouring over hand records last night.  I think that I came up with a pretty accurate description of your 3NT opening in different seats/vulnerabilities.

 

Curious whether you're considering adopting any of this into your disclosure process...

Well the thread had gone on and on and on, with a fair bit of directed "venom" as inquiry had put it at one point, so I really didn't want to post more if I could avoid it.

 

I'm planning on using your descriptions, and Fred's excellent term "rates", as in I rate to have ...."<hrothgar description>" I will also be able to hyperlink to the hand examples, which may help the opponents as well.

 

However I have one disclosure problem. As inquiry has pointed out the bid has not be proven viable with the hands that I have chosen so far (17.63% at matchpoints, and "Do I think this is winning bridge? Hell no. I think he is making a mistake doing this") and others have commented as well (" I cannot imagine the bid being very effective", "highly dubious" -btw these are not venomous, as they are directed at the merits of the bid, and not at the person). That was one of reasons why I picked the hand I used against Peter, as it was a new one to try out. So I am more likely to try a new hand type, albeit still a hand that hopes to make 3NT if partner has about average points and shape. However partner does not know this (plus she likely considers these 3NT openings silly since playing 3NT cold for a grand or 3NT down 3 is not a good marketing tool for this approach - certainly my results so far have not convinced her to open 3NT). So should I disclose in the same way you have recommended and that I like: that this is what I rate to have, especially by my partner's experience, but it does not necessarily mean I'm likely to have it?

[inquiry]

This thread started with a simple question posed by this statement along with a quote about natural NT bids not having a singleton or void.

 

"I questioned the opener (Glen from these Forums) whether he thought it was GCC compliant. "

 

Four questions seem to have arrisen from this thread

1. Is it GCC compliant
   
2. Was the description adequate, and if ntot, what would have made it so
   
3. Is it good bridge
   
4. Does the fact taht one partner makes the bid while another does not violate some rule of bridge
   

I doubt we have agreement on #1, but I say it is complaint because the laws of bridge do not give the ACBL the authority to prevent it.

 

I think the consensus was #2 was inadequate, and I think Glen was upfront looking for a better way to describe it. I think progress has been made on this.

 

#3 came about even before I posted the hands and studied the results. To be fair there were only 6 matchpoint hands, so school may still be out on the validity of such a small sample size. Still, down 3 in 3NT on cold grand slam is not a glowing recommendation as glen points out.

 

#4 I apologize for contricubting too, By looking up the hands, it is clear that the partnership bids differently. This is a side issue that should be avoid I think. We should assume for the original question that both partners use the same agreement.

 

I think this discussion has, for the most part, been good, even if we can not all agree. But like Fred, I would be surprised if this bid was "illegal". Of course, it has to be alerted since there is a special partnership understanding, but that is it.

[joshs]

Hi Glen...

 

I'm a little surprised not to see some kind of response to my last post.  I spent a fair amount of time pouring over hand records last night.  I think that I came up with a pretty accurate description of your 3NT opening in different seats/vulnerabilities.

 

Curious whether you're considering adopting any of this into your disclosure process...

Well the thread had gone on and on and on, with a fair bit of directed "venom" as inquiry had put it at one point, so I really didn't want to post more if I could avoid it.

 

I'm planning on using your descriptions, and Fred's excellent term "rates", as in I rate to have ...."<hrothgar description>" I will also be able to hyperlink to the hand examples, which may help the opponents as well.

 

However I have one disclosure problem. As inquiry has pointed out the bid has not be proven viable with the hands that I have chosen so far (17.63% at matchpoints, and "Do I think this is winning bridge? Hell no. I think he is making a mistake doing this") and others have commented as well (" I cannot imagine the bid being very effective", "highly dubious" -btw these are not venomous, as they are directed at the merits of the bid, and not at the person). That was one of reasons why I picked the hand I used against Peter, as it was a new one to try out. So I am more likely to try a new hand type, albeit still a hand that hopes to make 3NT if partner has about average points and shape. However partner does not know this (plus she likely considers these 3NT openings silly since playing 3NT cold for a grand or 3NT down 3 is not a good marketing tool for this approach - certainly my results so far have not convinced her to open 3NT). So should I disclose in the same way you have recommended and that I like: that this is what I rate to have, especially by my partner's experience, but it does not necessarily mean I'm likely to have it?

How about:

Red/4'th Seat: "A hand that expects to have good play for 3N if partner has around 1/3 of the remaining points in the deck. Can be balanced or be based on a source of tricks (in any suit). Partner will rarely pull this."

 

NV1-3:"Sometimes is a hand that expects to have good play for 3N if partner has 1/3 of the remaining points. Can be balanced or be based on a source of tricks (in any suit). Frequently is a minimum opening hand with a long minor that hopes to get lucky. Partner will rarely pull this."

 

Josh

[glen]

Actually I like these better. However I would like to make some statement about stoppers so they don't think I'm promising or denying stoppers, as other forms of the 3NT opening bid do.

 

Btw we just played a pair who's 3NT opening was marked on their card as 26+ (no upper range given). They didn't open it, so no chance to ask if it was forcing.