[glen]

DrTodd13, on Feb 27 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

Sure, people know that 4♥ can be weak and you aren't expecting to make it but if you bid 3N and say "to play," I can guarantee you that people are not going to be expecting you bidding 3N on hands where you know there is no hope of making it.

Please note that the 3NT bid was never described, in the short white box made available, as just "to play". As to "bidding 3N on hands where you know there is no hope of making it", I've actually aimed, when I've opened 3NT, to have a good hope of making it, if partner shows up with the expected average values and shape - that is if you took my hand, put it into a dealer to produce sets of the other three hands, on those layouts where partner had their fair share of the outstanding values, I hoped that 3NT would have considerable chance of making. Thus I never bid 3NT with "no hope of making it", nor do I plan to when I open it next.

[jdonn]

officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 09:27 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 09:18 PM, said:

Your answer to that suggestion was 'if we played that method we would have to play conventions we don't want to play', which was ridiculous.

How can you call it "ridiculous" to not want to play a method because it would impose playing conventions with it? Okay, you can throw out "ridiculous" if you want, but it makes no sense to do so.

Not wanting to play a method for that reason isn't ridiculous. Your answer was ridiculous since it was both untrue (there is far less reason to play conventions over a bid which completely describes your hand than over the actual bid which describes it very little) and since it, as you are still doing now, ignorred the point. I'll try only one last time. Why do you play the 3NT opening bid as you describe, instead of any other simple or natural alternative (the specific one being completely irrelevent)? I am not asking to suggest you don't have the right to play anything legal that you want, but merely because your answer could be enlightening to the discussion.

Quote

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 09:18 PM, said:

My problem was with your complete lack of disclosure since you seemed to be refusing to tell your opponents (or us) the hands you open 3NT with.

Where is it where I refused to tell my opponents, or you, the hands I open 3NT with?

In every early post in this thread??? I will try to paraphrase from memory, so please excuse me if I mess up specific details.
You: I think my explanation of the bid is fine.
Me: It's not because it doesn't describe which hands make the bid.
You: I don't know which hands make the bid (absurd).
and/or
You: You all tell me what I should say (I had already made clear, say what hands make the bid).

Lets try this in reverse. Please show me anywhere in this entire thread prior to where Inquiry showed us your hands where you were describing the hands you open 3NT with.

Quote

jdonn, on Feb 27 2007, 09:18 PM, said:

I certainly had avoided trying to assist, since I don't care for the attitude you showed regarding explaning your bid. Rather than playing with semantics about 'convention' and 'natural' and quoting a bunch of rules that you think justify what you were doing, why not just explain your bids better than you think you have to? It leaves no doubts at all that your intentions are pure and you aren't trying to hide anything, assures that your opponents can not be disadvantaged against a bid that is surely unfamiliar, and frankly should help you feel good about yourself.

Love the "should help you feel good about yourself" - what is this shot at me about? As to this thread, I've asked repeatedly for how better to explain the bid, and have indicated that I will use this help. Do you disagree with this statement?

Do you disagree that you were doing everything there that I said you were doing? I took no shot at you worse than both implying and saying you are engaging in bridge lawyering, which you are. The comment where you say I took a shot at you, even in hindsight I can not see how you interpreted it that way. I don't even know you, and know nothing about you outside of bridge other than that you are clearly very intelligent.

[glen]

Why do we have the agreement that 3NT is "to play, rarely pulled"? Because it takes 4 words, involves no conventions (other than the metarule on Gerber), has had zero discussion, and reflects our other uses of 3NT (so 1♠-3NT, for example, is to play, rarely pulled). If we put in 25-26, to use your example (your choice), then I might have to put an exception in where 4♣ over a 3NT opening is not Gerber, but Stayman. Anything but 3NT to play takes up more notes and more memory.

You might consider this "untrue", but it is the truth.

Btw for anybody who considers the approach less than optimal, consider that we play stolen bid doubles.

[glen]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 09:15 AM, said:

The white box provided by BBO has a text limit, so "to play, can be a variety of hands" is about the best one can do for the initial alert.  Some opponents do further query, ("is this gambling?", or "what types?") in which case it is explained as "to play, can be based on a source of tricks or sources of tricks, may or may not have stoppers or length in all suits, partner is to rarely pull this" - this is too long to type into the white box.

This was the fifth post in the thread. Note that when I started trying out "3NT to play" to see what might work or not (so far, inquiry tells us it is not working at all, except if opponents do something poor), I had no intended hand types to bid it on, except for the idea of "assumed points/shape" (this 'idea' was not shared with partner - as I've mentioned zero discusssion on the bid) - that is if partner had an average hand, I would have play for 3NT. You could see what I've tried it on so far. Given the results so far, should I repeat the bid with these same hand types, or should I try new ones, and give up the current ones? If I give up the current ones, and try new ones, which I would not know until I try them, how would you suggest, if you could assist me once more, to properly disclose the partnership agreement? Should I disclose what my partner might expect, based on her experience, for the bid, even though I no longer have these hand types?

Btw to the rest, is it just me, or was "should help you feel good about yourself" a shot? (edit: okay, this thread has been quiet for almost 12 hours now - so don't answer this and maybe we can avoid 90 more postings)

Here I was on Sun Jan 21 trying to describe the bid (suggestions for improvement very welcome):

->player1: i'm asked to describe the varieties, so here goes:
->player2: i'm asked to describe the varieties, so here goes:
->player1: can be the big balanced hand, 23 to 27 points
->player2: can be the big balanced hand, 23 to 27 points
->player1: can be with a source of tricks, in one or two suits, with or without stoppers in the other suits
->player2: can be with a source of tricks, in one or two suits, with or without stoppers in the other suits
player2: k
->player1: the source of tricks do not need to be solid, and can be broken
->player2: the source of tricks do not need to be solid, and can be broken
player1: ok
player2: long suit? no outside A?
->player1: also can have just a random collection of cards ****
->player2: also can have just a random collection of cards
->player1: there is no promise of a long suit, or long suits
->player2: there is no promise of a long suit, or long suits
->player1: there is no promise of stoppers, or not having stoppers
->player2: there is no promise of stoppers, or not having stoppers
player2: k
->player1: partner's job over 3NT is to pass, unless very unusual hand
->player2: partner's job over 3NT is to pass, unless very unusual hand
->player1: hence 3NT is to play - partner is not involved
->player2: hence 3NT is to play - partner is not involved

**** at some point I thought I would try this (random collection) but never did and have no intention to now

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Feb 28 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

As to this thread, I've asked repeatedly for how better to explain the bid, and have indicated that I will use this help.

Here's my recommendation:

To start with, I think that you need to carefully consider a point that Ben raised during the early days of this thread: The definition of your three NT opening varies dramatically depending on vulnerability. (There are also some significant differences based on seat). I don't have full access to BRBR data, however, here's what things look like to me based on the sample that provided.

I would model the 3NT opening as three discrete bids, with different explanations for each bid. There is (virtually) no overlap between these cases.

3NT Type One (Fourth Seat Openings)

A Three NT opening shows a balanced hand with ~ 17 - 18 HCP. The meaning of the bid does not change significantly with vulnerability.

(There are two example hands, both of which are roughly equilvalent to a balanced 17 count)

3NT Type Two (NV Openings in 1st - 3rd Seat)

A three NT opening shows 6+ cards in either minor and (roughly) 11 - 20 HCPs. The hand is typically a 6331 or 7321 pattern with a stiff honor, however, 6322 is allowed.

(There are 13 example hands, all of which match this description)

3NT Type Three (Vulnerable Openings in 1st - 3rd seat)

A three NT opening shows one of two hand types:

Balanced/semi-balanced hands showing equivalent playing strength to a 23+ card hand. Playing strength is often based on a good 6+ card minor)

(We have 7 example hands - 6 of which [arguably] fit this description)

We also have one very random outlier that doesn't feel like any of the other vulnerable hands.

A63
K
KJ98643
AK4

For me, the most significant feature is the absence of HCPs combined with the broken suit. This one looks MUCH more like the NV openings.

[hrothgar]

Hi Glen...

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.

Curious whether you're considering adopting any of this into your disclosure process...

[glen]

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

Hi Glen...

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.

Curious whether you're considering adopting any of this into your disclosure process...

Well the thread had gone on and on and on, with a fair bit of directed "venom" as inquiry had put it at one point, so I really didn't want to post more if I could avoid it.

I'm planning on using your descriptions, and Fred's excellent term "rates", as in I rate to have ...."<hrothgar description>" I will also be able to hyperlink to the hand examples, which may help the opponents as well.

However I have one disclosure problem. 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, and "Do I think this is winning bridge? Hell no. I think he is making a mistake doing this") and others have commented as well (" I cannot imagine the bid being very effective", "highly dubious" -btw these are not venomous, as they are directed at the merits of the bid, and not at the person). 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?

[inquiry]

This thread started with a simple question posed by this statement along with a quote about natural NT bids not having a singleton or void.

"I questioned the opener (Glen from these Forums) whether he thought it was GCC compliant. "

Four questions seem to have arrisen from this thread

• Is it GCC compliant
  
• Was the description adequate, and if ntot, what would have made it so
  
• Is it good bridge
  
• Does the fact taht one partner makes the bid while another does not violate some rule of bridge

I doubt we have agreement on #1, but I say it is complaint because the laws of bridge do not give the ACBL the authority to prevent it.

I think the consensus was #2 was inadequate, and I think Glen was upfront looking for a better way to describe it. I think progress has been made on this.

#3 came about even before I posted the hands and studied the results. To be fair there were only 6 matchpoint hands, so school may still be out on the validity of such a small sample size. Still, down 3 in 3NT on cold grand slam is not a glowing recommendation as glen points out.

#4 I apologize for contricubting too, By looking up the hands, it is clear that the partnership bids differently. This is a side issue that should be avoid I think. We should assume for the original question that both partners use the same agreement.

I think this discussion has, for the most part, been good, even if we can not all agree. But like Fred, I would be surprised if this bid was "illegal". Of course, it has to be alerted since there is a special partnership understanding, but that is it.

[joshs]

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

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

Hi Glen...

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.

Curious whether you're considering adopting any of this into your disclosure process...

Well the thread had gone on and on and on, with a fair bit of directed "venom" as inquiry had put it at one point, so I really didn't want to post more if I could avoid it.

I'm planning on using your descriptions, and Fred's excellent term "rates", as in I rate to have ...."<hrothgar description>" I will also be able to hyperlink to the hand examples, which may help the opponents as well.

However I have one disclosure problem. 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, and "Do I think this is winning bridge? Hell no. I think he is making a mistake doing this") and others have commented as well (" I cannot imagine the bid being very effective", "highly dubious" -btw these are not venomous, as they are directed at the merits of the bid, and not at the person). 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?

How about:
Red/4'th Seat: "A hand that expects to have good play for 3N if partner has around 1/3 of the remaining points in the deck. Can be balanced or be based on a source of tricks (in any suit). Partner will rarely pull this."

NV1-3:"Sometimes is a hand that expects to have good play for 3N if partner has 1/3 of the remaining points. Can be balanced or be based on a source of tricks (in any suit). Frequently is a minimum opening hand with a long minor that hopes to get lucky. Partner will rarely pull this."

Josh

[glen]

Actually I like these better. However I would like to make some statement about stoppers so they don't think I'm promising or denying stoppers, as other forms of the 3NT opening bid do.

Btw we just played a pair who's 3NT opening was marked on their card as 26+ (no upper range given). They didn't open it, so no chance to ask if it was forcing.

[mikeh]

I just finished reading almost the entire post. Wow!

I may as well add my two cents worth, if only to see if we can reach some kind of record for length of thread.

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 mention those attributes because I do not want my comments to seem as a personal attack on him in anyway.

And I also want to explicitly recognize that, on BBO, there is limited ability, in a practical sense, to pre-alert the opps to anything that is not already a 'known' device.

However, it seems to me that this use of 3N should be pre-alerted or, at the least, the opps should be invited, before the next bidder calls (or be given an undo if needed) to discuss defences.

The bid is essentially a randomizer. It seems to be bad bridge, altho i can understand the attraction behind the bid and the intellectual desire to see if it is effective... I commend Glen for his openness in this thread to discuss his motivations etc. But because it is a randomizer and a bid that is going to be completely unexpected by the opps, they should be afforded a chance to discuss defences.

Thus, it seems, from the sample shown by Ben, that the commonest hand type includes a long minor. An opp should be entitled to discuss whether 4minor could be used as a form of major takeout, as is often played over gambling 3N and 3N as minor preempt.

It goes hand in hand with that thought that Glen owes it to his opponents to have a good and informattive description available.

I fully accept that Glen is telling us the truth when he says that, with the experimentation he is doing, he feels that he cannot really tell, ahead of time, all of the hands that would spur him to open 3N. I also accept that BBO doesn't really accommodate that kind of problem.

But the answer is not, as far as I am concerned, to give a clearly useless explanation even if it is true. The answer is to NOT make the bid in a BBO game until and unless one has decided that, at least for now, the bid will be susceptible to a particular, and useful-to-the-opps, description.

This can be done, certainly it can be done by someone as competent as Glen, by running simulations based on various models. Then, if one is going to play the bid, ensure that partner knows the meaning as well and is comfortable with it.

BBO bridge is not the place to do this type of experimentation (where Glen decides on the spur of the moment what hand types will be opened 3N), imho, unless the opps are aware of what is going on and have expressed willingness to participate in the experiment.

If I were Glen's opp and got a bad result, it would leave a very bad taste in my mouth were I not told what the bid meant and permitted to agree upon a defence.

I don't mind the opps trying weird things against me (I have played lots of weird things, some of which may have been as bad a 'bridge' bid as I think this one is) but not when I haven't been told in advance.

[glen]

I will break my reply into two parts, and I leave the later reply, (about running simulations etc.) for a while (perhaps hours and hours) because I believe this first part is very important.

1) Should I pre-alert the possible bid when I arrive at the table?
2) Would a pre-alert be helpful (or a problem?), given the low frequency of the bid?
3a) Should I provide a suggested def to the bid, or, 3b) should I tell them that I can provide a suggest def to the bid?

Btw I don't have a problem doing any of this, so feel free to say I should or should not, or to qualify your answer in some fashion.

Btw I will want at least 5 "votes" for yes to these questions, so please help us grow this thread. If you don't want to grow the thread, but do want to vote yes, send me a message.

Edit: Oh, I should have added this - any ideas on the pre-alert text - should it be the long stuff, or some shorten stuff and, at the end, a "please ask"

[pbleighton]

I think that you should pre-alert. The pre alert should include a brief description of hand types, that you can't fit in the box.

To be honest, though, you will cause more irritation than enlightenment, that's the nature of pre-alerts.

I wouldn't offer a defense.

Peter

[the hog]

I would suggest a pre alert and would consider it to be helpful. I would NOT provide a suggested defence as I consider the whole concept of providing defences for unusual bids to be childish in the extreme. (Why encourage people in their laziness?)

[hotShot]

I don't see much sense in prealerting a bid that comes up 20 times in 1500 boards. This is about once in 3 club nights or once in 7 ACBL BBO tourneys.

[brianshark]

Dammit, this thread grew quickly and I've missed on most of it. After reading the response to my initial questions, I just want to say that:

* I believe this convention to be completely legal. I'd say it's equivalent to opening 4 of a Major or 5 of a minor. That basically says "I want to play in 4M/5m opposite the vast majority of your hands... only do something else if you have slam aspirations.

* I obviously don't think it's very effective or efficient. But certainly not a terrible thing to play either.

* But it sounds fun if you like punting.

[inquiry]

hotShot, on Mar 1 2007, 02:10 AM, said:

I don't see much sense in prealerting a bid that comes up 20 times in 1500 boards. This is about once in 3 club nights or once in 7 ACBL BBO tourneys.

22 times in 6080 deals (not 1500 deals).

I would pre-alert with a single phase... 2/1 Gf, udca, unusual but natural 3NT openings will allow discussion if it comes up

[brianshark]

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.

I think a reasonable description for it, if asked, is "To play, sometimes either strong balanced (23-27) but usually weaker with a long suit which may not be solid, and may not have stoppers in all the side suits, generally wide-ranging punt and partner is expected to pass most of the time."

[bid_em_up]

Ben,

Is there an easy way to tell via BrBr which board of a tourny these bids occured on? i.e. Does Glen ever do it on board #1 or #2? Or does it always occur late in a tourny (say bd #9 or later in a 12 bd tourny) where he may deliberately be trying to create "action"?

Just wondering.

[inquiry]

Bridgebrowser give the board numbers, the time the hand was started, the time it was finished, and anything else you could possibly want to know.... however, since these were essentially all ACBL things (I think), you can figure out the board numbers from the dealer and vulnerabilty conditions (which are given in the list of hands).

Board 1. Dlr N, Vul none
Board 2. Dlr E, Vul NS
Board 3. Dlr S, Vul EW
Board 4. Dlr W, Vul Both
Board 5. Dlr N, Vul NS
Board 6. Dlr E, Vul EW
Board 7. Dlr S, Vul Both
Board 8, Dlr W, Vul None
Board 9, Drl N, Vul EW
Board 10, Drl E, Vul Both
Board 11, Drl S, Vul None
Board 12, Drl W, Vul NS

As you can see. the dealer and the vulnerabilty is unique for each position. So look to see which seat Glen was sitting in, who dealt, and what the vulnerabilty was and you can determine all the relevant facts for any hand.

EXAMPLE first hand shown in the list of 22 I posted, Dealer was north, EW were vulnerable, so that was boad 9.

IF any have other dealer, vulnerabilty conditions, then it would be boards 13-16 (at 17 the pattern starts over again), but it would also NOT be ACBL as I think they are all 12 board things.