ACBL GCC - 3NT As "To Play"

[hrothgar]

But I believe there is something wrong when we see good players who like to play systems based on things like Moscito and Forcing Pass that seem terrified by the prospect of having to play against Glen's natural 3NT opening (or who think that Glen's playing this non-convention makes him "one of them").

Fred:

 

Where did I ever claim that I was terrified at facing Glen's little toy?

 

1. I have always advocation that players be granting wide descretion with their choice of methods.

2. Even if I didn't feel this way, it doesn't look like the opening scores all that well.

 

This 3NT is hardly something to be feared.

 

I do, however, strongly believe that the regulatory structure should be applied in a consistent manner.

 

I believe that players have an obligation to be able to explain their methods to the opponents. (And I don't believe that "I'm making this up as I go along" really qualifies as appropriate disclosure) Moreover, as I've noted on several occasions, I believe that the nature of bids should be judged based on the set of hands that qualifies for the opening in question.

 

Here's what I think should happen: As I noted earlier, Glen's 3NT opening should be decomposed into three discrete opening bids. (For what its worth, earlier in this thread, Glenn asked me what "additional meanings" his 3NT opening had. I think that i can now answer this question)

 

1. A 4th seat 3NT opening

 

Glen's third seat 3NT opening looks to be perfectly legitimate in ACBL events. He should alert the bid and explain that this typically show a balanced hand with ~ 17 - 18 HCPs

 

2. A Vulnerable 3NT opening that occurs in 1st - 3rd seat

 

Here, once again, I see nothing wrong with this three NT opening. I do, however, believe that the opening should be alerted and explained as showing either a strong balanced hand with ~ 23 HCPs or a strong semi-balanced hand with with a 6 card minor and ~ 18 - 22 HCPs

 

3. A Non Vulnerable 3NT opening that occurs in 1st - 3rd seat

 

This opening is the trickiest of the three. I think that it should be described as

 

6+ Clubs or Diamonds with 6322, 6331, or 7321 shape

Playing strength is typically equivalent to 16+ - 19 HCP (can occasionally be significantly stronger or weaker)

 

I think that this particular 3NT opening is probably conventional.

[glen]

I believe that players have an obligation to be able to explain their methods to the opponents ...

 

1.  A 4th seat 3NT opening

 

Glen's third seat 3NT opening looks to be perfectly legitimate in ACBL events.   He should alert the bid and explain that this typically show a balanced hand with ~ 17 - 18 HCPs

Okay lets take just one of your "additional meanings" (your expression).

 

It goes Pass-Pass-Pass-3NT and I "alert the bid and explain that this typically show a balanced hand with ~ 17 - 18 HCPs", following your instructions to the letter. The opponents defend as if I have this, and find out I have 22 points, a 5-4-3-1 shape with a stiff spade A, a hand hard to bid in our system, so I had just banged right into 3NT. They question me about this, and I give them your contact info. They reach you, and you explain?

 

About 300 hands later, when I next open 3NT, it just happens again it goes Pass-Pass-Pass-3NT and I "alert the bid and explain that this typically show a balanced hand with ~ 17 - 18 HCPs", since you haven't emailed me your updated spec yet. This time I have Kx K Qx AKQJxxxx. They lead from A something of ♥s, partner has the ♦ ace as their only card, and it makes. Once more you are contacted to resolve this, and you explain?

[fred]

But I believe there is something wrong when we see good players who like to play systems based on things like Moscito and Forcing Pass that seem terrified by the prospect of having to play against Glen's natural 3NT opening (or who think that Glen's playing this non-convention makes him "one of them").

Fred:

 

Where did I ever claim that I was terrified at facing Glen's little toy?

Don't you think you are being a little presumptous to assume that I was referring to you as a "good player"? :)

 

Perhaps I should not have suggested that playing against this convention would frighten you (I have to admit that you seem like fearless player), but it does seem like the very notion of this very natural bid is disturbing to you.

 

Glen should not be volunteering which types of hands he has had in the past for when he opened 3NT. Instead he should make it clear that the bid is not well-defined in terms of hand type and leave it up to the opponents to ask about history if they want.

 

The reason is that this 3NT opening is very much a work in progress and, as the mutual fund companies like to say, "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results". It would not completely shock me to see Glen try a 3NT opening one day on a hand like:

 

AKQxxxx

Ax

Qx

xx

 

or:

 

AKQJ

AKQJx

Kx

Jx

 

or on countless other types of hands that do not even come close to fitting into the neat definitions you are trying to create.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

\Okay lets take just one of your "additional meanings" (your expression).

 

It goes Pass-Pass-Pass-3NT and I "alert the bid and explain that this typically show a balanced hand with ~ 17 - 18 HCPs", following your instructions to the letter.  The opponents defend as if I have this, and find out I have 22 points, a 5-4-3-1 shape with a stiff spade A, a hand hard to bid in our system, so I had just banged right into 3NT.  They question me about this, and I give them your contact info.  They reach you, and you explain?

 

About 300 hands later, when I next open 3NT, it just happens again it goes Pass-Pass-Pass-3NT and I "alert the bid and explain that this typically show a balanced hand with ~ 17 - 18 HCPs", since you haven't emailed me your updated spec yet.  This time I have Kx K Qx AKQJxxxx.  They lead from A something of ♥s, partner has the ♦ ace as their only card, and it makes.  Once more you are contacted to resolve this, and you explain?

The short answer: You should cross that bridge if (and when) you come to it.

 

Your subconcious seems to be a pretty good job stopping you from opening a vulnerable 3NT when you have a strong balanced hand. This has never happened and you've had a fair number of opportunities to do so. (I can post a lot of strong balanced hands where you and you partner chose a vulnerable 2♣). In a similar fashion, you've have an awful lot of opportunities to open 3NT in 4th seat. You just don't do it with other hand patterns.

 

First time you do open on a different pattern, explain that its a psyche.

 

Then you get another 3 months or so to figure out what your new agreement is...

[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. ...

...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 ....) ... 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?

So the answer to this is to offer up to the opponents only a narrow spec and that you want me to claim I psyched when I was not psyching?

 

Well no for me. If my opponents ask after I alert and say "to play, wild variety, please ask pls", any description I give will always be of such to cover the actual hand I have, plus covering the history my partner knows.

 

Let me know if you try out this "claimed pysche" idea for your bid descriptions and how it works for you.

[hrothgar]

>So the answer to this is to offer up to the opponents only a narrow spec and

>that you want me to claim I psyched when I was not psyching?

>

>Well no for me.

 

>Let me know if you try out this "claimed pysche" idea for your bid

>descriptions and how it works for you.

 

Here's the thing Glen: I wouldn't run into this problem because I don't go to tournaments and play methods that I don't understand and can't explain to the opponents.

 

Before I play anything like this in real competitions, I study the method. I run lots of simulations and make sure that I have practical experience. On those occasions when I do employ a mixed strategy, I try to make sure that I have a rough appropximation of the probability density function that I am working with. Furthermore, I normally try to create a rule set that I can use to implement the mixed strategy:

 

Case in point: When I am playing MOSCITO, I employ a mixed strategy following our 1M openings. If responder has a weak hand suitable for an immiedate preemptive raise to 4M, he compares his Club length to his Diamond length. If the suit length is equal, he bids 3NT. If the suit length is unequal, he bids 4M. (This rule set means that I will bid 3N approximately 20% of the time and bid 4M ~80% of the time)

 

I think that you need to invest some time and effort into disclosure rather than hiding behind the words "to play".

 

>If my opponents ask after I alert and say "to play, wild variety, please ask pls",

>any description I give will always be of such to cover the actual hand I have, plus

>covering the history my partner knows.

 

This is a really interesting claim, especially in light of earlier comments you made such as

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

[glen]

You are mixing our notes (very short), details of agreement (see short notes), and description to the opponents. In an early post I gave the white box text I was doing at the time (now since modified thanks to feedback in this thread), and later showed how I tried to describe the bid on Jan 21, to show an example.

 

As to your 1M-3NT example sequence, if you are playing in a BBO event, what do you type into the short white box when you make the 3NT bid, what do you explain immediately, and what to you fully describe when they ask?

[glen]

One reason I ask is this:

 

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]

but now we are told:

 

If responder has a weak hand suitable for an immiedate preemptive raise to 4M, he compares his Club length to his Diamond length.  If the suit length is equal, he  bids 3NT.  If the suit length is unequal, he bids 4M.  (This rule set means that I will bid 3N approximately 20% of the time and bid 4M ~80% of the time)

 

I think that you need to invest some time and effort into disclosure rather than hiding behind the words "to play".

[AlexOgan]

The two posts you just quoted aren't in disagreement at all.

 

He explained that when he has a preemptive raise to 4M, he sometimes bids 3NT. He also wrote that his explanation for 1M-(P)-3NT includes "occasionally a preemptive [Major] raise".

 

What are you complaining about? That he didn't specify that the preemptive major raises included in 3NT have equal minor suit length?

[glen]

That is correct - clearly not full disclosure - when holding a major preempt, as to knowledge of equal/unequal minor suit length (both for the 3NT and 4M bids- could make a big difference in the play), and to the percentage that this will occur, which both of the partners know, but perhaps not disclosed to the opponents. Of course he hasn't even begun to describe what hands he considers appropriate for a major preempt to either 4M or 3NT, given most play five card majors, and his style is different.

[hrothgar]

You are mixing our notes (very short), details of agreement (see short notes), and description to the opponents. In an early post I gave the white box text I was doing at the time (now since modified thanks to feedback in this thread), and later showed how I tried to describe the bid on Jan 21, to show an example.

 

As to your 1M-3NT example sequence, if you are playing in a BBO event, what do you type into the short white box when you make the 3NT bid, what do you explain immediately, and what to you fully describe when they ask?

Drop the obsession with "the little white box".

 

There are a lot better systems available for disclosure. The FD system and OKScript both allow users to send (fairly) large blocks of text to their opponents.

[hrothgar]

That is correct - clearly not full disclosure - when holding a major preempt, as to knowledge of equal/unequal minor suit length (both for the 3NT and 4M bids- could make a big difference in the play), and to the percentage that this will occur, which both of the partners know, but perhaps not disclosed to the opponents.  Of course he hasn't even begun to describe what hands he considers appropriate for a major preempt to either 4M or 3NT, given most play five card majors, and his style is different.

Right now, we're veering into a (fairly) esoteric part of the the Laws. I believe that what I am doing is above board. I have discussed these methods on the Bridge laws mailing list in the past. I know that a number of good players make use of similar methods. However, I will also note that some fairly prominent officials disagree with my interpetation regarding the propieties. (Most notably, Grattan Endicott is in the dissenting camp)

 

For the moment, lets focus on the the 1M - 3N example that I raised originally.

 

I argue that my partnership agreement consists of the following:

 

1. The fact that my 3NT bid is either

 

a strong hand with such and such characteristics OR

a preemptive Spade raise with a single suited hand OR

a preemptive Spade raise with 4+ / 4+ in Clubs and Diamonds

 

2. The fact that

 

20% of all hands suitable for preemptive raise to 4S will bid 3NT and

~10% of all hands with 3+ Spades and (4+/4+) in the minors will bid 3NT

 

3. The fact that

 

my 3NT bid shows a strong hand (roughly) 95% of the time and a weak hand the remaining 5%

 

This information should be made available to partner and to the opponents.

 

However, so long as I keep the specific key that I am using hidden from partner, this information does not constitute partnership agreement and does not need to be disclosed. There is nothing "special" about the fact that the hand promises (club length) == (diamond length). I would be just as happy chosing any one of a variety of other keys that would produce the same effect. Obviously, I could chose to compare Club length with length in the other major. Alternatively, the following key would work just as well:

 

If I hold the deuce of trump and the three of trump, I will bid 3NT. Otherwise, I will bid 4M.

 

This key will increase the chance that I bid 3NT with a preemptive spade raise by (roughly) 1%, however, this is hardly an exact science. (In retrospect, I probably should switch over to using some combination of cards in the trump suit since its much easier to change keys on a whim)

[Gerben42]

What I am suggesting is that people learn to play without depending on artificiality.

 

This is a great comment which I have been supporting since I started teaching bridge. The usual methods of teaching bridge tend to start with:

 

LESSON 1: 1NT shows 16 to 18 points and 4333, 4432 or 5m332.

 

which is completely backward. If you want to prove to yourself that Bridge can be played without system try the following experiment: Replace the ♦7 with a joker that is simply the highest card of the led suit and THEN play bridge.

 

Now you can throw point count, key card asking and all fancy stuff in the garbage bin and start from scratch. Yet you can still play Bridge!

 

It is no secret that I like artificial systems - but one can really say that I like "alternative opening bid structures". After that I usually try to reach a situation where natural bidding is used as quickly as possible. Because that's what's easiest.

 

There is no "fix". Relay bidding set a long structure of defined bids. Sure, anyone can memorize the relays, press a button and watch the wheels go round. But it's no use if you cannot use the information properly, and know when to ask and when not. Which, by the way, is much more complicated than natural bidding...

[LH2650]

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.

Rage against the machine if you must, but if you open 1N with a singleton, a competent ACBL director will investigate, and if he determines that you have an agreement allowing that, he will consider an adjusted score. The ACBL tells him to do so.

 

The legal and regulatory principles appear to be the same for a 3N opening.

[hrothgar]

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.

 

Rage against the machine if you must, but if you open 1N with a singleton, a competent ACBL director will investigate, and if he determines that you have an agreement allowing that, he will consider an adjusted score. The ACBL tells him to do so.

Bobby Goldman used to post regularly on the OKB mailing list. He was (directly) asked about opening 1NT with a singleton on few occasions. Here's his position (as best that I recall)

 

1. Bobby felt that there were certain 5-4-3-1 hand patterns that presented a problem for his methods. A 1=4=5=3 pattern that was too weak for a reverse but too strong for a 1NT rebid after a 1♦ opening and a 1♠ advance was the prototypical example.

 

2. Bobby felt that opening these hands 1NT was the lesser of several evils. The 1NT opening was a systemic bid and a matter of partnership agreement.

 

3. While opening 1NT with a singleton was systemic, it was also very rare. Most of the time, there was a better bid available.

 

If we look at the ACBL's regulations in this area, we find the following

 

"A notrump opening or overcall if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons) is considered natural."

 

I'd argue that the word "generally" is extremely important. The issue is not the existence of an agreement, but rather the frequency with which the 1NT opening will contain a singleton.

 

(Don't ask me to define the what percentage is too high)

[inquiry]

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.

Rage against the machine if you must, but if you open 1N with a singleton, a competent ACBL director will investigate, and if he determines that you have an agreement allowing that, he will consider an adjusted score. The ACBL tells him to do so.

 

The legal and regulatory principles appear to be the same for a 3N opening.

First off, I think you are wrong, or at least the wrong conclusion can be reached by people reading your post (there is some truth to what you say, it is a frequency issue). Let's examine the facts.

 

The GCC states “A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced

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

 

This means a notrump opening or overcall can be natural EVEN WITH a singleton or void. Heck, in a post from yesteday, severeal people postulated overcalling 1♣ with 3NT when holding ♠void, ♥8xxxx ♦AK ♣AKQJxx. And everybody and their dog will rebid 3NT on hands like this. void AJx Axx AKQJTxx you open 1C and partner bids 1S.

 

The same GCC says that an opening bid of a minor is natural "if it shows three or more cards in that suit."

 

Does that mean that you can not open 1♣ on 4432 hands with a doubleton club? No it does not. What it does mean is that you must alert your 1♣ bid as showing as few as 2 cards.

 

Likewise, you are relatively free to open 1NT on a singleton with certain exceptions. If you open the very occassional hand with a singleton 1NT (the frequency I have seen thrown about is 1%) without any problem. That means no alert, no worry. I think there might be some fine points to this, of course, like you can not have a check back looking for a singleton.

 

Should you find yourself just overpowered and open 1NT more frequently with a singleton, then of course you will have to start alerting the bid (as this woould make the bid legally not "natural"). However, after the alert ("occassionally may include a singleton") I think the bidding remains normal. I could be wrong on this, becaause while I open 1NT with the occassional singleton, it does not appraoch 1% of the 1NT hands. The reason being I open a lot of hands 1NT (my range is 14-16 and I open 1NT even with five card majors). I guess should the ACBL rule that such an alert means your 1NT is conventional (rather than a treatment), they could outlaw the "bid" as they have the right to regulate conventions. But that is just a subset of the argument here about the 3NT opening bid.

 

What would be, I think, clearly a convention (rather than a treatment) is if you choose, for instance, to open all 1444 hands 1NT or all 1354 hands with nine cards in the minors 1NT. But the occassional random hand with a singleton is clearly not illegal, immoral, unethical, or disallowed by the ACBL. It can EVEN BE considered natural if the frequency of occurance is low enough... (YES NATURAL).. .see the quoted text above.

[blackshoe]

I was not trying to suggest putting the genie back in the bottle. I know that is simply not going to happen and, even if it could happen, I am far from convinced that this would be good for the game.

 

But I believe there is something wrong when we see good players who like to play systems based on things like Moscito and Forcing Pass that seem terrified by the prospect of having to play against Glen's natural 3NT opening (or who think that Glen's playing this non-convention makes him "one of them").

 

I think there is a good chance that this sad state of affairs is largely a function of the way the game is taught nowadays. New players start learning conventions almost immediately. Teachers try to convince them that magic formulas like The Law and the Rule of X (where popular values of X these days are 15 and 20) will absolve them of having to develop bidding judgment. Intermediate players drool over the concept of learning a new variety of Bergen raises, but are incapable of counting a hand, have never learned to play simple suit combinations, and are totally lost if they have to figure out what a bid means in an auction they have never heard before. Young talented players get so involved in trying to emulate the bidding of Meckwell or the Italians (which in truth they cannot possibly play effectively) or in creating their own brilliant systems (which in truth are almost always theoretically unsound and too complicated for them to remember) that they invariably never learn the basics and invariably become little more than cannon fodder for the players who win all the time. Some experts and many near-experts are not comfortable with a bid unless they are able to formally define what it *shows*. The concept of defining a bid in terms of what it *means* is just too scary to contemplate.

 

The way most bridge players use artificiality these days is similar to the way that many people use pharmaceutical products - they think that no matter what problem they have there is always some pill that will solve it. It doesn't take long for them to develop a dependency on these pills and, if you take their pills away, they become too afraid to function in the real world.

 

I am not suggesting eliminating artificiality. What I am suggesting is that people learn to play without depending on artificiality.

Good points all. Glad to see we're on the same wavelength regarding the genie. :P

 

It occurred to me that perhaps beginning courses should emphasize hand evaluation more, and natural bidding more (ie, few, if any, conventions). However, the experienced teachers with whom I've spoken seem to be of the opinion that beginning players aren't capable of understanding much at all. They need things like the rule of 20 and the LOTT, because they don't know hand evaluation, and either aren't capable of learning it or don't want to spend time on it. I dunno how much of that is true, and how much is teacher bias, but I suspect even beginning players are capable of learning more than they're given credit for. :P

[helene_t]

This happened early in my bridge career some ten years ago:

 

the director had already warned us not to start a new board as time was running out but since the director was looking the other way we agreed with opponents to play the last board anyway but do it very quickly.

 

I picked up my hand, without sorting it I saw I had a decent amount of points so I pulled the 3NT card without using the stop card, and all three other players passed immediately. LHO asked my p if it was gambling. P said that "given the circumstances" it is probably just to play. Opps didn't have any problems with that.

[daveharty]

I think I might have to add a "Necro of the Year" category to the 2012 Posty Awards.

[dake50]

Playing limited 1M, our 1M-4M is 'to play'.

May be weak preempt, may be poor controls near opener,

may be wild guess against few tricks verses their 4H.

I'm not releived of my duty to avoid a private

understanding by saying "to play".