officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 01:00 AM, said:
First thanks to Inquiry (especially for the posting of the hands), fred, jtfanclub, jlall, echognome, ant590, and pbleighton (who started this thread and made one strong later attempt to bring us back to the really interesting question) for reasonable viewpoints, imo.
As to those who are covered by:
"reckless driving", "lack of disclosure", "highly suspicious", "ethical responsibilities", "digging a hole", "don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap.", "if you're going play weird s***, you need to do it the right way", "the results will be illuminating", "dragging out the weird s***", "I don't believe your disclosure is adequate", "creating randomness for no particular reason", "he's using mixed strategies", "concealed partnership understanding", "bizarre as a technique, but if it works it works", "glaring hole in your work and your ability to document your systems", "you feel you can circumvent the regulations designed to apply to the bid. Do you know what 'bridge lawyering' is?", "the 3NT opening is highly suspicious", "I'm not particulary amused by rules lawyering", "crazy convention to play" and of course the "......."
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?
About half of those quotes are just cliches or slogans that were used to try and make a point, the other half are completely true. Your answer to people who say you should disclose what hands make the bid more accurately has changed from the earlier "you tell me what I should say" (as though it's anyone's job but yours) to the current, which is essentially "obviously you are a moron if you need more information about a bid that is intended to play". Neither answer is very useful.
I was certainly wrong about one thing. My original assumption that I sort of took for granted was that you were explaining your bid that way to try to set up an argument that the rules that might prohibit the bid don't apply (by saying that since it doesn't show anything particular about your hand it's "not a convention".) However it now seems obvious to me that the goal is at least one of
1) Wanting to play the hands instead of your partner who is a weak player, or more likely
2) Trying to create a definition that can't be proven or disproven about any particular hand to hide the fact that you and your partner are not playing the same thing. You can SAY you are, but what both of you actually bid is the real proof.
Since I'm sure you will disagree with both of those, how about this question for you. Since the evidence seems to suggest this bid is not leading to good results for your side, why DO you play this meaning for the 3NT bid as opposed to, say, 25-26 balanced?
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
West North East South
- Pass Pass 3NT
Pass Pass Pass