ACBL GCC - 3NT As "To Play"

[glen]

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).

How would you suggest she could investigate slam in our methods? We don't have the tools. Best she can do is suggest ♠s and hope if I see a whole bunch of tricks opposite a hand with very long ♠s I might try something like a slam invite 5♠.

 

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.

The prior experience is that I may or may not have stoppers in all suits, and I may or may not have a source of tricks or sources of tricks. Certainly she knows I might have 27 HCP, but she can't count on that.

[fred]

As long as Glen does not have a history of "psyching" these 3NT openings, I don't think he is doing anything wrong.

 

By psyching I mean opening 3NT with a hand that suggests that 3NT is most unlikely to be a reasonable contract.

 

If he has a habit of psyching these openings he should include in his explanation "I may have a hand that has no hope of winning anywhere near 9 tricks in notrump" (or similar).

 

But this is probably a moot point since you will get into trouble if you frequently psych a bid like this with the same partner.

 

Many years ago I played a weak notrump system with Joey Silver. He insisted on not playing transfers so that he could use his favorite psych: a 2H or 2S response to 1NT on less (sometimes much less) than the traditional 5-card suit.

 

Like Glen's 3NT bid, we defined 2H/2S by what it meant ("a signoff - I expect you to pass") rather than what it showed.

 

However, once I saw Joey make this psych a couple of times, I changed my explanation of 2H from "a signoff" to "a signoff but he could have any number of hearts".

 

Shortly after that the TD told us we were not to do this anymore.

 

Probably Joey would have continued so I forced him to play strong notrumps instead :rolleyes:

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

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).

How would you suggest she could investigate slam in our methods? We don't have the tools. Best she can do is suggest ♠s and hope if I see a whole bunch of tricks opposite a hand with very long ♠s I might try something like a slam invite 5♠.

Well, the fact is, against any normal type 3NT bid (even gambling 3NT based upon values), I would be putting this hand in slam. This suggest your 3NT to play, can be, well, quite odd. It is this how odd that needs to be explained.

 

Let;s start with some obvious. Are you ever actually balanced, and if so, how many hcp? If you are unbalanced, are you more or less likely to be one suited? What is the minimumum opening hand you have for this? Do you ever do this with 0 to 8 hcp non-vul opposite a passed hand?

 

The hand you actually held was [hv=s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

How typical is this hand pattern. Is this a minimum can you have less? I mean this is 15 hcp without a souce of tricks and with lots of defense. Could your diamond suit be reversed with either major? Could your minors and majors be reversed and still open 3NT?

 

If the minors and majors or just diamonds and a major can not be reversed, how do you convey this information to the opponents. Is one of the hand types a minor two suiter with a long and short minor?

 

It is just looking at this hand, it seems your treatement is open to a lot of "undisclosed agreements" in that it might be too much to describe the type of hands that might be held. The fact that your partner has a likely 6 trick hand opposite your 9 trick hand (and that is not counting the diamond Queen and is counting a losing spade) and only bid 4♠ suggest an agreement NOT in evidence by your description so far.

[glen]

By psyching I mean opening 3NT with a hand that suggests that 3NT is most unlikely to be a reasonable contract.

I often open 3NT if finding partner with some values in working spots would make 3NT a very good shot. Sometimes I find partner with ziltch, and the result is not nice. Sometimes partner has values, but in the quite wrong spots, and that's not good either. Sometimes I find partner with too much, and we miss a slam (however the BBO ACBL field ability to get to slam is, well, not perfect, so this is not a total zero). However a whole bunch of times partner has a few working values, and now the opponents have a blind lead and not an easy defense. I sometimes open 3NT with a whole bunch of points, since we have no effective system over our 2♣ opening. For "gambling" type 3NT (with no stoppers) and with long minors without much else, I would rarely open 3NT since it would wrong side the notrump and not really jam the opponents.

 

Btw Joey is one person who would like the 3NT opening style.

[glen]

Well, the fact is, against any normal type 3NT bid (even gambling 3NT based upon values), I would be putting this hand in slam. This suggest your 3NT to play, can be, well, quite odd. It is this how odd that needs to be explained.

 

Let;s start with some obvious.

 

1) Are you ever actually balanced, and if so, how many hcp? If you are unbalanced, are you more or less likely to be one suited?

 

2) What is the minimumum opening hand you have for this?

 

3) Do you ever do this with 0 to 8 hcp non-vul opposite a passed hand?

 

The hand you actually held was [hv=s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

4) How typical is this hand pattern.

 

5) Is this a minimum can you have less? I mean this is 15 hcp without a souce of tricks and with lots of defense.

 

6) Could your diamond suit be reversed with either major?

 

7) Could your minors and majors be reversed and still open 3NT?

 

8) If the minors and majors or just diamonds and a major can not be reversed, how do you convey this information to the opponents.

 

9) Is one of the hand types a minor two suiter with a long and short minor?

 

10) It is just looking at this hand, it seems your treatement is open to a lot of "undisclosed agreements" in that it might be too much to describe the type of hands that might be held. The fact that your partner has a likely 6 trick hand opposite your 9 trick hand (and that is not counting the diamond Queen and is counting a losing spade) and only bid 4♠ suggest an agreement NOT in evidence by your description so far.

I've numbered your questions/points to answer.

 

1) Yes, often. No agreement on HCP but will usually have some. No agreement on likely to be one suited or not if unbalanced.

 

2) No idea, we have no minimum or maximum definition.

 

3) I could but don't remember doing so - would tend to open a suit bid.

 

4) There is no typical since done on a variety of hands.

 

5) Can have less. Can have more.

 

6) Yes.

 

7) Yes.

 

8) Feel free to suggest best way of conveying information.

 

9) We don't have hand types for this opening, so yes any hand type could be one of the hand types.

 

10) 3NT does not promise 9 tricks - it is to play, the same way one opens 1NT but does not promise 7 tricks.

[fred]

By psyching I mean opening 3NT with a hand that suggests that 3NT is most unlikely to be a reasonable contract.

I often open 3NT if finding partner with some values in working spots would make 3NT a very good shot. Sometimes I find partner with ziltch, and the result is not nice. Sometimes partner has values, but in the quite wrong spots, and that's not good either. Sometimes I find partner with too much, and we miss a slam (however the BBO ACBL field ability to get to slam is, well, not perfect, so this is not a total zero). However a whole bunch of times partner has a few working values, and now the opponents have a blind lead and not an easy defense. I sometimes open 3NT with a whole bunch of points, since we have no effective system over our 2♣ opening. For "gambling" type 3NT (with no stoppers) and with long minors without much else, I would rarely open 3NT since it would wrong side the notrump and not really jam the opponents.

 

Btw Joey is one person who would like the 3NT opening style.

The point I am making is that when you say "3NT could be based on several types of hands" (or whatever) that the opponents have a right to assume that these types of hands are what most people would consider to be "relatively normal" types of hands for a 3NT opening.

 

If you tend to have "relatively normal" hands for your 3NT openings then your explanation is fine - the opps are allowed to ask "historically what sort of hands have you opened 3NT on?" if they want.

 

But if part of your answer would be "hands that you would consider really weird" then you should mention this in your original explanation.

 

The opponents should not be forced to ask probing questions in order to find out information that they almost certainly want to know.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

But if part of your answer would be "hands that you would consider really weird" then you should mention this in your original explanation.

So do we like "to play, can be a variety of hands including weird ones" (perhaps too big for the white box)?

[inquiry]

Ok.. i have looked up some of the hands Glen opened 3NT on.. having seen these hands, I retract my general comlaint in the earlier post. There could be some question as to many of these bids being "psyches" which will run afowl of fred's concern. There is another problem, it seems only Glen makes these bids, because although I found many of them, his partner never made even one (isn't there a requirement both partners play the same system?).

 

With Glen's approval, I will post 11 hands Glen opened 3NT recently to aid in the discussion of what an appropriate alert/explaination might be, but as a starting point, if a hand is weak with a long minor and can be opened 3NT on this description and a willingness to go down 9 undoubled, does that apply as "natural" or as a psyche? He is correct 27 hcp can be held.

 

BTW, quite a few of them would be defined as "really wierd"

[glen]

Ok.. i have looked up some of the hands Glen opened 3NT on.. having seen these hands, I retract my general comlaint in the earlier post. There could be some question as to many of these bids being "psyches" which will run afowl of fred's concern. There is another problem, it seems only Glen makes these bids, because although I found many of them, his partner never made even one (isn't there a requirement both partners play the same system?).

 

With Glen's approval, I will post 11 hands Glen opened 3NT recently to aid in the discussion of what an appropriate alert/explaination might be, but as a starting point, if a hand is weak with a long minor and can be opened 3NT on this description and a willingness to go down 9 undoubled, does that apply as "natural" or as a psyche? He is correct 27 hcp can be held.

 

BTW, quite a few of them would be defined as "really wierd"

Please go ahead and post at least 11 (more would be better to show the variety).

 

My partner and I play the same system, but far from the same style. I have not imposed a style on her, nor is she not allowed (or implied allowance) to make any bid (as in some pro-client approaches) - in particular I wish she would open 3NT more often, and I wish she would make weak twos on five card suits more often.

[fred]

But if part of your answer would be "hands that you would consider really weird" then you should mention this in your original explanation.

So do we like "to play, can be a variety of hands including weird ones" (perhaps too big for the white box)?

I think that would be an improvement.

 

But it is also an admission that you are playing systemic psychs.

 

And some tournaments won't allow that.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

But it is also an admission that you are playing systemic psychs.

I disagree - a psyche would be a gross misstatement of values or hand shape. In this case we have no statement to misstate. Weird is just saying to the opponents, it is "unusual for you".

 

In your Joey example, you knew that sometimes he bid 2♥ over 1NT not with 5♥s and not enough to invite game, but also on other bad hands. So it became systemic since he often enough misstated his hand. Here 3NT does not promise 5♥s, or a particular set of strength.

[fred]

But it is also an admission that you are playing systemic psychs.

I disagree - a psyche would be a gross misstatement of values or hand shape. In this case we have no statement to misstate. Weird is just saying to the opponents, it is "unusual for you".

Are you trying to say that opening 3NT "to play" with (for example):

 

xx

xx

QJxxxxxx

x

 

is not a psych?

 

If yes, give me a break.

 

If no, give me an example of the sort of hand you are talking about.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

Let's wait for the examples...

[inquiry]

Here are 14 3NT openings by Glen. His partner didn't open 3NT once. (well a pick up partner did but not his regular partner for whom all these hands were obtained). There was an 11 hcp hand and another 12 hcp hand including a singleton Queen and no aces.... that is getting close to my 0 to 9 question

 

[hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv]

[hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv]

[hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv]

[hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv][hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv]

[hv=v=n&s=sxhaxdaktxcatxxxx]133|100|1 [/hv]

[inquiry]

The vulnerable hands (2. 5, 11. 13) are quite different beast than the non-vul hands (the other ones). One might suggest that being vul, you would need a stronger hand, but if that is true, how is 3NT "to play" differ based upon vul? All the really wild 3NT hands were not vul versus vul (hands 6 - 11 hcp, hand 10 - even worse 12 hcp).

 

Implications for alerts and the purpose of 3NT?

[jtfanclub]

Unless I am confused, hands 4 and 6 have the same vulnerability. If that is the case, I don't have any problem with 'to play, may be pre-emptive/gambling' as the explanation, not when there's several cases where he had the monster hand (which, if he didn't include, would make it illegal).

[fred]

Let's wait for the examples...

OK - my personal opinion is many of these examples are "normal" many are "weird" and none are clear "psychs" (but a couple are not that far off).

 

So in my opinion you will be doing your duty if you make your explanation "To play, but maybe an unusual hand" (or similar).

 

And of course if your opponents ask you for more information you should be honest and say something like:

 

I might have a very strong balanced hand (if so then no specific point count) but I might also have a long suit. If I have a long suit it rates to be strong (but does not rate to be solid) and I rate to have something resembling a stopper in at least 2 of the side suits.

 

No doubt other players/TDs will have different opinions as to whether your examples are weird/normal/psychs. You might get in trouble at some point, but you probably won't deserve it (at least not if your future example hands are like the past example hands and if you continue to try to be forthcoming with your explanations).

 

Fred Gitelman

bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

After reviewing the examples, I'll toss in one vote for "weird, but OK." Not one of these examples seemed like a 3NT without play. Bizarre as a technique, but if it works it works.

[Walddk]

As an aside, out of curiosity, how do you want your partner to judge further action if your 3NT can be examples 10 as well as 11? Or do you have the agreement that she is not allowed to bid over your 3NT opening?

 

Roland

[bid_em_up]

Glen,

 

For all your references to the rules claiming the bid to be legal, I submit the following objection. according to the North American Laws of Duplicate Bridge:

 

"SECTION SIX

CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS

 

LAW 40

PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

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 organization."

 

As far as I am concerned, if you can't explain it any better than "to play, may be a variety of hands", then its a concealed partnership understanding, imo. An opposing pair will have no idea as to what hand type you "may" have without doing some serious grilling of your methods. Having seen you open 3N on a variety of hands, your partner, by default, will be more acutely aware of what hands you "might" have for the bid, even if there is no explicit agreement for it.

 

Do you open it on long suit with a couple of side suit stops? Solid suits with side stops (or partial stops in the other suits)?Weak hands? Strong and balanced? Sometimes you do it and sometimes you dont? Frequently have a stiff honor in a suit? You bid it whenever you feel like the final contract will end up being 3N and you wish to ensure that you are declarer? Do you only do this when partner is passed hand? (The example hands dont reflect this info). Partner will be aware of all of these things, but the opponents will not be.

 

I cannot imagine this opening "style" being successful in the long run, even if it is deemed to be "legal". But thats another story.

 

jmoo.

[hrothgar]

But if part of your answer would be "hands that you would consider really weird" then you should mention this in your original explanation.

So do we like "to play, can be a variety of hands including weird ones" (perhaps too big for the white box)?

I think that would be an improvement.

 

But it is also an admission that you are playing systemic psychs.

 

And some tournaments won't allow that.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Personally, I think that its a mistake to drag the topic of psyches into this discussion. This is a CLASSIC example why I believe that the legal construct about "psyches" should be dropped from the laws and replaced with more useful categories.

 

Glen is playing a very wide ranging and fairly random method. He also admits to be using a mixed strategy. Sometimes he'll (randomly) decide to open a hand 3N. other times he'd open the same hand 1♠. However, this behaviour doesn't represent a violation of his agree system. Rather, this behaviour is systemic.

 

I readily admit that this type of method creates a lot of problems. Some of these are related to disclosure. Others are going to be related to the regulatry structure. Case in point: Glen admits that he's using mixed strategies. Furthermore, he is doing so in an ACBL event. The ACBL's GCC doesn't explictly sanction the use of mixed strategies. Therefore, he is using an illegal convention.

[jtfanclub]

A player may not make a call or play based on a [bold]special partnership understanding[/bold] 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 organization."

OK, you've seen probably every single time they've ever had a 3NT opener as far back as they can remember. What special partnership understand do you think they have?

 

I don't see any special partnership understanding here, except that opener is less likely to gamble when vulnerable, which is just bridge.

 

Do you play SAYC or 2/1 with a regular partner?

 

If so, suppose that you open 1♥ and he responds 4♥. I ask you for a detailed explanation of the bid. Pick one of your partners, and tell me what you would say. Remember, 'standard' is not a legal definition of the bid.

[Guest Jlall]

This style of bidding is far more effective than most would expect.

 

This is a very interesting post too, none of your example hands looked like psyches though.

[cherdano]

If so, suppose that you open 1♥ and he responds 4♥. I ask you for a detailed explanation of the bid. Pick one of your partners, and tell me what you would say. Remember, 'standard' is not a legal definition of the bid.

Of course I can answer this question. Assuming equal vulnerability and a 1st or 2nd seat opening, my partner would have a weakish shapely hand with 4 or 5 trumps. If 4, then he has a lot of shape (as he could make a mixed raise to 3♥ instead). We don't interpret weak as having no lower limit, the hand will have one good suprise as far as playing strength is concerned (a singleton, or good trumps, etc.). A flat 5332 hand would often prefer a mixed raise as well. On the other end of the spectrum, a hand with 5 trumps to an honor, an ace and a singleton would be considered too strong.

 

I would give a different answer at favorable, at unfavorable, opposite a 3rd seat opening etc.

What's your point?

[bid_em_up]

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 organization."

OK, you've seen probably every single time they've ever had a 3NT opener as far back as they can remember. What special partnership understand do you think they have?

 

I don't see any special partnership understanding here, except that opener is less likely to gamble when vulnerable, which is just bridge.

 

Do you play SAYC or 2/1 with a regular partner?

 

If so, suppose that you open 1♥ and he responds 4♥. I ask you for a detailed explanation of the bid. Pick one of your partners, and tell me what you would say. Remember, 'standard' is not a legal definition of the bid.

1) This is not my wording, but the wording of the Laws. You also cut the bolding off at the point where it becomes most significant, unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning. There is no way you can claim that an opposing pair to be able to understand "well, sometimes its 25 balanced, and other times its 12 hcp and 7-3-2-1 with broken suit, and other times, its just that I am bored and want to play a hand so I bid 3N".

 

2) His partner has a better understanding of hand types that he might make this call on.

 

3) It isn't so much the fact that there is an EXPLICIT understanding. There isn't. But by default, partner has a better idea of the hand types the 3N bid may contain than the opponents can ever hope to, which makes it an IMPLICIT agreement.

 

Kind of like if your partner routinely bids 2S after 2H (X) and he does not hold spades. You become aware that he may not have them. You havent explicitly agreed to do this. Yes, it is a tactical bid. But you KNOW that your partner is prone to doing this. Making the bid implicitly agreed, alertable, and fully explainable.

 

4) Sorry, but I dont call this bridge.

 

5) Either, 2/1 preferred.

 

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.