[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

If I were ever asked to rule on this type of method, I'd want to have copies of your system notes

You already have a copy of our system notes in this regard:

3NT is to play, rarely pulled
Elsewhere in the notes, 4♣ is always Gerber over notrump. 4NT is always a non-forcing slam invite over notrump.

That's it.

This type of explanation would be a lot more convincing if you weren't quite so prolific in your writings about "Everything That Matters", Bidding Systems, and the like. It's obvious that you spend a lot of time thinking about this type of stuff.

Here, completely coincidentially we find a glaring hole in your work and your ability to document your systems. I don't know if you are deliberately shying away from working on studying this 3NT opening because

1. Its complicated
2. It not in your interest to do so

Either way, I find the behaviour very problematic...

I'm not worried about the fact that I might play against you some day in any kind of serious tournament. I doubt that this would ever happen. What does disturb me is that I make use of similar methods and my ability to do so could be curtailed because of the way that you are approaching this opening.

Its all fine and dandy if you want to play this type of opening. However, if you are going to do so you need to go out of your way to provide comprehensive disclosure. "I don't have enough experience with the opening to describe it" doesn't cut it with me. Your web site indicates that you're a programer. If nothing else, you should be able to build some scripts that describe your bidding system. I find this to be an excellent way to get practical experience determining boundary conditions and the like.

[kenrexford]

I'm into this thing late, so I admit to not having reviewed all replies.

I'm not liking the chances of 3NT in 1st/2nd/3rd seat with this definition.

My only concern is about 3NT is pass-out seat. This is a somewhat recognized bid, where P-P-P-3NT just says I'm trying for nine tricks, dammit. Nothing else. Anything reasonable is possible, with reasonable being quite flexible.

The sole caveat is that Opener only may pull, and his pull should be natural.

I cannot quote a rule or law or GCC provision. But, bridge as a game seems to require allowance for P-P-P-3NT as "could mean anything."

[glen]

jdonn, on Feb 26 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Yes it helps, by (potentially) showing that the bid may be illegal. And who are you to say it wouldn't help the opponents anyway. Is your argument really "we have no idea what the bid shows and our partner has no idea what to do, therefore the rules meant to protect all players do not apply to us"?

"If you win through bridge lawyering ... and the like, your accomplishment is to me quite unimpressive."

- Zia Mahmood

You continue to mention "illegal" and "bridge lawyering" but don't advance anything to back this up, so I can't debate this with you. As to "who are you to say", I posed it as a question not as a statement, so feel free to answer the question, and feel free to offer up a better description of the bid.

If anything, finding "3NT to play"a problem is bridge lawyering at its worse, imposing yet again system, structure, and regulation where the Laws allow one to make a bid one hopes to make, as long as the partner knows the very same information as the opponents do.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

Its all fine and dandy if you want to play this type of opening.

Okay, so we're fine there.

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

However, if you are going to do so you need to go out of your way to provide comprehensive disclosure.  "I don't have enough experience with the opening to describe it" doesn't cut it with me.  Your web site indicates that you're a programer.  If nothing else, you should be able to build some scripts that describe your bidding system.  I find this to be an excellent way to get practical experience determining boundary conditions and the like.

As I noted above, I would like suggestions on how to better describe the bid, for those who feel that better disclosure can be provided.

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

This type of explanation would be a lot more convincing if you weren't quite so prolific in your writings about "Everything That Matters", Bidding Systems, and the like.  It's obvious that you spend a lot of time thinking about this type of stuff. 

Here, completely coincidentially we find a glaring hole in your work and your ability to document your systems.  I don't know if you are deliberately shying away from working on studying this 3NT opening because

1.  Its complicated
2.  It not in your interest to do so

Either way, I find the behaviour very problematic...

Acutally there is a 3., so its not just "either way". The 3NT to play is with my wife, who is not a programmer, or systems person, and has read just two bridge books in her life (nor intends to read any more), and does not read bridge magazines, or any bridge web site, or any of my system notes, so our brief notes, sadly, have to be kept short and simple. So our agreement is just 3NT is to play. There is no complicated part to this.

[inquiry]

I had actually thought you guys were being much too harsh on Glenn. After all, the bridge world describes a natural bid as...

(1) (of a call) indicating a desire to play in the named (or, if not a bid, in the last-named) strain without offering information relevant to a specific different strain;

Since Glen told us that 3NT was to play, and while can be a variety of hands, partner rarely pulls. I suspect the venom aimed at Glenn deals with the second half of the description and your believe that his 3NT opening bid does in fact offer some imformation related to the a specific different strain that the opponents are not privy too. But since the contract is rarely pulled, I would in general see not problem with it as concern by the ACBL rules.

However, in this case his partners hand was interest... his partner held

Bidding with no opponent bidding

3NT-4S
all psss

---

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).

So while I agree in principle with Glenn's view concerning alerts and disclosure, I think some serious explaining on what partner can expect is necessary if partner can bid only 4♠ with this hand. 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.

[glen]

inquiry, on Feb 26 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

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♠.

inquiry, on Feb 26 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

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

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 26 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

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

---

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]

fred, on Feb 26 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

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]

inquiry, on Feb 26 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

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

---

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]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 07:20 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 26 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

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]

fred, on Feb 26 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

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]

inquiry, on Feb 26 2007, 02:32 PM, said:

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]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 07:32 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 26 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

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]

fred, on Feb 26 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

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]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 26 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

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

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

1

---

[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?