officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 05:43 PM, said:
hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 09:34 AM, said:
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.
3NT-4S
all psss