[gwnn]

I guess this 3NT opener would work wonders in 3/4 seat, of course partner having an absolute obligation to pass throughout. Otherwise, it's got highly dubious merits for a system.

It's basically the same bid as raising a preempt or raising a limited opener or some such. How do you explain 2♥-p-4♥? I mean, other than "to play, partner HAS TO PASS"? Or even better, 2♥-p-3NT? Or (2♥)-3NT? All three are very wide-ranging and hard to define. Especially the latter two, about the first you can at least assume a 2-6 card fit.

[inquiry]

officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 03:20 AM, said:

Btw the limits would be that 3NT always promises playing value, while denying fewer than 15 HCP and not 24+ HCP.

I am not sure if you are suggesting you should change the limits to this, or if you are saying this is the limits.

My recollection is that of the hands posted, you opened with 11 hcp twice, 12 hcp twice, and 14 once, so limit of 15+ is wrong. You said earlier you could have 27 hcp, i did find one with 25 hcp.

Perhaps the most interesting hand to me was the balanced 18 hcp fourth chair you opened 3NT on. I am sure you have held a lot of balanced 18 hcp and did not open 3NT (I could actually check and find out, but out of 6080 there had to be quite a few). This was fourth seat, and I think it was "just bidding what i think we will get too anyway" bid. The alternative was 1m-1x-2NT or 1m-1NT and have partner play it with lead through the strong hand.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Feb 27 2007, 03:47 AM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 27 2007, 04:42 AM, said:

Here are the hands though Jan 1 2007 ...

I am intrigued.

I went to the BrBr catalogue site here
http://www.microtopi.../orderform.html
and here
http://www.microtopi.../pricelist.html

with half a view to taking the plunge (no small amount of trepidation)

and the catalog stops at hands played up to December 2004. Where do you get the subsequent ones?

I use bridgebrowser online, which has all the datasets, including recent ones. It is not always upto date. Currently the data stops at the end of December 2006. There is also several month gap in the BBO data during early 2006. The datasets remain broken into "small" segments of from 3 million to 8 million "hands" (one older database is 23 million, second largest is 16 million, others in the range i mentioned). The October 2006 through December 2006 database is over 7 million hands in the main room and 3.7 million hand in the tournament/team game room (not unique deals, each main room deal has 16 plays, so divide the 7+ million by 16 to see how many unique deals there, etc).

To get Glen's data listed above i searched 6 bbo databases. I only searched the tournament databases (team and tournaments are seperate from main room) because Glenn appears to play almost exclusively in tourneys. I llimited searches to the partnership of glenn and karena, so other hands by glen with other opponents were ignored. I then simpy let the software fish out the (what was it) 21 hands where Glen of his partner opened 3NT....turns out it was always glen.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Feb 27 2007, 08:01 AM, said:

There is, iirc, at least one jurisdiction (the English Bridge Union) in which "random bids" are deemed illegal. I'm pretty sure this 3NT opening would be ruled as a random bid in that jurisdiction, and hence illegal. Doesn't make it illegal in the ACBL of course, but..

I believe that the EBU dropped this regulation a while back.

David Stevenson made a post on rec.games.bridge back in 2005 requesting help improving the wording of EBU regulation prohibiting random bids. In particularly, he was trying to come up with a good working definition for the word "random" This lead to a rather long discussion which included a number of familiar faces and themes.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...baf24d338db3e1c

As I recall, the end result was that the EBU decided to drop the prohibition.

[glen]

inquiry, on Feb 27 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

I am not sure if you are suggesting  you should change the limits to this, or if you are saying this is the limits.

I'm saying change the bid so that it has limits - thus it would be announced as to play, 15 to 23, can be a variety, some weird - then if the bid is asked about the more lengthy description. I'm wondering if the limits would make it a convention, but I don't believe so.

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Feb 27 2007, 02:29 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 27 2007, 08:01 AM, said:

There is, iirc, at least one jurisdiction (the English Bridge Union) in which "random bids" are deemed illegal. I'm pretty sure this 3NT opening would be ruled as a random bid in that jurisdiction, and hence illegal. Doesn't make it illegal in the ACBL of course, but..

I believe that the EBU dropped this regulation a while back.

Indeed, it was replaced by

OB 2006, on section 10 A 6, said:

The ban on ‘random’ calls included in the previous Orange Book has been abandoned. However, players adopting an agreement to make calls which have no specified meaning (‘random’ calls) are under an obligation to take great care over disclosure, particularly of negative inferences, and such players will be ruled against unless a TD is completely satisfied that the agreements have been fully disclosed.

This would be very relevant to the case in this thread.

[inquiry]

This was hardly a "random bid". One can see the type of hands Glen opens 3NT on. And this was an ACBL event, so european rules are not at question, this was an ACBL specific question (I think).

The problems are, can Glen describe his agreement adequately? The answer is probably yes. A related question is are the two partners playing the same system? Bridge Law 40E gives the sponsoring organization the right to require both partners to play the same system, which the ACBL exercises... staying, "Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card."

While the evidence appears that Glen opens 3NT on these odd hands, his partner does not. But Law 40E does state that the sponsoring organization (if they exercise this right) must make sure that "such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method". Glen argues, probably correctly, that he is more atune to when to make this 3NT bid than his partner. That is, he is much, much freer with this bid than his partner. And if his partner started biddign this way, at the very least, that would solve this issue of legality, and that is what is being discussed, is the BID legal by ACBL rules. I think it has to be.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Feb 26 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 26 2007, 09:34 PM, said:

OK, here's a hand, less than 8 hcp, 5+ hearts.  Match points

J5 Q9765 T86 975

If you were vul. vs. not, and the bidding had gone:
(P) 1♥ (P) ?

Would you bid 4♥?

But the only case when you would have actually made the bid is not vul vs. vul and then the description of "5+ trump, less than 8 hcp" is adequate. All other hands would pass, making your attempted point irrelevant.

I am not questioning the fact that it's an "honest" bid. But given the fact that Glen does it, and his partner doesn't, combined with a lack of adequately being able to describe the bid.......

And the majority of the hands appear to fall into a category of "Usually around 18 hcp, and a solid/semi-solid 6+ card suit but may vary". I could live with this as a description...... however, the onus isn't on me to "know" what the bid means. It's on the opposing pair to provide adequate information regarding their bids. At the table, I dont have the luxury of seeing the 14-20 hands they have opened 3N with in the past. His partner has.

Well here's where the issue is...

Say I open 1♥ vulnerable against not, and partner bids 4♥.

If I say that the bid shows less than 8 hcp, and 5+ hearts, but I know that in fact he won't have a balanced 3 count, then I have lied to my opponents. Well, I haven't lied. I've just omitted my partner's tendency. An actual Full Disclosure explanation would include all of the hands my partner will not have within that range. On the other hand, my opponents have played bridge before, so if they guess what hands my partner are excluded due to vulnerability and seat position they're not going to be that far off.

The first question for Office is...is his explanation sufficient, and I thought the answer was yes- the information given was sufficient with the usual bridge knowledge to get a good picture of his hand. The second question was, is it legal, and I thought the answer was yes.

Now I'm not so sure. In several cases, after 3NT-(P)-P-(X), he ran, without giving his partner a chance to pull or leave. This implies to me that the 3NT was not to play, but an interference bid, and that is not legal. For example, an excellent system is 2♦ opener as a weak pre-empt in any suit when NV. Partner is expected to pass with any less than opening count, even if he's short in diamonds. Even if you go down 8, it's a good board. This is absolutely banned by the ACBL- it's not even allowed in Midchart. It might not be allowed in Superchart, I'm not sure.

That auction bothers me, and I'm no longer sure that I'd allow the opening. It doesn't seem to be what I thought it was.

[Gerben42]

There are two issues here.

1. First let me say that there is no such thing called a psychic control. Either it is a psyche, or you have an agreement to take care of specific bids in an agreed way. What is MEANT by psychic control is having two meanings of a bid:

* The one you tell the opps (legal in your jurisdiction).
* The REAL meaning (which you cannot tell because it would be not allowed).

and bids that expose the real meaning are the psychic controls.

Joey & Fred's strategy to bid 1N - 2♥ on hands without ♥ are perfectly legal in many jurisdictions if disclosed properly, as is for example a strong 2♣ that could also be a weak ♦ hand (just tell the opps and be done with it).

2. The "problem" that Glen's bidding style concerning opening 3NT is radically different from his partner's. With the kind of hands shown here most people, including Glen's partner, would simply bid their longest suit. Every pair has asymmetries but they are usually not that extreme, see the recent Bridge World MSC where with 18 HCP, 3-card support and just ♥Jx after 1♦ - 1♠:

One player of Berkowitz - Cohen bids 2NT.
The other player of Berkowitz - Cohen bids 2♣.

and both would do this again, and know from experience that partner would not.

This is a murky judgement business that needs to be adressed but cannot really be avoided.

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Feb 27 2007, 10:22 AM, said:

Well here's where the issue is...

Say I open 1♥ vulnerable against not, and partner bids 4♥.

If I say that the bid shows less than 8 hcp, and 5+ hearts, but I know that in fact he won't have a balanced 3 count, then I have lied to my opponents.  Well, I haven't lied.  I've just omitted my partner's tendency.  An actual Full Disclosure explanation would include all of the hands my partner will not have within that range.  On the  other hand, my opponents have played bridge before, so if they guess what hands my partner are excluded due to vulnerability and seat position they're not going to be that far off.

Close, but not quite. Its practically impossible to give " An actual Full Disclosure explanation would include all of the hands my partner will not have within that range" as you suggest in a non-f2f environment. I suppose a more accurate description would be "5+ trump, less than 8 hcp, usually will contain shortness somewhere". As an opponent, you now have a reasonable description of what to expect in partners hand, do you not? (As you stipulate, you have played bridge before and you're not going to be that far off in what you see in dummy).

Now, change the example slightly, to 1H (X) 4H or leave it at 1H-4H. Now lets say rather than having 5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp, and shortness somewhere, partner starts bidding 4H on xx AQxx KQxxxx x (or similar). Let him do this 20 times over a two month period, along with 20 of the other "normal" types of 4H bids. Now I have an idea that anytime partner bids 4H, he may now be holding this sort of hand....even though we have no official agreement to play it this way. I must begin including these hand types in my disclosure, agreed?

Now, Glen's partner has seen 22 (by my count) hands where he has opened 3N. Of these, some 19 or 20 of them have a 6+ card suit (usually a minor) and in most cases, its either solid or semi-solid (in 2 cases, the suit was weakish, imo). But in at least two other cases, it was a balanced 24-25 count. Are the opponents not entitled to this information @ the table?

I see only one auction where Glen ran after a double. Although why he ran on this hand, and not some of the others, I guess only he knows. If he always ran after a double, then it might become an issue, it would tip partner off whether or not to sit in the case of 3N p p X ?. If he passes, he is fully expecting to make and then it might become an issue.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Feb 27 2007, 04:30 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 27 2007, 12:55 AM, said:

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

Here's the problem:

The bid has meanings other than "I think that we have a good chance of winning 9 tricks in Notrump".

I'm going to make a simplifying assumption and assume that we're only look a single well defined condition. For example, we might limit the discussion to 3NT opening in third seat when we are white and they are red. The specific choice of seat and vulnerabilities doesn't really matter much. For all I know, it might be appropriate to consider some combination of bids. (it might make sense to consider 1st and second seat openings in the same way)

If Glen's 3NT opening simply means "I think that we have a good chance of winning 9 tricks in Notrump" then we should be able to use basic mathematical concepts like continuity to characterize the opening. If Glen choses to make a 3NT opening with a one hand holding a 6 card club suit and 13 HCPs, then he should also chose to make a 3NT opening with other similar hands. If we take a more extreme position, we might argue that various 3NT openings that Glen makes can be used to define the boundaries of what types of hands are appropriate for a 3NT opening an that all hands contained within these boundaries should also be opened 3NT.

I don't believe this to be true. I don't have access to the BRBR database, however, we do know that Glenn has played a lot of hands of bridge. Hands like

♠ A
♥ J5
♦ K85
♣ K975432

Aren't particular uncommon. What makes this 1=2=3=7 12 count suitable for a 3NT opening but not any one of a number of other similar hands? When we consider

1. The number of hands played
2. The gross disparity between different hand types
3. The low frequency of the 3NT opening

It seems clear that 3NT carries other meanings than "I think I have a good chance of winning 9 tricks in notrump". Indeed, the extremely low frequency of this bid suggests that these additional qualifications are much more significant that the alleged definition.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Feb 27 2007, 11:18 AM, said:

I see only one auction where Glen ran after a double. Although why he ran on this hand, and not some of the others, I guess only he knows.

You're right, he ran with...

♠ 82
♥ A
♦ AQT8754
♣ QT4

but not with

♠ KT6
♥ K6
♦ Q
♣ KJ98754

both with 7 card suits, 12 hcp, one wide open suit, NV. If he had never run, I'd say it's safe that this is not an interference or 'fake' bid. The one exception is just odd.

Quote

Close, but not quite. Its practically impossible to give " An actual Full Disclosure explanation would include all of the hands my partner will not have within that range" as you suggest in a non-f2f environment.

Well yes, just as it would be impossible to describe every hand partner will have (or not have) for the 3NT opener. What if he were to describe it as 'to play, most likely either 24+ balanced (18+ across a passed hand) or 12+ with a 7 card minor and at least half stopper in at least two other suits'? Would that be more satisfactory?

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Feb 27 2007, 10:22 AM, said:

The first question for Office is...is his explanation sufficient, and I thought the answer was yes- the information given was sufficient with the usual bridge knowledge to get a good picture of his hand.  The second question was, is it legal, and I thought the answer was yes, it was.

Lets seperate this into two seperate issues. Is the bid legal? Yes, I think under the guidelines of the GCC it is "technically" legal. Ok, we agree on that.

The other issue is, is adequate disclosure being given for opponents to have a reasonable idea of what hand types it may contain. I don't think so. Not when it can contain anything from a bad 12 count with a ratty 7 card suit, to a solid balanced 25 count.

Currently out of the 22 hands listed, 19 of them had a 6 or 7 card suit. In most all of those cases, it is a minor suit (I know you had 6 hearts headed by the AK on one hand, there might have been another, but in most cases, its a minor). Are the opponents entitled to this information? I think so. You know it, your partner has to at least be aware of this fact. Certainly the opponents are entitled to know it as well.

One other time it had a 5 card minor suit head by the AKQ10 (making almost equivalent to a 6 card suit). Never once did you do it with the spade suit. Would you? If not, then maybe this is part of your disclosure.

Then, in two other cases, it was a balanced 24/25 count. Are the opponents not entitled to know that this may be one of the hand types as well? Of course, they are.

In several cases (at least 8 of the 22, that I counted), the hand was in the 15-18 hcp range, but contained a stiff A or K as part of those values. You know your tendency to do this. So does your partner. Shouldn't the opponents be entitled to this information as well?

My suggestion is to put in the alert box "See chat area for alert info". Create a text document one time with the alert info (or write a script to do it automatically), copy it, then paste it in the chat area and send to both opponents. It could say something to the effect of:

"Usually 15-21 hcp, normally contains a 6+ card solid/semi-solid suit (can be either a minor suit or hearts but not spades), may contain a stiff A or K as part of its values; it may also be a balanced 19-25 in 3rd/4th seat, or 25+ in any position; it may also contain any other hand we think will have a reasonable play for 3N opposite a random 6 count in partners hand".

Note: this is just a suggestion based upon the hands presented. It may or may not meet the criteria/judgement you use when making the bid.

Given a description of this nature, I have no problem with the legality of the bid itself or the disclosure provided. At least then, I would have some idea as to what to possibly expect in your hand.

I would suggest you take a closer look at the hands you're doing it on however, and tightening the bid up some (you imply that you are in the process of doing so already). Of the 22 hands, I see at least 3 missed slams. A couple of hands where 5 minor is cold, but 3N should be off on any normal defense and several more where you should be going for big numbers versus decent opponents when they have nothing.

This is why I stated earlier that I cannot imagine the bid being very effective. For every once that it works, it appears that it should be failing at least twice (I state this based upon a cursory look at each hand, possible contracts, normal defense, etc., but I could easily be wrong). If it is currently being more successful than that, it is either because a) the opponents are weak, or b ) they haven't been provided enough information to make a reasonable bridge judgement vs. the bid. Of course, thats just my own opinion.....

I don't like those odds. Maybe you do. To each their own.

[hotShot]

After seeing the sample hands, i would say:

Quote

3NT shows a hand willing to play 3NT, with 3-6(7 non.vul) loser usually (but not necessarily) unbalanced or semibalanced. If the hand contains long suits, it might have less HCP.

[mike777]

hotShot, on Feb 27 2007, 12:24 PM, said:

After seeing the sample hands, i would say:

Quote

3NT shows a hand with 3-6(7 non.vul) loser usually (but not necessarily) unbalanced or semibalanced. If the hand contains long suits, it might have less HCP.

great and what does a "loser" mean. There are several definitions.
Please give me 15 minutes to pull out my dictionary before I bid.
1) Is this bid GCC or midchart legal?
2) Are the opp playing the same system if over a year one bids it 21 times and the other never?
3) Is there a full and complete explanation?
4) Are other laws in play?

[DrTodd13]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 26 2007, 08:22 PM, said:

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?

If we are having a big thread trying to figure out how to explain something, then it certainly is not easier than "8 cards in clubs or diamonds with 5-9 points." Whether a beginner should play this or not is a different matter but at least stating the meaning of the bid is certainly easier than what you currently use. If you roll multiple hand types into one bid, my opinion is that it should be alerted. I am on the fence of calling it natural.

To answer your question, if someone asks about their style they owe them an answer. They have worked long and hard to gain the experience to know when to bid 1, 2, 3, or 4 in this situation and why should they just hand over the information, right? I have sympathy for this point but disclosure seems to overrule it. I don't care if the explanation is long and convoluted. I think the explanation is owed and that the answer of "I don't have to educate you" or "general bridge knowledge" is not sufficient.

[inquiry]

On line, he can just provide a hyperlink to the post with the 22 hands...

But I will disagree with Todd. 3NT is "to play", thus it has to be natural. I see no qualms with that. Imagine an auction that goes...

Pass-Pass-4♠...

If you as the 4♠ what that shows (or his parnter), the best answer, no doubt is to play. He might have Jxxxxxxx xx xx x or as I saw in the cayne match last night, something like AKQTxxxx xx AQT --

I don't know if, "to play, can be weak or very strongish" is any better.

[hotShot]

mike777, on Feb 27 2007, 07:26 PM, said:

hotShot, on Feb 27 2007, 12:24 PM, said:

After seeing the sample hands, i would say:

Quote

3NT shows a hand with 3-6(7 non.vul) loser usually (but not necessarily) unbalanced or semibalanced. If the hand contains long suits, it might have less HCP.

great and what does a "loser" mean. There are several definitions.
Please give me 15 minutes to pull out my dictionary before I bid.
1) Is this bid GCC or midchart legal?
2) Are the opp playing the same system if over a year one bids it 21 times and the other never?
3) Is there a full and complete explanation?
4) Are other laws in play?

I think you are familiar with LTC?

1) I don't care, but that would be full disclosure.

2) As long as partners 3NT bid does not have a different meaning, i think it's legal.

3) Yes there is, i posted one.

4) No, LAWS are not involved just *regulations* from a SO.

[DrTodd13]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 02:53 AM, said:

It was supported by your own post, which I was obviously paraphrasing. Or need I remind you "If you can't understand a non-conventional, to play, game bid, what new stuff are you going to try to relate to in the future, besides what you feel comfortable with?" That sounds to me like disbelief that anyone could have the gall to want to know what hands make a certain bid when it seems so obvious to you that knowing the contract the bidder likes most (before having any information outside his own hand) is sufficient.

While it might sound to you "like disbelief that anyone could have the gall to want to know", it was intended to to focus on the negativity that you and a few others offered up against a non-conventional bid.

I certainly don't have anything against unusual systems or conventions. For goodness sake, I play a forcing pass system almost everyday on BBO. There have been few comments about how people don't like this opening from the standpoint of its likelihood of success. I am not getting the impression that people want to stop you from using it so long as you disclose it properly. Therein lies the rub, most don't seem to believe that you are disclosing properly. Opposite a passed hand pd, non-vul, I may want to bid 3N with a classic 4m hand planning on running if/when I get doubled. If you think about it long enough you can conclude that this sort of hand does want to play 3N but I think most people hearing the explanation "I want to play 3N" will believe that you have at least some hope to make it. I don't care if the bid has 3 different meanings, 2 of which have hope of making and the third where you know you won't make it but this must be disclosed.

[DrTodd13]

inquiry, on Feb 27 2007, 09:32 AM, said:

But I will disagree with Todd. 3NT is "to play", thus it has to be natural. I see no qualms with that.

Call it natural if you wish so long as you call it conventional also and therefore give SOs the right to regulate it. Mind you, I would regulate it because I'm an anarchist but I do being in alerting and proper disclosure which I think both should be done for this bid.