ACBL GCC - 3NT As "To Play"

[inquiry]

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.

Well, I am not so sure it is effective. Glen is a good player and this is introducing randomness that is not working well for him in my opinion.

 

Here is the data. Glen and his partner (his wife I think) average over +1 imp and 56% in their tourment play (i assume mostly ACBL). when I look these hands up with Bridgebrowser, I can also get the average results just for hands that started 3NT...

 

The averages were:

 

15 hands at IMPs, average +0.51 imps (more than 0.5 less than normal avrage)

6 hands at MP, average 17.63% (only one above 50% and it was 53%).

 

This might have been perhaps the worse example of the method...

[hv=d=w&v=b&w=sakqjhajxdatcaqxx&e=stxxxxhktdkj9xxcx]266|100|Scoring: IMP

3NT all pass,

 

Amazingly, this lost only 6.5 imps with 6S great and 7S odds on. So as he said, he wasn't punished as badly as he should have been for missing a slam. But if he had opened normally he would easily have found it. [/hv]

 

Actually, I would recommend that Glen look at his success and failures and see how best it might be to utilize this bid. His big wins are not even clearly attributibable to the method.

 

A vul versus not vul opponent overcalled 4♥ on Kxx AQJxx Txxxx void and was killed with a double (win 14 imps). That one hand essetnailly accounts for ALL of the +.5 imp average. If 3NT is left to play, it is down probably 3 for not a good result, and he would have a minus imp average for these bids.

[DrTodd13]

That is not the right way to analyze this bid. It does not matter what the overall IMP average is. It only matters what the IMP average would be for the other ways of handling the hand types being rolled into 3N. By dividing hand types in certain ways I may create a system where all the hand types except one generate great results but I have to pay the price for the other hand type. To say you shouldn't use 3N could mean a complete system change that would alter all the good results you were getting with all your other opening bids. Having said that, I don't think this applies to this particular case. You're saying you can't roll 24bal hands into your pre-existing strong artificial opening...assuming you have such an opening? If the alternative to bidding 3N is passing or preempting some long suit then you have to compare what effect 3N is getting you versus the effect of eliminating those hand types from 3N would have on your other bids. In practice though, I tend to agree with Ben. It seems this is creating randomness for no particular reason.

[jtfanclub]

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.

 

How can the most important part be an 'unless'? If they don't have a special partnership understanding, then there is no 'unless'.

 

 

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.

.

.

.

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.

 

If you read Cherdano's answer, do you you understand the point of the question?

 

Of course it means more than 5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp. That might be your agreement, but with some partners they'd do it with some hands, with others it would be others. It also depends upon what seat partner is, and the vulnerability.

 

If you give an answer like Cherdano's every time, then absolutely, you have something to complain about on this 3NT opener. But when you give an answer like '5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp', then you're doing what they're doing. There's an implicit understanding, in both cases. Why is it illegal for them to play something without revealing any implicit tendencies (and we're talking tendencies here, not agreements- not one of those hands would surprise me as a 3NT opener) but it's legal for you to do so?

 

To Cherdano- it's because bid_em_up's level of explaining implicit agreements is standard here. You go above and beyond. :rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

There are two questions here: is this opening legal under the GCC? Is the disclosure practiced by the partnership using this opening adequate?

 

A couple of things on the disclosure: whether there's room for complete disclosure, or time for complete disclosure, is irrelvenat. If you are asked a question about your partnership's methods, you are required to fully and completely disclose all information arising from partnership agreement and partnership experience about the method. As the ACBL alert regulation says "Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically." IOW, they shouldn't have to ask the "right" question to find out this 3NT opening could be on 5-5 or 6-4 in the minors, and the strength range thereof. I think that the ACBL would say that "any hand that wants to play 3Nt" is not good enough. If you can't say what hand types would open with this bid (and what hand types, having an alternative in your system, would not), then you can't give the required full disclosure, and that alone would lead to an adverse ruling.

 

Glen points out that the ACBL cannot directly regulate natural opening bids. He's right about that, but it doesn't matter. This bid is not natural. (See the definition of natural NT bids in the GCC). Whether that makes it conventional can be debated, but I'm not so sure we even need to do that. The GCC prohibits playing conventions after an opening NT bid that could have less than 10 HCP. Glen plays Gerber over this 3NT. Can the bid be made on less than 10 HCP? Yes? Okay, it's an illegal agreement. Another question: why do you want to play this bid? I ask because if it comes out that the main reason is to "destroy opponents' methods" (the words of the GCC), it's again an illegal agreement.

 

But the bottom line, for me, is that even if it's legal, I don't believe your disclosure is adequate.

[DrTodd13]

If pressed, I think you'd find most people willing to say that any mixed strategy is a destructive method just because of their unfamiliarity or distaste for them. The whole destructive method thing is really a big club that the powers-that-be can use to squash anything they don't like. There are no rules for what should or should not be categorized this way which leaves the door open for a multitude of abuses.

[glen]

But the bottom line, for me, is that even if it's legal, I don't believe your disclosure is adequate.

There are four elements of disclosure:

 

1) What you type into the white box when you make the bid

2) What you type into the white box if they click on the bid after it is made

3) What you send privately to the opponents without them asking

4) What you send privately to the opponents when they ask.

 

To help me understand how you feel the disclosure is inadequate could you please do two things:

 

1) Review previous postings on what the opponents are told (when the bid is made, and when they ask), and the four steps above and indicate for each step what is not being not adequately in your opinion, and how you would prefer it be done.

 

2) Assume that the sequence 1♥-4♥ is as described in the following:

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.

How should this 4♥ bid be described in each of the four steps given above?

[fred]

If you are asked a question about your partnership's methods, you are required to fully and completely disclose all information arising from partnership agreement and partnership experience about the method.

I am sure you are right, but this is also not practical and not the way it works in real life (good thing).

 

Here is an example of why:

 

With some of my partners I play a DONT-like convention in which DBL of an opp's strong 1NT opener could be several types of hands:

 

- club one suiter

- diamond one suiter

- both majors

- a very good hand with spades

- 20+ balanced or semi-balanced

- any game forcing 1-suiter

- any game forcing 2-suiter

 

If I am asked to explain my DBL I do not provide a list like this (nor do I fully or completely disclose my experience with respect to each and every item on the list).

 

What I say is something like:

 

"Not penalty. If it goes Pass partner will probably bid 2C. I could have several types of hands. Would you like a list?".

 

In other words, I tell my opponents what I think they need to know and, if it turns out they think they need to know more, I open the does for further inquiry.

 

As far as I can tell most of my opponents seem to appreciate this sort of answer.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

How should this 4♥ bid be described in each of the four steps given above?

Glenn: There is a VERY big difference between the 4♥ raise and your 3NT opening:

 

I will readily admit that many players don't provide complete disclosure regarding the definition of a 4♥ raise, however, at least they know what their playing... I'd like to return to a direct quote that you made earlier in this discussion:

 

"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."

 

How can you hope to provide adequate disclosure when you don't understand the methods that you're playing.

 

You can't quantify your 3N opening

You can't qualify your 3N opening

You seem to be bidding on a whim.

 

I don't consider this type of behaviour appropriate. I'm all for granting broad discretion regarding choice of methods. At the same time, I think that people dragging out the weird ***** have a special obligation to be able to describe what they're playing. In your case,

 

1. You can't describe your methods

2. You and your partner appears to be playing different systems

3. If you provided the (ACBL) TDs with a complete description of your methods, they bounce the opening

 

In short, you shouldn't be playing these methods until you clean up your act

[glen]

One additional item - it is my contention, documented in the 2nd posting in this thread, that the opening is not a convention by the definitions of the bridge laws. Therefore I don’t agree with points like "illegal convention" or is the "convention" GCC legal or not, since these assume it is a convention, which it is not imo. When one starts wanting to regulate game bids that are to play, assuming they carry no special meanings, then one is going too far.

[inquiry]

I agree this is not a convention, and thus not an illegal convention. He truely desires to play 3NT and a weak partner is not pulling.

[glen]

1. You can't describe your methods

2. You and your partner appears to be playing different systems

3. If you provided the (ACBL) TDs with a complete description of your methods, they bounce the opening

1. We can describe the methods. You don't like that they don't have quantity and quality specifications that you are used to, but that does not mean the description is inadequate.

2. We play the same system. 3NT by my partner means the same thing as mine.

3. We provide descriptions when asked, and since the opening is not a convention, hopefully TDs would not bounce a non-conventional opening.

 

As to bidding on whim, this is quite true, and nothing prevents this. Also my bidding at midnight is somewhat different than my bidding at 11 am, which is different than my 6:30 pm bidding, and my bidding when there is a football game on, and my bidding when I'm typing here while playing, and my bidding when I'm BBQ'ing. However claiming that the GCC does not permit this is just silly.

[hrothgar]

2. We play the same system. 3NT by my partner means the same thing as mine.

Tell you what Glen... I'm going to go an invest some time reviewing one of the uglier areas in statistics.

 

We know that the BRBR database contains 14 examples where your partnership opened 3NT. Furthermore, we know that all 14 of these openings were made by you. 0 of the openings were made by your partner.

 

Sometime tomorrow I should be able to get Ben to provide me with one last piece of data: (I need to know the number of hands where each member of the partnership had the opportunity to open 3NT but chose some other action - Pass, 4♠, 2NT, whatever)

 

As soon as I get this, I should be able to set up a hypothesis test:

 

My Null Hypothesis will be that you and your partner are playing the same system.

 

I can then work out the odds that you were dealt 14 hands suitable for a 3NT opening while partner was dealt 0.

 

Any preferenece with respect to the significance level? 95% is pretty standard, but I'm happy to use something different...

 

This is actually going be rather annoying to test (truncated distributions can really be a bitch to work with). Still, I suspect that the results will be illuminating...

[hrothgar]

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

On a related topic, would it be possible to see the complete hands for the 14 examples? It would be interesting to see what actions partner did/did not take...

[glen]

That would not prove we are not playing the same system, but just not playing the same style, which we do not. In fact our styles are not even close, given our wide difference in experience, knowledge (she's read two bridge books, I have so many bridge books I don't know where to store them) etc. Would you suggest I change my style so it is close to her's, or do you have some magic way of getting her style to emulate mine?

 

Btw if somebody wants to, feel free to post all the responding hands to 3NT.

 

On a side note, she has taken to doubling with values and no good bid much more than I would, or even the Italians would. This continues to produce good results for us, even though I don't usually pass the double, to the point she has convinced me, by example, to double more to give partner options.

[hrothgar]

That would not prove we are not playing the same system, but just not playing the same style, which we do not.  In fact our styles are not even close, given our wide difference in experience, knowledge (she's read two bridge books, I have so many bridge books I don't know where to store them) etc.  Would you suggest I change my style so it is close to her's, or do you have some magic way of getting her style to emulate mine?

I have a VERY simple solution: Change your methods....

 

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening. Here are three off the top of my head:

 

1. A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds

2. A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major

3. A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

 

I'm all for granting very wide discretion with respect to methods. However, this assumes a certainly level of responsibility by the players.

Sadly, I don't think that you're meeting it.

 

If you're going play weird *****, you need to do it the right way.

[glen]

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening.  Here are three off the top of my head:

 

1.  A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds

2.  A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major

3.  A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

[hrothgar]

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening.  Here are three off the top of my head:

 

1.  A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds

2.  A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major

3.  A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

Fine, then use the bid to show 24-25 HCP and a balanced hand.

 

I don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap.

You make the rest of us look bad.

[glen]

I don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap. 

You make the rest of us look bad.

The rest of you are looking bad in what way? Besides saying WTF, and crap, and weird s*** and the rest of what you have said so far. I really don't think our 3NT non-conventional opening impacts what you can and can not play.

[hrothgar]

I don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap. 

You make the rest of us look bad.

The rest of you are looking bad in what way? Besides saying WTF, and crap, and weird s*** and the rest of what you have said so far.

Glen:

 

You've been on the forums for long enough to know that there is a very active debate about regulating bidding methods.

 

Some players (myself included) believe in broad descretion with respect to methods.

 

Many others believe in fair strict restrictions regarding choice of methods. These players often comment that these restrictions are necessary because they are unable to get accurate or useful information about a given bid or bidding sequence. I can point to any number of past debates where the players using something out of the ordinary have defended themselves by claiming that (for the most part) the people playing weird methods are much better at providing disclosure that the people who "just play bridge".

 

Accordingly, I get really annoyed when I feel that the folks playing something weird don't live up to their ethical responsibilities.

[DrTodd13]

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening.  Here are three off the top of my head:

 

1.  A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds

2.  A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major

3.  A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

Respectfully, you're digging a hole Glen. To say that a relative beginner would have more trouble with "any 4-level minor preempt" compared to "we can't really specify what we mean by 3N but we know we want to play it there and by the way we make this bid sometimes randomly" is really over the top. From the data I've heard so far, your relative beginner is so confused by this bid that they aren't using it! I'm sure you could teach almost any relatively new player to bid 3N on any hand they would previously have bid 4m and then teach what 4♣ pass or correct means.

[glen]

Accordingly, I get really annoyed when I feel that the folks playing something weird don't live up to their ethical responsibilities.

Okay so far, but your solution is to change methods, instead of living up to the ethical responsibilities? It would more constructive to show how the ethical responsibilities could be handled in this case.

[fred]

If you're going play weird *****, you need to do it the right way.

This I don't understand.

 

To me nothing could be less weird than 3NT meaning "I think I have a good chance of winning 9 tricks in notrump".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

To say that a relative beginner would have more trouble with "any 4-level minor preempt" compared to "we can't really specify what we mean by 3N but we know we want to play it there and by the way we make this bid sometimes randomly" is really over the top. From the data I've heard so far, your relative beginner is so confused by this bid that they aren't using it! I'm sure you could teach almost any relatively new player to bid 3N on any hand they would previously have bid 4m and then teach what 4♣ pass or correct means.

First, I don't think it is a good idea to teach 3NT as a minor preempt to inexperienced players. Second, a bid that is to play, and the responses are to play, except for Gerber, is quite simple to play. Third, I think, using the results of this thread, that we will be able to better describe this bid, both in initial white box text and subsequent reply to a query. As well we look forward to any others who can help us describe this bid properly.

 

For comparison, take a 4♥ opening white vs red in third seat by expert players. This bid is not even alerted, as it is to play. Would you like to try an attempt at describing the style used by world class players? Would you try explaining when they open 1♥, 2♥, 3♥ and 4♥ in this position?

[bid_em_up]

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.

 

How can the most important part be an 'unless'? If they don't have a special partnership understanding, then there is no 'unless'.

 

 

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.

.

.

.

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.

 

If you read Cherdano's answer, do you you understand the point of the question?

 

Of course it means more than 5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp. That might be your agreement, but with some partners they'd do it with some hands, with others it would be others. It also depends upon what seat partner is, and the vulnerability.

 

If you give an answer like Cherdano's every time, then absolutely, you have something to complain about on this 3NT opener. But when you give an answer like '5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp', then you're doing what they're doing. There's an implicit understanding, in both cases. Why is it illegal for them to play something without revealing any implicit tendencies (and we're talking tendencies here, not agreements- not one of those hands would surprise me as a 3NT opener) but it's legal for you to do so?

 

To Cherdano- it's because bid_em_up's level of explaining implicit agreements is standard here. You go above and beyond. :D

This is absolute nonsense. With my regular partners, that is the EXACT meaning. Nothing more, nothing less. It is also a better description than "can be anything" which is essentially the answer that is being given.

 

And you still evidently fail to comprehend the part that says "unless an opposing pair can be expected to reasonably comprehend".......how can you comprehend what isn't being adequetely explained????

[bid_em_up]

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening.  Here are three off the top of my head:

 

1.  A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds

2.  A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major

3.  A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

Oh, but then you claim you and her are playing the same system/methods and yet, her judgement and knowledge is supposed to be good enough to "know" when to open 3N? But she isn't advanced enough to be able to handle any of Richard's suggestions? Yeah, right.

 

No wonder the bids are all by you, and none by her......

 

Face it, the fact is you are not playing the same methods, you are just claiming that you are, I don't care how much you try to convince us otherwise. If you were playing the same methods, then she should also be opening the same hands 3N. Since she isnt ......draw your own conclusion.