[fred]

mikeh, on Mar 1 2007, 01:35 AM, said:

I think I may have met Glen once, and we did email a few years ago on a topic where he was very helpful, and I have read some of his articles, so my take on Glen is that he is intelligent, and ethical.

I have met and played against Glen several times and we have also exchanged quite a bit of e-mail over the years. You are correct - he is certainly highly intelligent. I don't recall ever seeing him do anything that I would consider even remotely unethical and I consider the sentiment he expresses repeatedly in this thread (ie that he genuinely cares about giving the opponents the information they deserve) to be further indication that he is one of the good guys.

I have more personal experience with Mike. Not only have we played against each other numerous times, I have also had the pleasure of being Mike's teammate in 2 World Championship Events. Mike one of Canada's leading players and he is also the sort of player who I would call an excellent "bridge thinker" (regular readers of Forums will know this already).

So I can genuinely add "with all due respect" to my claim that I think Mike's notion that Glen's 3NT should be pre-alerted is COMPLETELY off base

Here are some reasons:

- In general I don't think you are supposed to pre-alert anything unless the sponsoring organization tells you to do so.
- As far as I can tell, by definition anything allowed on the GCC does not require a pre-alert.
- In particular, using 3NT as a 4-level minor suit preempt (GCC-legal) or as a way to describe a hand with a long solid suit (also GCC-legal) do not require pre-alerts. To me the suggestion that an artificial 3NT opening does not require a pre-alert while a natural 3NT opening does to be completely bizarre.
- Defending against Glen's 3NT opening with no advanced discussion is trivial. Using a completely natural defense may not be optimal (and it may be), but it will work just fine. Probably only a very small % of partnerships who regularly play in GCC events have ever discussed defenses to things like "gambling 3NT" or "3NT=4-level preempt". These are not the sort of opponents who will be inclined to come up with an artificial and effective defense to Glen's 3NT opening at the table. In the unlikely event that some of Glen's opponents even try to do this, I think it is more likely they will be hurting themselves (by agreeing on something that is theoreticall unsound due to lack of time for proper thought/discussion or to have a misunderstanding as to what exactly they have agreed to).
- It is not appropriate to waste the opponents' time and make them worry about a bid that is unlikely to come up and is easy to defend against. Not that I would expect most of our ACBL regulars to get worried by such a pre-alert - most would just ignore it (and a few enlightened ones might correctly think "how silly").

I think brianshark was exactly right when he said:

Quote

Right, after reading the thread and all the arguments, I'm very much of the opinion that this bid is about as legal as can be. It's just a punt. Just an educated guess as to a reasonable final contract having decided against the scientific way of investigating. It's almost an anti-convention, which in this day of scientific bidding, complex and specific treatments and regulation is somewhat of a black sheep, but there's nothing wrong with that.

But I would go even further and assert that the fact that we are even discussing this is a great illustration of just how messed up our game has become. Artificiality in bidding has become so widespread that (some) people, even some very good players, think they need advanced warning and protection against a natural bid. Meanwhile, the number of artificial bids that you run across on a regular basis continues to multiply. Very few people seem to worry about that.

Not sure if it was CSNY or Joni Mitchell who deserves credit for this saying this:

It's time to get ourselves back to the garden.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pbleighton]

"As far as I can tell, by definition anything allowed on the GCC does not require a pre-alert."

Not so. From the ACBL Alert procedures:

"Pre-Alerts are given before the auction period begins on the first board of a round. Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. (See Part III.) Additionally, a pre-Alert is required when playing methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart or SuperChart in an event conducted using that chart. Pre-Alerts are given aloud by saying what the systems or methods are."

and

"PART III: PRE-ALERTS

Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the first board of a round or match.

1) "TWO-SYSTEM" METHODS

Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing-club system not vulnerable and "two over one" vulnerable.

Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods still require normal Announcements (notrump ranges; transfers) or Alerts (forcing Stayman over some notrump ranges) when appropriate.

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods.

2) SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE METHODS

If it is your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits, and/or overcalls with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the opponents must be pre-Alerted.

3) SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS

Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 .

When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canapé system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents."

Peter

[inquiry]

fred, on Mar 1 2007, 10:51 AM, said:

Not sure if it was CSNY or Joni Mitchell who deserves credit for this saying this:

It's time to get ourselves back to the garden.

Fred, you old hippie you... it was Joni Mitchell I think. Song entitled (I think) woodstock. By the time we got to Woodstock, and the actual line as I recall is...

"We are stardust, we’re golden
And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden"

And we have a new comeback contestant....

Quote

Artificiality in bidding has become so widespread that (some) people, even some very good players, think they need advanced warning and protection against a natural bid.

This is a good one, and I now agree, and retract my sugggested minor warning posted earler. The real purpose of this reply is to change my vote if Glen is keeping score.

[fred]

pbleighton, on Mar 1 2007, 04:13 PM, said:

"As far as I can tell, by definition anything allowed on the GCC does not require a pre-alert."

Not so. From the ACBL Alert procedures:

"Pre-Alerts are given before the auction period begins on the first board of a round. Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. (See Part III.) Additionally, a pre-Alert is required when playing methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart or SuperChart in an event conducted using that chart. Pre-Alerts are given aloud by saying what the systems or methods are."

I read the same thing, but came to a different conclusion.

GCC is by definition not Mid-Chart or Super-Chart.

And I don't think the provisions of Part III cover this case. Glen's 3NT opening is not a "system".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pbleighton]

"I read the same thing, but came to a different conclusion.

GCC is by definition not Mid-Chart or Super-Chart.

And I don't think the provisions of Part III cover this case. Glen's 3NT opening is not a "system"."

You don't think opening 3NT to play with a variety of hands is as unusual as regularly opening 1S in the first two seats on AJ10xx-x-KQxx-xxx?

Peter

[fred]

pbleighton, on Mar 1 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

"I read the same thing, but came to a different conclusion.

GCC is by definition not Mid-Chart or Super-Chart.

And I don't think the provisions of Part III cover this case. Glen's 3NT opening is not a "system"."

You don't think opening 3NT to play with a variety of hands is as unusual as regularly opening 1S in the first two seats on AJ10xx-x-KQxx-xxx?

Peter

That is not the issue.

Part III refers to systems, not specific bids within a system.

The blurb covering mid-chart/super-chart refers to specific bids within a system.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

I agree with fred's interpretation. In addition, this bid has occurred 22 times out of 6080 deals. ON bbo 12 board tourneys, that meand this bid shows up, on average, once every 20 tournaments, and figureing you play two hands per opponent, it means once less than once per every 100 opponent pairs (two board sets). This can not be frequent enough to worry the opponents over with a prealert that they will ignore.

You could double those numbers if Glen's wife also started using this bid, and it would still be a very low frequency.

[DrTodd13]

On BBO, I'm not even sure I would pre-alert but when the bid comes up I would alert and offer one of the suggested definitions of the bid described in this thread. Then I would send a message to opps saying that I know they may be unfamiliar with this treatment and offer to let them discuss a defense now in the open.

Can someone tell me a precise definition of how much one has to change a system before it becomes a different system? You are going to have to say either 1) any change makes the old system into a new system or 2) you are going to have pull a number out of your ass and/or talk about "how big" the change is. Personally, I like the former definition because there is essentially no way to quantify how big some change is or to agree on how many changes of what magnitude constitute a system change. If we change to an unfamiliar system now we have to pre-alert. So for me personally, I don't buy this convention versus system discussion. If you are using an opening bid that is very unfamiliar to opponents then I think you should pre-alert it even if it is in the context an otherwise unremarkable system. Moreover, in this case, it seems that the definition of 3N does change depending on seat and vulnerability which I think qualifies it for a system pre-alert. Finally, at this point, I would forbid them from using this system in the ACBL because of the two-system rule. "Pass" is not some special call that grants magical powers. In this system, pass has one meaning for Glen and one for his partner. Her passes are equal to Glen's passes + all the weak hands Glen is opening 3N. To me, they are not playing the same system because they have a different mapping of hands onto the available calls.

[mhais]

if the agreement betweeen partners is ascertained that opening 3nt is 1 running minor then 3nt opening is conventional otherwise it is natural to play.

[fred]

DrTodd13, on Mar 1 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

Moreover, in this case, it seems that the definition of 3N does change depending on seat and vulnerability which I think qualifies it for a system pre-alert.

You mean just like most openings bids in most systems?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[DrTodd13]

fred, on Mar 1 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Mar 1 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

Moreover, in this case, it seems that the definition of 3N does change depending on seat and vulnerability which I think qualifies it for a system pre-alert.

You mean just like most openings bids in most systems?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It is all a matter of degree again isn't it? The rules seem to indicate that if the difference is a matter of a few points but keeping the same hand shapes then it doesn't require a pre-alert. For 3N though, the point difference seems to be larger and some hand types are present in one variety but not in another. It is a judgement call but for me this is sufficient to qualify for inclusion in the stated rule.

[awm]

How about the following 3NT opening agreement:

An opening 3NT shows any of the following hand types:

(1) A strong balanced hand, 22+ hcp.
(2) A good hand (say 17-20) with a strong six-card or longer suit.
(3) A "good" three-level preempt in either minor, typically a broken 7-card suit and a couple side cards.

While meanings (1) and (2) are perhaps similar in spirit, meaning (3) seems pretty different. Is anyone really suggesting that the above "three-way" 3NT opening is not conventional, and that saying "it's to play" would be sufficient disclosure? It seems like basically 3NT is either a strong balanced/semi-balanced hand or something pretty close to a preempt. But looking at the hands Glen opens 3NT, it seems like this is pretty much the meaning of the bid! Certainly there are several hands that look very much like a 3m preempt plus an extra card or two outside the suit. I don't think most people will expect this hand type in the description "to play" and there is also the potential to talk people out of game their way by opening what "looks like" a strong bid on a pretty weak shapely hand (and it's not a psych). Including this hand type probably does give the SO regulatory powers, and I suspect the ACBL would not want such a bid on the general chart.

Adding some high card point requirement such that 3NT is really a strong bid, and similarly restricting it to hands where you expect "3NT will often make" rather than just "3NT undoubled will often be a good result" should remove all of these issues.

[blackshoe]

There are 3 provisions in part III of the alert procedure:

1. "Two-system" methods are GCC legal (assuming everything in each system is GCC legal). Doesn't apply to this opening, of course.

2. "Systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods". This single opening bid of 3NT is not a system, true. One might make a case it is a highly aggressive method, though.

3. "Systems that may be fundamentally unfamiliar to opponents". Again, this 3NT opening is not a system - but it is part of one. One might consider pre-alerting the bid in the spirit of full disclosure. I don't think this part of the regulation requires it.

On the subject of case 3, a few years ago, I tried Romex at a local club with my then regular partner (we had tried other systems; he liked Schenken. ) When one of the better players complained about our artificial and forcing 1NT opening (completely GCC legal) because "other players" might have a problem with it (she, of course, being good enough to have no problem with it) the TD unilaterally banned the bid. Another TD told me we could play it at his club, provided we treated it as a Mid-Chart convention, pre-alerted, and provided a written defense. While I recoqnize that clubs can make whatever convention regulations they like, I think this was a bit overboard. We were going to protest at the first club, where the TD was an employee, and at the suggestion of a member of the club's BoD, but my partner had a stroke shortly after this, and died a few months later. I should note that we prealerted that we were playing Romex, and that our 1NT was not natural.

It is true that the number of artificial bids in bridge continues to grow. I don't think going back to the garden of purely natural bidding will solve anything though. Our game has a limited vocabulary. If you restrict the meanings in that limited vocabulary to only natural ones, there will be many many hands that cannot be accurately described. Conventions (good ones, anyway) help increase accuracy by increasing the possible meanings in our vocabulary. The trick is to stick with the good ones, and toss the bad ones. Trouble is, you can't (usually) know which is which just by reading about it in a book or magazine.

[glen]

awm, on Mar 1 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

that saying "it's to play" would be sufficient disclosure? ... I don't think most people will expect this hand type in the description "to play"

Once more the description typed into the white box is never just "to play", so please edit your post to reflect the initial description given, and you could even mention what the opponents are told when they ask.

I've been debating adding "please please ask" to the initial white box description, but this is partly in self-interest. Yet another reason this bid is not working that well is skip bid tempo problems. After the 3NT opening, some opponents with a clear action have taken it quickly, while some other opponents with close hands have considered their choices and the information made available. So "please please ask" might assist me here, while helping the opponents to know to ask.

As to your hand types, consider one of the last two hand types I opened was a 5-3-3-2 18 count, so where does that one fit in?

Finally, if I won the lottery and hired 10 of the world's top players to play with me, I would be playing a different style than any of them, even though our cc would be marked the same. So, if you are one of these two-system folks, please indicate how marked differences in style and judgement become differences in system? What if I played with Zia - is that even legal in your judgement?

[fred]

blackshoe, on Mar 1 2007, 10:58 PM, said:

It is true that the number of artificial bids in bridge continues to grow. I don't think going back to the garden of purely natural bidding will solve anything though. Our game has a limited vocabulary. If you restrict the meanings in that limited vocabulary to only natural ones, there will be many many hands that cannot be accurately described. Conventions (good ones, anyway) help increase accuracy by increasing the possible meanings in our vocabulary. The trick is to stick with the good ones, and toss the bad ones. Trouble is, you can't (usually) know which is which just by reading about it in a book or magazine.

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.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Mar 2 2007, 03:10 AM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Mar 1 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Mar 2 2007, 12:58 AM, said:

fred, on Mar 2 2007, 03:10 AM, said:

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]

officeglen, on Mar 2 2007, 04:08 AM, said:

\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]

officeglen, on Feb 28 2007, 01:17 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

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.